The teleprompter controversy among conservative bloggers and various pundits is so stupid, I didn’t even want to blog about it. But Michael Gerson hits on just why it bothers me so:
But it is a mistake to argue that the uncrafted is somehow more authentic. Those writers and commentators who prefer the unscripted, who use “rhetoric” as an epithet, who see the teleprompter as a linguistic push-up bra, do not understand the nature of presidential leadership or the importance of writing to the process of thought.
Governing is a craft, not merely a talent. It involves the careful sorting of ideas and priorities. And the discipline of writing — expressing ideas clearly and putting them in proper order — is essential to governing. For this reason, the greatest leaders have taken great pains with rhetoric. Lincoln continually edited and revised his speeches. Churchill practiced to the point of memorization. Such leaders would not have been improved by being “unplugged.” When it comes to rhetoric, winging it is often shoddy and self-indulgent — practiced by politicians who hear Mozart in their own voices while others perceive random cymbals and kazoos. Leaders who prefer to speak from the top of their heads are not more authentic, they are often more shallow — not more “real,” but more undisciplined.
Word.
2 responses so far ↓
1 Rojo // Mar 28, 2009 at 3:25 am
Thoroughly stupid indeed. Both for the reason Gerson mentions (I hate to admit he’s right about anything) and because teleprompters are ubiquitous in our political culture. I had heard a couple of whispers of this controversy, but I hadn’t realized it gotten beyond just a handful of cranks.
It does bring to mind why I dislike the teleprompter though. I find it to smack of false familiarity, allowing the speaker to pretend to be speaking directly to the audience when his/her attention is actually on the teleprompter. I’d much rather have the speaker reading off of paper, it seems more honest to me that way. But then, I’m a Luddite (and want the damn kids off my lawn). However, I wonder if there is a bit of similar, if inchoate, Ludditism, underlying why right-wingers might find the criticisms of Obama compelling. Hence the charges of inauthenticity (never mind that it applies to the entire political culture in my view and just to Obama in theirs).
2 Kevin Moore // Mar 28, 2009 at 11:00 am
That’s not a bad theory. I had assumed they were just pissed because the previous occupant was so obviously incapable of either speaking off-the-cuff or of delivering a comprehensible speech. Like they were projecting.
But, yeah, what’s wrong with 3 x 5 cards? Look at your notes. Every public speaker does.
Leave a Comment