The speech was an attempt to find spiritual causes to the nation's woes--the gas lines, inflation, the legions of shaggy-haired, stoned kids-- almost like a therapist would try to help cure your drinking problem by getting to the cause of your low self-esteem.
Now I am hardly a student of rhetoric, but off hand I can think of a couple obvious American political speechmaking no-nos:
(1) Do not imply the American people suck. Americans are the greatest and most decent and most hard-working people in the world! We are in no way complacent and lazy. Our problems are never the result of our values; our values are always the solution to the problem.
(2) Never admit you don't have a clue. Carter spent ten days in the wilderness of Camp David asking regular folks what he should do to fix the country. I don't know about you, but I am really too lazy and complacent to think about this stuff. Just make everything better.
(3) Do not appear to genuinely think. As president, you are a prophet armed with solutions of Biblical simplicity. Little pensées about the national spirit are vaguely French and offputting.
(4) Give Americans simple solutions to complex problems. In the speech, Carter outlined a series of far-reaching reforms that would have forced Americans to give up their dependency on foreign oil. He should have just offered tax cuts.
(5) The word "sacrifice" is appealing; actual sacrifice isn't. Make sure that you do not in any way infringe on American's right to keep buying lots of stuff.
Many say this speech represented the "nail on the coffin" of the Carter Administration, opening the door for a politian, Ronald Reagan, who well knew the rules of American political rhetoric.
This historical moment represents the last time an American president has attempted anything like leveling with the American people. It discredited the whole notion that a leader can be thoughtful, leading to the New Sociopathy of the 80s.
One wonders how much bloodshed and financial ruin could have been avoided had the American people actually had been as decent as their leader.
Interesting thoughts. quite frankly, I like having a president that thinks.
ReplyDeleteAh haha. I love it when the irony is lost on the readership.
ReplyDeleteBonus points for use of the word pensees! ~Christine
His approval rating actually went up 11 points after that speech. There is a new book all about this speech, with the unwieldy title, "'What the Heck Are You Up To, Mr. President?’: Jimmy Carter, America’s ‘Malaise,’ and the Speech That Should Have Changed the Country."
ReplyDeleteChris-- that's true, actually. I found a discussion with the author on Google. His belief was that the real nail in the coffin was the sacking of his entire cabinet two days later (I imagine at the behest of one of the people who visited him at Camp David.)
ReplyDeleteThe book says that it was the book that should have changed America, and might have too. But the problem was the Republicans, who were smelling blood, were able to spin it into an admission of weakness. This is what they learned from the post-Nixon years: Define your reality and hammer it home constantly. In time, they were able to completely undercut this speech...
Christine-- you just like "pensees" because it almost looks naughty.
ReplyDeleteUh oh. I don't think I would make a very good president.
ReplyDelete(2) Never admit you don't have a clue.
ReplyDeleteI actually don't agree with this one. When you don't know something, it's best to admit it, and search for an answer. Otherwise, you make an ass out of yourself trying to act like you know what you're saying or doing. I learned this first hand in customer service. The customer always knows when you're unsure, and they really appreciate when you say you'll check to make sure.
Wasn't it really the Iran hostage crisis that brought Carter down? Perhaps "nice guys" don't necessarily make good presidents.
ReplyDeleteTrina,
ReplyDeleteI don't entirely disagree with you. Carter should have at least made it seem plausible that he might snap and blow Iran to smithereens. (Nixon called it the "mad man theory" when he was negotiating with the North Vietnamese.)
Carter's apparent "weakness" (which was more a factor of presentation than policy), however, was used in the 80s to falsely promote the false opposition that presidents need to be ruthless and uncaring. It was as if the country decided that Carter was a failure and whatever the opposite of Carter was preferable-- ignoring a long list of personal traits that Carter possessed that were noble and laudable and presidential...
Ms. Proofreader--
ReplyDeleteI more or less agree with you.
I actually think that what Carter did-- talk to a bunch of Americans from all walks of life for ten days about their needs-- was incredible.
Unfortunately, it cemented his reputation as wishy-washy and cleared the path to a "strong leader" like Reagan.