Thursday, September 06, 2012

There I Go Again: On Rhetoric and Bill Clinton

I know a lot of people who still hate Bill Clinton for his gross infidelity. Listen, I know first hand how painful these kinds of mistakes can be and how heart-breaking they are for families. I think philanderers are morally repugnant. Totally! It's not like I want to marry Bill Clinton. Well, maybe after last night. (Zing! I take that back. Don't comment about that, please.)

A lot of people dismiss great speeches as "mere rhetoric." That hurts my feelings. I studied rhetoric in graduate school. For sure, people can use lies and trickery to flatter audiences. They can manipulate and stir emotions. The persuasiveness of Hitler is the standard example of an instance of great oratory skills being used to promote evil. Hitler was awful. But he was clever and tapped in to values his audience shared.

I believe audiences are responsible for what they find persuasive. Powerful people should not use the tools of rhetoric to promote bad ideas. I really wish they wouldn't. But, excepting extreme cases of good vs. evil (which, frankly, I wish happened more often because when these two clash in movies it is always AWESOME), most of the time we disagree about better and less bad ideas and. Even more often, we disagree about which ideas are more or less practical and which ideas serve the most people. It's the middle ground that we disagree about and that's what this election seems to be focused on. Neither candidate is promoting an invasion of Poland, in spite of what Glenn Beck says. (Zing! I take that back. Don't comment about that, please.)

We are accountable for what we find persuasive. That's what it means to be a critically-thinking person. I know the dog rescue commercials featuring Sarah MacLachlan are emotionally manipulative. They make me cry and then I want to donate money. But I can still evaluate how I'm being persuaded and decide if it's fair and whether I support the cause. I can step back and decide.

When people make accusations of "mere rhetoric," they must mean bad or untruthful or manipulative means of persuasion. Well, if you're smart you won't find those things persuasive. Some people are dummies and it's sad when people take advantage of them. People shouldn't do that. But people shouldn't be dummies, either. And there's nothing "mere" about rhetoric. It tells you a lot and helps you make decisions. If you like how Dick Cheney speaks--what he says, examples he uses, how he talks--you probably like Dick Cheney. If you like how he tries to persuade you (I don't), you probably have a lot in common with him. What else do you have to go on?

So, as I listened to Bill Clinton I thought, "Yes! Yes!" He's a great speaker and he knows what he's doing. There's nothing wrong with that. I find him persuasive because I like and respect the way he persuades. I think it is good and I agree with it. He's folksy and funny. You might say that's contrived or fake. But I don't care. Because I value humor and folksiness. Every political speech is contrived to some degree. However, Clinton went off the prompter and he was great. That's a little less contrived. When I compare Clinton's ad libbing to Clint Eastwood's ad libbing (and I'm as big of a Clint Eastwood fan as anyone), I liked Clinton's better. He was more informed and said things that were relevant. I enjoyed Clinton's speech and found it convincing. The fact that he won me over in spite of his character flaws doesn't mean, to me, that I'm dumb and he's just "slick willy." His ability to win me over in spite of the moral repugnance I feel toward him about his affairs means that he had to work harder, be more reasonable, know more relevant facts, and tap into my closely-held ideals in order to make up for his indiscretions. It's not like I'm super forgiving about indiscretions. Just ask anyone.

The best part of Clinton's speech was how he complimented George W. Bush and quoted Ronald Reagan. He comes off as bipartisan. I value that. You might say it's fake and he's "just saying that." But at least he's saying it and giving examples. It shows that he values it too, or at least that he knows I value it and he's trying to appeal to that. I think that's good. It's better than someone who doesn't appeal to something I value at all. It's how we figure out who we agree with. Yes, people can lie all the time and some do. But all we can do is listen and think about it and weigh all the evidence and make a decision. Clinton was super informed. I value that as well. He knows what he is talking about and can give specific examples of each claim that he makes. That resonates with me.

I understand why you might dismiss Clinton out of hand because he had affairs. The fact that he lied about it when it happened detracts from his credibility. I would certainly prefer it if he had never had affairs or done any of that. I get it. For me, it doesn't work to just completely dismiss everything that he says. Clinton, himself, explained why we should continue to listen to each other, even when people make mistakes and are wrong.

He said that neither party is right all the time and that even a broken clock is right twice a day. The first step to having better judgment and making good decisions is to admit this. You can learn from other people and get more done when you look for common ground and work together. His speech is actually a perfect example of the ideals he promotes which was--for all you rhetoric nerds out there and I know there's at least one--pretty sweet.  I could stand on principle with my fingers in my ears whenever Bill Clinton talks because he cheated on his wife. Or I can listen to what he has to say and evaluate it.

In a simpler or more homogenous society you wouldn't need tools like rhetoric to figure things out. We'd just need to decide who would be the one true best president. There would be a right answer for everyone. But we don't live like that. No one agrees entirely about what the "best president" would be like. In a heterogeneous country there are more contingencies. There's a lot to work out: What qualities do you care about in a president, which issues do you care most about, what can you let go, what's the lesser of two evils and which ideals match yours the most closely. Rhetoric doesn't obscure the truth, it's a way of managing it and making decisions.

I loved everything Bill Clinton said last night. I think he went a little long, but I agreed with him and learned from him and was persuaded. If I were teaching this semester I would have my class write a paper about this speech. It is effective whether you agree with it or not. Because it was specific, had a point of view, was concrete, laid out ideals and a plan, you can actually figure out what you think by how you react to this speech. It's a nice little piece of oratory.

I liked Mitt Romney's speech at the RNC and, like Clinton said, I'm convinced that he's an honorable guy. He just didn't mention enough specific things to get any traction with me. Obviously I'm a Mormon and have a lot in common with Mitt Romney. Many Mormons place a high value on the things we share, and I do too. But I'm finding that in terms of who I want for president, those things are taking on less significance.

Hangdog compassion and being fair and smart are the major underlying themes of what I care about in a candidate. I'm as surprised as anyone to see them portrayed better by Bill Clinton's Barack Obama than anyone at the Republican convention, but there you have it. And that's why I can vote for President Obama and you can vote for Romney and everything will work out in the end. Except, in Utah, my vote won't count. But that's democracy for you and I believe in it. God bless America!

I hope telling you how I feel about this doesn't make you hate me. I try to be open about what I'm thinking around election time because I think the best way for rhetoric and democracy to work is for people to talk to each other and listen and to only be persuaded by the best things and most constructive input. If this doesn't persuade you, that's OK. We can still be friends. Just be careful that my heart doesn't bleed all over you.

48 comments:

  1. This times one million.

    Also, every time he speaks I remember why I voted for him. Politics aside, he has a commanding presence and I love to hear him speak.

    And it is possible you have given me courage to write my political blog.

    PS if you teach a rhetoric course online, can I audit it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really liked this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As an English teacher, I hear what you have to say about rhetoric. It has an important place in our political society (not to mention political history), and I admire politicians who can speak well. I used Obama's speeches when teaching rhetoric to my students. I must say, it's been nice having a president who you don't have to cringe at every time he gives a press conference.

    I also largely agree with you that most of the issues the two parties argue over (especially with regard to how to fix the economy) are good ideas vs. better ideas (or bad ideas vs. worse ideas, depending), not good vs. evil. I think both sides want to make this country better.

    But there are some moral values and moral questions before politicians today that, at least to me, are issues of good vs. evil. I tend to largely ignore political speeches when it comes to deciding who I'll vote for specifically because actions speak so much louder than words. You like a candidate who appeals to your values in a speech, I like a candidate who lives my values and acts to promote them (and I'm not even talking about adultery or personal religion here). Rhetoric is important, but action is everything.

    ReplyDelete
  4. French Lily is totally right, but the beauty of rhetoric, if you really study it because you can't do math, like me, is that rhetoric IS action. It's not limited to just words. It's everything that influences another person to identify with someone or even something. My masters thesis is about the rhetoric of landscape, particularly how geographical frontiers influenced the women's rights movement in the 19th century. So, that is just a super nerdy plug for rhetoric. Maybe I am the one rhetoric nerd to whom you referred in your post? I loved Clinton's speech, too, and thought he did a great job. Thanks for saying this so well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well done. Isn't that the crux of the whole political process? Neither side is evil. The country will not go to pot no matter who wins (although the two sides don't want you to believe that).
    I also found it surprising that I liked Clinton's speech. I did not care for him as a person when he was president, but I thought he was a VERY good president. And he is obviously a very good speaker.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love this speech too, and I love Bill Clinton. I was so angry with him back in the day but I realized that his betrayal was really between he and Hilary. The republicans in power at the time made sure it was more than that and that was cruel and mean-spirited. Politics as usual. We shouldn't be defined by our worst moment, we should be defined by a lifetime of actions, charity, good will and kindness, in Bill's case that will catapult him straight to Heaven. But, having said that, we have no reason to believe that Barack Obama is anything but an amazing father and committed husband. Obama is running for president, not Bill Clinton (I wish it was Bill Clinton though). Obama has my vote because I still have hope, President Clinton eloquently helped me remember that. Thanks for the great post, and for your bravery. ;-) I know how it is.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I love this. I get so frustrated with the political scene, particularly the talking heads, because like you said, this is all just everyone trying to figure out the best answer. It's like those dang AP multiple choice tests where some choices are good, but others are better. I was listening to Michael savage last night (don't even know why...it was like a train wreck) and he said that if we socialize health care, people won't have the incentives to create new drugs and do the research to cure diseases. My gut reaction was that I think you need to have a little more faith in the American people. Are we really that greedy? That people care more about making billions than creating better lives for those affected by disease and illness?

    I guess that is why I liked your statement about figuring out what you believe based on how you react to a speech. Maybe that's why I fall more in the middle. Both parties' ideas resonate with me. I'm still not sure who I'm voting for. It's a hard choice for me. Thanks for this post. It gave me hope.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wish more people would make these distinctions! Love!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I guess I heartily disagree on politics with you, but I sure appreciate how nicely you put everything and that I feel like we can still be friends!

    My only argument with your post is simply that this election isn't about Bill Clinton. You mention how he convinced you that he truly was bipartisan. Well, yes, Bill Clinton was! It was one of the things that made him a really good politician (even if his morals are despicable). But I have seen no evidence (except to the contrary) that Barack Obama is bi-partisan. He's the one who said Republicans need to go to the back of the bus! So while Bill Clinton might have earned my vote from his good speech, I think I'll wait and see what Obama says tonight before making up my mind. (Oh, but who am I kidding-- MY mind was made up a long time ago!)

    But thanks, again, for your thoughtful blog post!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I also appreciate your blog post and you do present your thoughts so respectfully. I really liked French Lily's comments, and I dont know that I care about rhetoric, which I realize was a big part of your post. I also agree with Alanna about Bill Clinton. When he was president, I didnt pay attention to politics. Later on I read Lisa Ling's book about her sister (I think) and Bill's role in that rescue from North Korea. I was so impressed with his handling of that situation that I became more open to not being so grossed out by him.

    I guess that reinforces the idea of action speaking so loudly.

    I dont know, I had more written, and unintentionally referred to Obama as a snake. Which isnt what I wanted to really say... so I will stop. I appreciate the forum to discuss. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Me! I'm the other rhetoric nerd out there! But I have not heard Clinton's speech--or any of the DNC speeches, or any of the RNC speeches--because I actively avoid political conventions. Because I have never enjoyed pep rallies. But now I believe I will need to read a copy of Clinton's speech. Maybe Ann Romney's too.

    "We are accountable for what we find persuasive." FTW.

    ReplyDelete
  12. P.S. I believe I also need to read a copy of Carly's thesis.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thank you for this! Rhetorically speaking, I liked your arguments. Also, I really liked this post and I like Bill Clinton, oh and I met Hilary once, at the White House. It was pretty cool.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thank you for explaining in a clear way how rhetoric works and why Clinton's speech worked for you. He's such an interesting mix of high intelligence and total compassion. I really enjoyed the speech, because, as you said, it appealed to my ideals.

    As for how I feel about him personally....I defended Bill throughout the 90s when it first felt like the political climate had turned toxic. I really got it from people. After the major moral fallout I was upset with him: I had defended him for years to people and I felt personally betrayed by his behavior. Disappointed. And a lot of other people felt the same way--he was barely visible in the 2000 campaign. It took a long time and a lot of hard work for him to regain trust again. This speech was such a reminder of what a force for good he can be, and what a powerful person he is.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Amen and amen.

    Now I need to go and watch all of the speeches so that I feel like I can contribute to the next political conversation I encounter, which will probably be at church on Sunday.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Beautiful. "We are accountable for what we find persuasive": fantastic.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The skeptical part of me thinks that both candidates have really good speech writers, so I don't give much credence to the convention speeches. I believe them more when they speak off the cuff.I tend to be influenced more by what politicians do than what they say.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Marla4:55 PM

    Kacy is my number one all-time girl crush and this post is fantastic.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Louise6:40 PM

    As has been stated, Clinton is not the candidate. Were you persuaded by proxy? Obama is not his equivalent.

    Clinton gave a nice speech, and you wrote a nice post.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Louise - I think that's exactly the point. Yes, she was persuaded by Bill Clinton, but not only by Bill Clinton. Clinton's job was to persuade and he did a fantastic job. But rhetoric being the all encompassing art / science that it is would make Clinton's job much more difficult if Kacy were not also persuaded by the actions and words of Obama. If Kacy found Obama to be completely off putting as some other commenters have noted, I suspect Clinton's speech would have been less effective at persuading Kacy.

    Maria - This blogger is taken. :)

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'd vote for Obama too, and then there would be two of us in Utah! Unfortunately, they don't let foreigners do that.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Kelly A7:54 PM

    This rhetoric nerd also appreciated this post. I *am* teaching a political rhetoric class right now--except they collect the speeches for analysis. Yea for reclaiming the word "rhetoric."

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well said. I'm a little afraid to speak up sometimes - and I need to get over that. Maybe I will just quote you!!

    I think I just need to put an Obama sticker on my car - no one will say much - at school they are on my side - at church they will think I've gone over to the "dark side." But I think they already know that - and still love me.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Carole8:26 PM

    Rhetoric is just one part of the equation. The facts you choose to use or ignore are as important as the words you use to convey them. I was very impressed with Barack Obama at the time he gave his speech at the DNC when he was a junior senator. His story and the way he chose to tell it was beautiful, moving and compelling. But for all the beautiful words, then, during his last campaign, through his presidency, where have they gotten us today? We have added $1,000,000,000,000 to the debt in the past nine months and are projected to do the same in the next nine months. We pay $600,000,000 a day interest on that debt. We borrow $2,500,000 dollars a minute, all day every day. 23,000,000 million are unemployed; millions more are under-employed. Middle class Americans have lost 40% of the value of their wealth, including their homes. Nothing on the horizon indicates any of those things are going to change if we continue down that path. So be impressed with fancy-schmancy words coming from the mouth of a former philandering president who lied when it was convenient to do so. Numbers never lie.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I loved your post! I voted for Obama last time and I'm completely undecided this time : / I wish I could just vote for Clinton again and be done with it, sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Just to balance your excellent commentary on the current campaign and your frank words, the wider undeniable picture is that Clinton has been continuing to live a lie and staying "married" to Hillary for at least the past 25 years while being unfaithful to her the whole time. Have they even lived in the same home? This disrespect by Clinton of marriage and his wife cannot be overcome by being a respectable statesman and orator, and it also speaks to the very character of the statesman. At this point, Hillary probably doesn't care either, but the point remains that at least one of them is using marriage as a political prop, and that's unconscionable. In short, it makes Clinton a phony. Having an affair is one thing. Living an affair for your entire marriage is pathetic as well as tragic. Ultimately, actions speaks volumes louder than any words at a convention ever would. Character always matters.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This was really well put. I'm glad I read it. I'm so tired of partisan-ness. I'm mostly a Republican but I dislike a lot about the Republican party. I like the Democrats, but don't agree with them on very many issues, even though I'd like to because they seem a lot nicer. It's a hard place to be.

    You can't shoot the messenger, you know? Which usually means the message is bad, so don't shoot the innocent guy who delivered it. This is kind of the opposite situation: in this case, Clinton's message is good, important even. But the messenger might not be your favorite person. Whether he was a good husband or not, whether is a Republican or Democrat, is not really the point. The point it he's right: we do need to work together, we should continue to listen to each other.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Super loved this post.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This was well said. And courageous. Every day someone posts something on facebook about how they are going to have to start ignoring facebook before the lose all their friends because of their political opinions. It makes me insane. Isn't that what politics, in its perfect form, is all about? Discourse, dialogue and rhetoric. We SHOULD argue about politics because that is how opinions are formed. We disagree, argue, share examples, preach, orate and try to shape the other person's ideas. We shouldn't shy away from that in the name of political correctness. That's why I get so bothered when one party tries to portray the other party as "evil" or "stupid." It halts politics in its tracks.

    I think people get so nervous of "slick" talkers like Clinton because so many Americans are uniformed about the real nature of the issues. One soundbite or quip is often what a lot of people cling to and make their decision based on. It doesn't matter if it is true or not, or taken out of context. It happens in both parties and it makes me sad.

    For the record, I'm voting for Obama. And I haven't heard Clinton's speech yet, so I am going to go listen to it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I am a Mormon and I approve this message.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Louise1:18 PM

    Did Obama's speech persuade you? Have his words and actions persuaded you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. I liked Obama's speech and I like the things Obama has done. I think the best thing for our country right now is to maintain some continuity with him for the next 4 years.

      Delete
  32. Obama's words and actions have persuaded me.

    Not to get all stalkery (sic) but my wife and I are ordering the following bumper sticker:

    http://mormonsforobama.org/contact-us/get-your-new-stickers-here/

    Kacy, we will send you one for posting your thoughts so well and so diplomatically. Are you in?

    It's likely our vote might not count either, but Virginia swung last time and who knows...maybe again?

    ReplyDelete
  33. *Happy sigh* I'm not alone in the world! Great post!

    ReplyDelete
  34. I really liked this post. I'm very undecided in this election and it's a tough place to be.

    I love it when I find positive political conversations. It is so much more productive.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I really appreciated this post. Very reasonable, responsible, and down to earth. Also, I never understood all the venom directed at Bill Clinton. Haven't we all made mistakes? Now I'll go check out the mormons for Obama website.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Well said! And I enjoyed the above comments. Every now and then I feel rather alone in the middle :)

    ReplyDelete
  37. I liked what Clinton said, too. Too bad we can't vote for him, because I think he is more practical and willing to be bipartisan. I don't think Obama was any more clear than Romney about how he intends to do what he wants to do, just some vague nice ideas. I used to like politics and now it drives me crazy.
    But Bill, yes, he did do a nice job. And the fact-checkers only had a few things to amend in he speech.
    :)

    ReplyDelete
  38. I really liked what you wrote about making a distinction btwn good and better ideas. It is so tiresome to be unable to have a discussion about politics without people truly believing in the moral depravity of the opposing viewpoint.

    As for Bill Clinton, I sorta think it would be a minority of people who would refuse to listen to the man's political analysis because of his personal sexual indiscretions. I can see why someone wouldn't want to have him represent our nation because of those indiscretions (though obviously that was a minority), but most people who disagree with him do not do so because they can't give him a fair shake because of Monica Lewinsky; they just disagree with his analysis on how to best run the country.

    You, however, don't. You keep saying that he persuaded you, but it seems to me from being a long time reader of your blog that you have been a democrat for a long time and a supporter of Obama from the start. Seems to me more that Clinton was preaching to the choir with you rather than pulling out some amazing new persuasive facts to win you over. You were already won. Maybe he gave your more energy, but were you seriously considering voting for Romney?

    ReplyDelete
  39. That's a good point, Alexandra. I do like President Obama. But a lot of my friends and family really like Romney. I'll vote for him if I think he's better than President Obama. I watched both conventions to see which one appealed to me more. Clinton made the best case for voting for Barack Obama that I've heard so far. I liked President Obama's speech better than Romney's as well. You'd think Romney and I would have more shared values since we are both LDS, but that just doesn't seem to be the case.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I am not sure why you would think you would have political thoughts more similar to Romney just because you are members of the same church, as opposed to Harry Reid, for example, who also is LDS. As far as values as concerned, I am confused about what that means politically. I tend to think that we Americans all sort of share the same values: family, community, educating kids, helping the poor etc, but the parties represent two different schools of thought as to how to best implement or exemplify those values. But they are values we all share, regardless of religion.

    I guess I also don't see why you would ever think Romney would be a better president just because your friends or family do, when you have liked how President Obama has governed and you have always agreed with his political ideologies. You are a Democrat. Why would anyone think you would suddenly reverse yourself, if the last four years have not done that (not that I am saying that they should have!)? That would account for why you would have preferred his speech, and found Clinton's so inspiring. I hope I am not being confrontational at all--I don't feel confrontational feelings, but it is always tricky with politics and written communications. I am not at all saying that you are wrong to support Obama (or like Clinton); just that it is inaccurate to portray yourself as being persuaded to that side by a recent speech when you were already on that side and have been for years. You made so much of Clinton's personal life that it left me with the impression that you seem to think that those who disagree with him are just blinded from reason by moral outrage, not because they have rational intellectual differences of political opinion. Perhaps it surprises you that you are a Democrat when most LDS people are not or some of your friends or family are not (though it shouldn't!), but it should not really surprise you or anyone else that, as a Democrat, you (continue to) support Obama and to like Clinton (only as a friend, of course!). And all this is to say that I felt like it was a little bit inaccurate to portray yourself as someone who was able to, presumably unlike many others, put aside personal feelings of moral disgust in order to objectively listen to Clinton's arguments, which then convinced you to vote for Obama, when the truth is that Obama has had your vote and your support for the last four years. You are not on the fence and never have been. It is kind of silly to say you would vote for Romney if you thought he'd be better, because 1) of course you (like anyone!) would but 2) as a long time Democrat, why would you ever think that? I say all of these things with utmost respect for you and your views and I hope I haven't offended!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to your implication that I'm being disingenuous, all I can do is refer you to the original post which remains an honest response to a speech I liked about an issue I'm trying to become more informed about.

      I may have exaggerated a bit at the end of the post though. My chipper attitude about remaining friendly with people who disagree with me is a slight misrepresentation. It's actually much easier said than done.

      Delete
  41. Anonymous10:37 PM

    Speaking of rhetoric...this blog is full of it. This is how Obama got elected in the first place...uneducated people "educating" each other. What a joke all of you are really thinking Obama is a President, but then again none of you probably have jobs and want some of his hand outs.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I'm a Republican and I plan to vote for Romney. I listened to a lot of the Republican Convention and some of the Democratic Convention. I understand what you are saying when you say that you found Clinton's speech persuasive. I found it inspiring.

    I think some commenters are assuming that being persuaded by Bill Clinton means simply that he talked you into voting for Obama. I think that's a simplistic view of persuasion. Clinton gave the most persuasive speech of both conventions but I'm still voting for Romney. While Clinton wanted to persuade us to vote for Obama, I think more than that he wanted to persuade listeners that his vision of America is what we should strive for. And in that way, I was persuaded.

    There is plenty of evidence that you aren't alone. Obama's polling improved substantially after the convention and I think most people believe that Clinton's speech was the highlight. Even those of us who are voting for Romney describe his speech as "inspirational."

    Two other quick points:

    1. Because of our shared religion, I immediately assume that I have something in common with both Harry Reid and Mitt Romney. Since like Alexandra I believe that both parties are trying to do good (just in different ways) this isn't surprising to me. I believe your point was that you don't have a shared religion with Obama so it surprises you that you find your values more accurately reflected in him than in Romney. I get that.

    2. I don't think you were saying that anybody who disagreed with Clinton or found his speech unpersuasive is blinded by his indiscretions. I believe you were saying you are aware of some people who have a hard time getting past those indiscretions and you would normally expect to find yourself in this camp. And since rhetoric involves what people say and what they do, I think you are saying it is impressive that Clinton's speech was persuasive to you.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Oops -- I mean most of us voting for Romney would NOT describe his speech as "inspirational." I could go with "solid" but not "inspirational."

    ReplyDelete
  44. I just wanted to apologize for giving you the impression that I thought you were disingenuous. That thought did not occur to me; all of your posts impress me as being very candid and sincere. I simply thought that you were not as objective on this subject as you seemed to think you were. Is anyone, really, on this kind of thing? Ordinarily I wouldn't point it out but you seemed to think your objectively reached conclusions should possibly persuade others, so I responded. Your husband's response was very nice.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I feel like I am a little late to the party, but I really loved this post. Would that I were so eloquent and brave. Also, I recently read LEFT TO TELL, the story of a woman who survived the Rwandan genocide. My takeaway from that book was a little surprising (mostly because I don't think it is the point of the book at all), but I was left thinking that the only way to avoid hideous things like Hitler and Rwandan genocide is to actually have differing opinions in a country and STILL BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THEM. Just sayin'.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...