Yeah…but when that watery pap is stated in almost exactly the same words, one begins to wonder if this guy has ever had an original idea.

nailinmyeye on February 21, 2008 at 9:58 AM

One thing I’ve been thinking:

It is pretty obvious to me that Obama’s speaking style, rhetoric, and all of it falls in line with a deep and long tradition of African-American preaching. Certainly, the words used to describe him and especially his speeches are, shall we say, religious. This is consciously deliberate, and it is undeniably effective. A black preacher can stir and inspire a crowd in ways that a white preacher cannot. Obama taps into this.

In addition, while I am not as familiar with the African-American tradition of preaching, I believe that 1) the use of set-pieces, or, standard blocks of speech that can be brought into use at any time, in any sermon, is common; and, 2) it is not uncommon in this tradition to draw on particularly relevant or moving portions from the sermons of others with or without attribution (who preaches footnotes?) – and this is generally not considered plagiarism, and is not really a big deal. So, if my memory is serving me correctly, from within the tradition that Obama is working, borrowing and adapting particularly poignant words wouldn’t be anything to get in a fuss about.

What I find particularly interesting, however, is when the genre of one form of speech moves into the context of another form of speech (religiously patterned speech into the context of political discourse), then things like “plagiarism” catch the attention of people enmeshed in a different cultural pattern. Essentially, what is plagiarism in one context is not, strictly speaking, in another.

Finally – am I the only one that finds it interesting that when Huckabee or whoever on the Right makes use of religious words or imagery, the Left (and Right) gets pissed. But, when Obama uses speech patterns and rhetoric borrowed from his religious tradition, no one seems to notice? Is it because most people aren’t familiar with or interested in African-American preaching, but are really interested in how the patterns make them feel when applied to political speech? He’s espousing a secular religion here – or maybe a secular political religion.

nailinmyeye on February 21, 2008 at 10:20 AM

Bigfoot on February 21, 2008 at 10:29 AM

That is an interesting observation. The only thing I would say in response is that I would be interested to find the relationship between African-American communication styles in general to African-American preaching styles from the time slaves were brought to America to the present. I have the sense that the movement was from religious to secular rather than the other way round. But, that would take some research, and it bears little on the overall conversation. I am quite interested about such things because I study religious communication, preaching in particular.

nailinmyeye on February 21, 2008 at 10:48 AM