There's that voice modulation thing he does when his rhetoric is emphasizing a deep commitment. You know the one I mean where his voice gets deeper and little gravely as if the thought is so important or felt so deeply it takes a little more effort to squeeze the words out.
Maybe it's an appeal to our better angels. Maybe it is an effort to not just state his conviction but to perform it as well. But whatever it is I hate it.
Let's look at an example and an alternative.
An example occurs during the State of Union speech just before 1:05:28 on this c-span version. Here's the text:
That's the leadership that we are providing — engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We're working through the G-20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We're working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We're helping developing countries to feed themselves and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease — a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad.
As we have for over 60 years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right.
That last bit in bold is where he does it. "b-e-c-a-u-s-e i-t i-s r-i-g-h-t"
The problem with this modulatory flourish is that it tries too hard to demonstrate the conviction rather than to enunciate it or declare it. He is asking us to join him in his feeling rather than challenging us to embody our own better angels or own principles. The result is that this central idea and insight of the liberal perspective, the idea that solidarity is strength, that commitment to others improves our own stake, is not championed as essential but rather is treated like an add-on that requires special pleading. Unwittingly, this pleading suggests we can have security, strength and prosperity without a commitment to the welfare of others because it assumes it must beg stridently for this little bit extra.
The present example is helpful because here the text is also saying that doing the right thing by others strengthens us. Yet his delivery is pleading. As if in demonstrating with his gravely voice his own commitment to the principle he must reach out and solicit a commitment in kind from us.
I would much prefer that in every case where he deployed this technique in the speech he would have instead made the strongest, most direct expression (BECAUSE IT IS RIGHT) -- like the warning Iran moment. That way he would be challenging us to accept and affirm these commitments. Thereby weaving deeply into his rhetoric that supporting others is strength and a central component of our national mission. Instead of asking us to embody our better angels he would be demanding that we do. I think that is a better rhetorical strategy for liberalism than this over-sincere pleading.
That is all.