In his role as prophet to the nation, Martin Luther King, Jr. drew on the ancient wisdom of both the Greeks and Hebrews. From Aristotle he learned that the character of an orator is of prime importance, but not in the ways we moderns might imagine. It wasn’t personal morality that was the prized dimension of skillful oratory so much as it was the proper execution of a persona (“mask” in Latin). “Person,” in this sense–literally, “that which is sounded through” (per-sonar)–is not an essence or ego or the irreducible human self. Rather, it’s a role one plays.
In his magisterial treatment of The Preacher King, Richard Lischer observes that Martin the seasoned orator understood this: “The hidden I exists all right, but it is available only to God. For all others, there are only masks.”
This strikes us–shaped as we are by our culture’s therapy-driven rhetoric of “always be yourself”–as not only odd but deeply deceptive. We want our public speakers–politicians and preachers, especially–to be transparent, accessible, down-to-earth, one of us. To claim that they are wearing masks is to suggest that they are perpetrating a fraud, pulling one over on us. Facades in public discourse, we think, reasonably, are precisely the problem.
But this misses Aristotle’s point and King’s perceptiveness regarding the role of public speech–namely, that an orator’s powers are not tied primarily to his or her own moral character (though character isn’t unimportant), but to inhabiting a role that persuades, moves, inspires, and transforms others. As Lischer notes, “orators have more in common with actors than the orators–or the preachers–like to admit.”
King also drew on Israel’s prophetic tradition as he himself “adopted a series of biblical personae, masks, that captured the several roles he understood himself to be playing in American life” (Lischer). These persona–much more than King’s own personality–authorized and legitimized his work, locating it in broader historical contexts which could speak powerfully and persuasively to the present moment.
As we commemorate MLK Day, it is instructive to consider these qualities in King’s oratory in light of the two very different, highly-publicized speeches given last Wednesday in response to the tragic events in Tucson. Early in the day, Sarah Palin posted a brief video-taped speech on her facebook page in which she denounced “journalists and pundits” for manufacturing “a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.”
Journalists and pundits of all stripes soon responded, many pointing out the disturbing use of the phrase “blood libel,” with its long associations with anti-semitism. (The fact that congresswoman Giffords is Jewish added to the concern). Did Palin (or her speechwriter) borrow the phrase from an earlier Wall Street Journal editorial? Was she ignorant of its historical roots? Her fans, of course, wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt; her detractors saw it as one more (serious) sign of Palin’s alarming lack of preparedness for the national stage.
Later that evening when President Obama spoke at a memorial event in Tucson, the same journalists and pundits had a field day with his speech, wondering–before it was given–if he would “strike the right notes” or be able to restore some of the lost rhetorical magic that helped get him elected. As with Palin, those predisposed to like the speech liked the speech; others found things to criticize.
But I suggest that President Obama did indeed strike the right notes and that Palin missed the mark woefully. Not so much because of the “blood libel” blunder and the strident, defensive tone of the speech itself (though these are not insignificant missteps). Rather, Palin (and her advisors) don’t seem to understand the role of a public orator–that indeed it is a role to be performed, a part to be played, a mask to be worn.
This lack of understanding is made most plain perhaps in the fact that Sarah Palin stars in a reality TV show. Again, for those who admire Palin, what’s not to love about the attractive ex-governor and her sporty family romping through the gorgeous Alaskan scenery? For her critics, what is the point of filming Sarah Palin and her family romping through the gorgeous Alaskan scenery?
It’s not just a lack of gravitas that is conveyed by the manufactured “reality” of Sarah Palin’s Alaska. It’s the fundamental misconstrual of the job of a public figure who attempts to speak to and for a public. Palin thinks we want her–in all her colloquial, contrarian folksiness. But President Obama, a worthy heir to the rhetorical artistry of MLK, understands that it’s not about him. When he spoke to the victims’ families, the grieving people of Tucson, and an edgy American public, he was acting a crucial part: giving voice to the sorrow and pain of others, articulating with eloquence the fears and hopes, regrets and aspirations of an unsettled nation. He was adopting a persona fitting for the occasion.
Critics of Mr. Obama should remember another recent President who practiced this art with effortless, enviable skill: Ronald Reagan. Whatever one thinks of his politics, Reagan was a capable rhetorician not in spite of his acting background but because of it. He knew how to assume a role, command a stage, and move a nation.
What you get with Sarah Palin is Sarah Palin, who may fascinate in the short term for reasons both intentional and accidental, but hers is not a public presence with staying power; nor does she seem capable of inhabiting the kinds of roles where the self must disappear so that skilled oratory–delivered truthfully and with humility–can do its transformative work.
Martin Luther King, Jr. still has no peers in this art but in the aftermath of the shootings in Tucson we can be grateful that something of “the King’s speech” lives on in our President who, like the ancients and our martyred brother Martin, performs the role he’s been given with persuasive, humble grace.
January 15, 2011 at 10:58 am
Your bias is unmistakable and does not belong on a religious blog. You even use the event of the celebration of MLK’s life to propagandize. As a conservative Methodist Christian it never ceases to amaze me how some use every opportunity to slander the conservative side of God’s Church like Sarah Palin. The only reason I can see is that the truth must really scare the social justice crowd in the church. You do not represent me and I tend to believe that a loving God would not point fingers as you seem only too happy to do. MLK did some great things for rights in our country, why can we not just celebrate his success and not twist the moment to yet another slam against those that feel differently than you do.
January 16, 2011 at 12:39 am
I don’t know you, Steve, nor how you found my blog, but I’m puzzled by how much you read into my post that simply isn’t there.
January 18, 2011 at 2:40 pm
I’m a conservative, just so you know. And I, like Steve, do see your bias in this writing. Or maybe I’m just wrong. But I take the phrase “blood libel” to mean falsely accusing a mass of people (palin, beck, tea partiers) for a something which they are not guilty (Az shooting). How is using that phrase which accurately describes what happened in the aftermath of AZ a blunder?
January 18, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Thanks for your question, Duke. First, I don’t deny that my post is biased. I say outright that, in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings, I think President Obama got it right and Palin got it wrong. What I protested in Steve’s comment was his ad hominem attack and an unwillingness to engage my argument on its merits.
But to your point: “blood libel” is not a generic, catch-all term as you suggest. It’s a phrase loaded with meaning, emotionally-charged, with controversial and painful historical resonances. To use it as Palin did is to ignore or misunderstand this. I don’t think she was deliberately trying to set off this firestorm (though I do think she has a need to be continually in the spotlight)–I think she just got some bad advice about word choice.
I’m always curious and a little perplexed that any time I say something about Palin in a blog post most readers seem to fixate exclusively on whatever that is. I’d like my insights about MLK to be the centerpiece of this post, but the reality is that Sarah Palin looms large in our culture right now and a lot of people feel the need to defend her in all things.
But I do appreciate your question.
January 18, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Thanks for your response. Without honest questions and civil debate, we will spiral into a country neither of us will recognize, so thank you. And I do agree that Obama’s speech was a great one. However, it was a little “2012 campaign-ey” for my taste. T-shirts & a slogan for a memorial?
As far as Palin is concerned, she would have NOT been involved had the press and bloggers NOT involved her. They thrust her into the blame game and demanded a response. And they got it through a Facebook video a few days later. Then they attacked the response and called out her verbage which exactly (in my opinion) called out what the press was doing. I understand (now) that the phrase has meaning both painful and emotional. But consider this: Being blamed for the shooting was painful and emotional for Palin, thus justifies her use of the phrase. I mean, come one, that woman can’t do anything without bloggers and media attacking her every word. Palin may not be as good an orator as Obama and Reagon, but it’s her message, not the delivery that have many conservatives on her side and liberals up in arms. And I think this country needs more substance than style right now. I do like Palin, I’ve read her 1st book, and I try to stay informed. However, voting for her for a Presidential nomination isn’t a given. Consider this, the more unfair biased attacks she endures from the left, the more powerful she will become. If they’d just leave her alone, she’d probably be a little more of a non-issue.
I’m not a blogger, writer, or an orator, so I hope I can give you a little insight on the conservative thinking without sounding like I’m rambling.
January 18, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Thanks again, Duke (not sure what to call you–sorry). Yes, it’s easy for online discourse to deteriorate rapidly; I think the anonymity of the medium makes all of us prone to say things we would never say to each other face to face.
I appreciate your explanation of your support of Palin–I expect that you speak for a lot of people. My criticisms of her are not personal; in many ways she seems like someone enjoyable to be around. But I do think she fundamentally misunderstands the “role” (in Aristotle’s sense) of a public person/persona/orator. This is a separate issue from the substance of her politics, which is something I didn’t address in the post.
January 19, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Yes, Duke is what I go by. What do you think of this article? I’d love to hear your response: http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/01/we-just-witnessed-medias-test-run-to-re.html
January 19, 2011 at 11:36 pm
Duke,
1. I agree that it was irresponsible of some zealous, left-leaning pundits to try and tie Palin directly to the Tucson shootings. It was opportunistic on their part and they are, in essence, the flip side of right-wing
journalism: too extreme, too partisan to be taken seriously.
2. But I don’t think there’s a conspiracy in the “main-stream media” to try and re-elect President Obama. I think that idea has its roots mostly in talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, especially) and it’s now a kind of paranoia among many conservatives. Statistically, it might be true that many journalists/reporters are registered Democrats, but I don’t think they’re all in collusion to keep the President in power.
3. The thing about Palin’s “target map” and all that: it’s inaccurate to say that she’s responsible for the gunman’s actions, but that really misses the more important point in my view. She (and others in both parties) have contributed to an ethos, a climate, a cultural milieu in which tearing down, ridiculing, preying on ignorance, exploiting fear, and agitating the unsettled are the preferred way of engaging in political discourse. There’s an immaturity and pettiness about it that just doesn’t serve the greater good. (Which is why I wrote the post in the first place about excellent oratory refusing to engage in that sort of low-blow, self-serving speechifying).
January 26, 2011 at 8:40 pm
So, what did you think of Obama’s performance last night?
Ben Stein wrote about it and after reading his thoughts I thought it would be interesting to hear your comments.
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/26/obama-and-the-bodysnatchers
January 27, 2011 at 10:19 am
Duke, I wrote a post about the education component of the President’s speech; you can find it on the blog.
I think Ben Stein scores some points on substance (in pointing out the lack of it in Obama’s speech): he’s right about the deficit, taxes, Afghanistan, Iraq. But I disagree with his assessment of the speech’s rhetorical style. If Stein wants to talk about flat, boring pedagogy, he should go back and look at his performance in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” (!).
January 27, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Funny, I don’t think anyone will accuse Stein of being a captivating orator anytime soon! I’ll look for your other post. Thanks for your response.
February 7, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Debra,
I read this blog upon a recommendation from my father. I am currently taking a speech class and had had a long discussion about how great orators like MLK and Obama write their speeches and deliver them. This blog was a fabulous perspective that I think my father was trying to convey to me a tad less eloquently.
I read your blog and found it informative on the grounds of public speaking. In regards to Duke and Steve, I was at first taken aback by the offense they took about the lesser, bias points of the blog. I found Sarah Palin’s response to the comments made about her ill-timed and poorly worded. But, in response to Duke and Steve, but more to Duke, Sarah Palin has presented herself like a celebrity. She has her show and her quirks and sayings. Yet, she is also attempting to be a strong political figure and voice. I think she plays the role of celebrity very well and could make an impact in that way, but I think she either has a lack of understanding of the power of words or a disregard for that power. Words have been used to incite violence. Words have been the catalyst for war. Words can ease pain and inflict it. Media from both sides of the political spectrum use rhetoric to divide people everyday. No, she should not have been blamed for the shootings. I think her response to the scrutiny she received showed a disregard for both the situation and the power of words. What would have been the public outcry if Sarah had said, “Though I don’t believe that I am responsible for this heinous act, if by anything I have said or done politically has caused people to feel they need to turn to violence to change the circumstances, I am sorry. That is not the American way. That is not the Democratic way.”
January 18, 2012 at 11:47 am
Thank you Debra. This is beautiful, and appropriately dispossessing. I think that the fear of dispossession is what lies behind some of the responses you have received so far. Unfortunately those who suffer from such fear probably lack the vocabulary to name it as such– and so they resort to predictable banalities about liberal biases, yada yada.
Since you mentioned Dr. Lischer, here is one more quote from him as it relates to this blog entry:
“Modern preachers have inherited an impoverished notion of style from the ancients. They defined style as the verbal projection of one’s personal qualities. ‘Style is the person,’ they said. Add to their wisdom the truisms of modern psychology, and we have a notion of style that is intimately related to he discovery of one’s of one’s authentic personality. Since we have only one ego — or so goes this line of reasoning– we can speak in only one style. Ask most preachers what they strive for stylistically, and the majority will reply, ‘To be myself in the pulpit’… [But] Augustine created a revolution in homiletics by counseling preachers not to be themselves. He said, in effect, perhaps your self should not dominate every text and every liturgical occasion, for each text of Scripture has its own style and therefore suggests the manner in which it should be preached.”
–The End of Words, pp76-77
Th
January 18, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Thanks for this quote, Mark – it’s a gem, as is every insight Lischer puts to paper. Will it take another generation or so of seminary-trained preachers to grasp this and effect a real shift, or are we doomed to endure “authenticity” in the pulpit forever? Pretty depressing to ponder . . . .