So I read through Trump's speech. You can find a good link to it here:
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/22/483100251/fact-check-trumps-speech-on-clinton-annotated
It's a fairly good review, and the notes added provide context and fact-checking, which is helpful.
But here's my real beef with the speech - Mr. Trump, in what's being touted as his "most presidential speech to date", sounds like an idiot. He does all the time anyway, and perhaps that's part of his everyman appeal. But it's not something I want in my commander in chief. Politics aside, substance aside, I want a president who is articulate, whose command of the English language sounds like someone I can trust, rather than someone I might expect to find working on a ditch digging crew somewhere. And I don't mean to sound elitist, but a ditch digger is not going to run for president, just the same as a president should use more polished, refined, and intelligent speech.
Yes, this is a big deal for me.
Because we had 8 years of cringe-worthy addresses from Mr. Bush. 8 years of hearing the word "nucular". 8 years of pathetic, barely coherent ramblings. 8 years of being concerned EVERY TIME he opened his mouth that something stupid was going to come out.
So you might be saying - well, it's all an affectation to appeal to the common man. It's political pandering at its best. Besides, Bill - you can and do make mistakes yourself. But here's the thing. If it is, in fact, an affectation, then it represents the worst kind of political pandering. It says that I'm reaching out to the most base and ignorant among you in an effort to stir up the vote. It says that I'm lowering myself to engage people that otherwise might not be as animated. It says that the only way I can win is to use the most awful, the most coarse, the most offensive language possible.
And I'm not talking about honest mistakes. I get that - people are human and do make mistakes. I'm willing to overlook that, provided it doesn't become a pattern. And I'm also not the grammar police, because it's not something I am really good at anyway. But I am concerned when I see this pattern of language and speech that speaks not only of the intelligence of the speaker, but also of the intelligence of the audience as perceived by the speaker. It's fodder for comedians, but it shouldn't be.
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/22/483100251/fact-check-trumps-speech-on-clinton-annotated
It's a fairly good review, and the notes added provide context and fact-checking, which is helpful.
But here's my real beef with the speech - Mr. Trump, in what's being touted as his "most presidential speech to date", sounds like an idiot. He does all the time anyway, and perhaps that's part of his everyman appeal. But it's not something I want in my commander in chief. Politics aside, substance aside, I want a president who is articulate, whose command of the English language sounds like someone I can trust, rather than someone I might expect to find working on a ditch digging crew somewhere. And I don't mean to sound elitist, but a ditch digger is not going to run for president, just the same as a president should use more polished, refined, and intelligent speech.
Yes, this is a big deal for me.
Because we had 8 years of cringe-worthy addresses from Mr. Bush. 8 years of hearing the word "nucular". 8 years of pathetic, barely coherent ramblings. 8 years of being concerned EVERY TIME he opened his mouth that something stupid was going to come out.
So you might be saying - well, it's all an affectation to appeal to the common man. It's political pandering at its best. Besides, Bill - you can and do make mistakes yourself. But here's the thing. If it is, in fact, an affectation, then it represents the worst kind of political pandering. It says that I'm reaching out to the most base and ignorant among you in an effort to stir up the vote. It says that I'm lowering myself to engage people that otherwise might not be as animated. It says that the only way I can win is to use the most awful, the most coarse, the most offensive language possible.
And I'm not talking about honest mistakes. I get that - people are human and do make mistakes. I'm willing to overlook that, provided it doesn't become a pattern. And I'm also not the grammar police, because it's not something I am really good at anyway. But I am concerned when I see this pattern of language and speech that speaks not only of the intelligence of the speaker, but also of the intelligence of the audience as perceived by the speaker. It's fodder for comedians, but it shouldn't be.
Comments