How to use this Page

Elvim Lim is Assistant Professor of Government at Wesleyan University and author of The Anti-intellectual Presidency, which draws on interviews with more than 40 presidential speechwriters to investigate this relentless qualitative decline, over the course of 200 years, in our presidents’ ability to communicate with the public. He also blogs at www.elvinlim.com.

In recent weeks, some political commentators have observed that Senator Barack Obama is all talk, but no substance. Where his supporters see an orator of the highest order, his detractors see only a smooth talker.

Flash back to the 1980s, and we had the same bifurcated response to Ronald Reagan. Whereas some saw profundity and deep meaning in his speeches, Reagan’s detractors heard only vacuous platitudes. Indeed, Reagan’s supporters even used the same words as some liberals do today to describe Obama’s “soaring oratory.” How did Reagan score with the Reagan Democrats? By being all things to all people. The Obamacans in this year’s elections are being swayed by a parallel strategy. Talk a lot, but mean nothing.

Consider Obama’s response this week in Georgia when he addressed charges that he had been “flip flopping” between his positions : “I’m not just somebody who is talking about government as the solution to everything. I also believe in personal responsibility. I also believe in faith.” the Senator sagely declared.

But who doesn’t believe in faith? Such rhetoric misses the point, ending rather than initiating debate - a strategy consummately deployed by President Bush in selling “Operation Iraqi Freedom” by exploiting our universal and creedal belief in liberty. The question is how we should balance our respect for the identity and autonomy of religious charities with our belief in the separation of church and state. And the question is whether freedom in Iraq can and should be bought with the sacrifice of our freedoms at home and the suspension of some of our constitutional principles. By design, Obama’s and Bush’s words elided these difficult, but pressing questions.

“I also believe in personal responsibility” are also coded words Obama’s speechwriters designed to woo conservative audiences without explicitly repudiating the liberal point of view that governmental programs are the other side of the rhetorical equation that ought to have been addressed. Reverend Jesse Jackson was understandingly aggravated. Yet while Jackson has apologized for his crude verbal gaffe, we have yet to take Obama to task for his rhetorical sleight of hand because this is what we have come to expect from political candidates seeking the highest office of the land.

We are not going to face the complex problems of our time if our would-be leaders continue to take the rhetorical path of least resistance, to buy our assent without any content. To say nothing even when one talks a lot is to fulfill the rhetorical formula for, literally, empty promises. There were times in this election season when Obama rose above the anti-intellectual fray, just like there were times when Ronald Reagan and George Bush used the bully pulpit to educate rather than to merely seduce the American people. This year, when conservatives see in a liberal political candidate the same rhetorical flaws as what liberals saw in Reagan and George Bush, perhaps we will come closer to recognizing a systemic flaw in our political system, and it is the Anti-intellectual Presidency.

ShareThis

I'll take one illustration with everything. Oh wait...hold the pickles, please.

I overlooked an important detail when I drew this illustration. Without any thought, I had drawn the kids barefoot. Oopsies. I worked on this assignment in the middle of summer, but it was to be published in the middle of winter. Not a good time to be barefoot! The publisher asked me to please put some socks on their cold little tootsies! I think that one small detail warmed the whole page.

As artists I think we can all agree that details add immensely to a finished piece. As weird as it might sound, to me, details are equally as important as a composition's foundation. Though a piece technically can be successful without embellishments given a good foundation, it can, in the end, have a limited shelf life if there is no interesting details to draw the viewer back in time and time again.

First of all, little details are fun. They help tell a story -- they share information about whatever aspect they embellish. I like to draw a boy or a girl with detailed clothing: a flower patch or fringe on her jeans, Crocs on her feet. What type of barrettes is she wearing? Can you tell what her favorite color is by her clothing? (You can probably tell what her favorite flower is from that patch on her jeans, too.) The details are also what keep you going back for more, over the long haul. Of course, if the composition itself is not strong, then it's time to start over. You can't hide a bad flower arrangement by throwing in a bunch of 'distracting' baby's breath and ferns. But, when everything is in there pulling its own weight, you have an illustration that viewers will keep coming back to again and again -- an image that keeps giving the viewer something new to discover on repeated viewings.