Jump directly to the content

Michael Gerson: Obama's Speech Rhetorically Flat, but Ideologically Interesting

A former presidential speechwriter examines President Obama's inaugural address.

Former speechwriter Michael Gerson was quick to parse President Obama's speech to the nation on Tuesday, calling it "rhetorically flat" but "quite interesting from an ideological perspective." Gerson's pen was behind President George W. Bush's inaugural addresses in 2001 and 2005, and in preparation, he studied every single presidential inaugural address in American history.

Now a columnist for the Washington Post, Gerson spoke with Christianity Today yesterday about Obama's inaugural address, religious references, and whether he thinks an evangelical should serve in the new administration.

What did you think of the inauguration?

I thought it was surprising. I came to Obama's speech in many ways expecting something that would be rhetorically masterful and maybe ideologically shallow, because of his ideological background, and we got something very different from that.

I thought it was rhetorically flat, uninteresting from a literary perspective, but quite interesting from an ideological perspective. He set out some interesting themes about political pragmatism. It was one of the strongest defenses of pragmatism against ideology in any inaugural address that I can recall. I think that his assurances on national security issues were pretty reassuring. He recognized that we're in a war and talked about defeating our enemies and talked about soft power a little bit with the fight against global poverty — I thought all those things were good. And then his closing theme of renewing America by returning to its oldest values and virtues — he used the word "virtues" — is a traditional inaugural theme, but I think a very good one.

He talked about loyalty, and duty, and responsibility, among other things, and I think that's both an effective message and an important one. In fact it's been the message of most of America's great progressive leaders, whether it's Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King, they always talk about recreating our country by returning to its oldest and deepest values. So that was a good theme. But I just wish the speech itself had been better.

What was missing rhetorically?

I found some of the phrasing odd when they tried to reach they did not reach effectively for memorable phrases. The use of the word 'swill' is very odd in the speech. I found a lot of use of cliché language, "gathering storms" and "children's children," and things you would expect to find in a House floor speech. There were some nice moments, but it was very uneven in its quality.

I don't think it made that much difference to the two million people on the Mall — they were into the moment, and I don't think the speech was terrible, but it was a missed opportunity. This was an unbelievably historic moment, and you look for example at the end of that speech, at the mentioning of Valley Forge and those values, and that's fine, but it could have literally been given by any president in American history. There was nothing specific to the moment, nothing that made it the summary of this great, extraordinary cultural progress culminating in an African American president. Maybe he did that on purpose, maybe he didn't want that to be the rhetorical culmination of much of American history. Maybe he just wanted to lower his sights and be less ambitious. But it's hard for me to be a fan of that as a fan of rhetoric.

How does this compare to his campaign speeches?

I think he rose in the Democratic Party because of some very fine speeches that he gave, his speech on the night of his Iowa victory I thought was a brilliant speech. His race speech in Philadelphia I thought was a serious speech, a serious and interesting speech. But now he's given two speeches in the most high profile settings: his convention speech, which was actually very poor — it was unbelievably typical — and now his inaugural speech, which was not that bad, but it wasn't equal to the moment. Somebody's going to eventually notice that this man who has risen because of his speaking ability has not risen to the moment in some very important historical contexts.


More from Christianity Today

The Latest in Movie News, May 23, 2013

Dowsing, Zac Efron, Timecop returns, and the Despicable Me minions go big.
God Among the Roma

God Among the Roma

Dreams, visions, and healings spur new disciples among the 10-12 million Roma in Europe.
Do All Children Go to Heaven?

Do All Children Go to Heaven?

Reconciling original sin and death of the innocent.
Grieving with the Good Friday God

Grieving with the Good Friday God

Shannon Polson sought healing from her father's death by retracing his fatal journey into the Alaskan wilderness.
Get Instant Access
Christianity Today Magazine
Subscribe now for a year (10 issues) at $24.95 for print, iPad, and instant web access.

International Orders

Comments

Displaying 1–3 of 10 comments

tantheman

February 03, 2009  7:51pm

regarding the comments by JohnS: first of all, it's "krusty" the clown, not crusty. a minor point i know, but if you want to invoke a simpsons character to trash the former president, at least have the courtesy to spell the name correctly. secondly, i didn't realize you were a prophet in the line of isaiah and malachi and know already how much better obama will be on certain issues. i might be calling you about next week's lotto picks.

JohnW

January 27, 2009  9:26am

I guess you are right, I am naive. I've got it all wrong and have been duped by the hate filled, godless, anti-american left-wing media. President Bush is a godly man who was merely performing his god given duty to protect our nation from the evil doers. The secular progressives just can't distinguish between good and evil...all they believe in is "tolerance" and situationnal ethics. We need more leaders like Bush to guide our nation, so true bible believing christians can start stamping out the moral rot that is bringing down our nation....

Sterling

January 26, 2009  9:09pm

What do I care what Michael Gerson thought about Obama's speech? He obviously had to put words into George W. Bush's mouth, because George could not have written his own speech to save his life. Obama didn't need a word flack like Gerson to put words in his own mouth. Obama did most of the composing of this speech on his own, I thought it was excellent. As some one who has to write a sermon every week, I know how difficult it is to find the right balance and tone in any speech or sermon. I thought Obama hit a home run.

See All 10 Comments
You must be a Christianity Today subscriber to post comments
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
Login
or
Subscribe
or
Register

Don't Miss

Rob Bell's 'Ginormous' Mirror

Rob Bell's 'Ginormous' Mirror

To read his book is to read about our fascination with ourselves.
Diagnosing the Demonic

Diagnosing the Demonic

Can you recognize the presence of evil spirits?

Acting Like Jesus

Acting Like Jesus

An unlikely theatrical role enabled me to connect with unbelievers.

more | current issue

Today's Christian Woman

"One Another"

"One Another"

How 12 New Testament...

Books & Culture

A Measure of Forgiveness

A Measure of Forgiveness

Memories of a British...

Small Groups

Why Small Groups Matter to Me

Why Small Groups Matter to Me

I've had a passion for...

Christian Bible Studies

Mental Illness Has a Face

Mental Illness Has a Face

What I learned while...

Facebook

CT eBooks & Bible Studies


Shopping