The Stranger’s man in Iowa, Eli Sanders, has posted the audio of the entirety of Oprah’s Obama speech given today. Sanders describes it as the best speech he’s ever heard. I’m listening and, well, it’s OK. YMMV.
I’m interested in Sanders’ interest in the speech, though, because I hold his reporting and writing in very high esteem and think he often sees things that others miss. It seems clear to me that Oprah’s, um, intercession in the election this year presages a long-term shift in the relationship of media to politics in this country, something not unlike the engaged and abusive heyday of Hearst’s commitment to political objectives in his media empire.
Oprah is a force for good, as far as is possible in her metier, and a force of nature. At the moment, no other media figure can come close to her appeal and apparent ability to communicate her authentic self via the television camera and broadcast. But her ability is a skill, a learnable skill, one most recently wielded in politics – for evil – by Ronald Reagan.
When I began to write this entry, I was wondering if Oprah’s mediagenic and persuasive presentation would create a competitive force from the right, leading to a spiral of crazed celebrity campaigning from right and left. But I couldn’t come up with a figure on the right that presents with such force and charismatic authenticity.
Then, it struck me: the right has had this style of campaign motivation for years, in the pulpits of the religious right. Now, when I hear a recording of a preacher on the religious speaker working the crowd to accept his prescription for action and spiritual acuity, it leaves me more than cold. I literally cannot understand how or why the speaker’s audience accepts the statements, tropes, and rhetorical distortions as the basis for firmer political or religious commitment, and it often angers me that people fall prey to such skullduggery.
Oprah’s entrance may be the bridge to a wider audience for this style of campaign motivation on the left. The trusted speaker, recognized as an agent of truth and wisdom, is granted by the listener scope and assent for the use of the ancient arts of rhetoric. When I listen to Hilary, Edwards, or Obama deliver a speech, I am listening for tricks, evasions, lies, alliteration, allusion, and so forth.
When I listen to Oprah, I may note an evasive formulation. Early in this speech, she noted that she has voted for Republicans as much as Democrats, a statement that prompted an appreciative or derisive snort from someone very close to the recording device’s microphone. I too snorted, because it strongly implies that Oprah has not voted very often, at least not in her home base of Chicago, where it Republican candidates for local office are often symbolic candidates at best. But I forgave her the statement, because I am willing to suspend my narrowed-eye stance when engaged by her media presence.
In my opinion, politics must be practiced, especially by the voter, as an exercise in skepticism. My analysis is that Oprah’s appeal rests directly on her ability to disengage my skepticism.
If Oprah’s participation in this election materially contributes to the suspension of a skeptical stance on the part of the electorate, that would be an undesirable outcome, President Obama or not. What this country needs is MORE skepticism directed toward our candidates and elected officials.
Can Obama and Oprah sell hope and doubt on the same plate?
I, for one, doubt it.
