Performatives redux: Colin Powell

Colin Powell was always one of those Republicans I had some respect for (like McCain used to be, but I digress). Powell seemed to have at least some awareness of the world around him and especially of the importance of diplomacy. Like everyone else, I was disappointed when he went before the UN and, well, lied. When he stepped down in the wake of Bush's re-sort-of-election, I was really angry, because I felt that residual respect and affection for Powell in this country could've swung the election for Kerry if he'd resigned before the election. He wouldn't even have had to make an explicit endorsement--his leaving the ship would've been a sign.

Powell was head of the State Department--the department that relies most on performative language, according to Cook. The Secretary of State and his underlings do their job mainly by making statements. Approval, disapproval, etc. are expressed through the media as well as through direct diplomacy.

Powell, then, knew exactly what he was doing when he took to Meet the Press to make his endorsement of Barack Obama.

He didn't appear on stage with Obama and probably won't (though you know the ad people are working overtime to cut his words into a spot). He sat in a chair, comfortably, and spoke honestly. He didn't invoke race once. He prefaced his statement with both respect for and criticism of John McCain, and especially of the choice of Sarah Palin, and then spoke of Obama as a potentially transformational figure.

And most importantly, he called out the Republican party on scare tactics and fearmongering, on xenophobia and hatred. Powell of all people has tremendous power to make the comments that there's nothing wrong with being Muslim. As a general, as one of the architects of several of our recent wars in the Middle East, he will be accused by no sane person of being a terrorist sympathizer. When he spoke of an American Muslim soldier who died in Iraq, he sounded sincere, unlike McCain's phony invocations of a bracelet from a soldier's mother.

Implicit in those statements was an endorsement of Obama as the better leader on Iraq. He didn't have to say it outright. He invoked Iraq and a fallen soldier in a way that if I didn't know better I'd call a left-wing dogwhistle. I felt for just a second as if Powell had whispered in my ear, "I'm sorry about that, guys. I'm trying to fix it."

Powell's appearance on a news talk show was itself the top headline on the New York Times and the third headline on the Washington Post today. While I'm not going to go into what that says about canned news events and the corporate media here, suffice it to say that once again, we can see that speech is itself a form of action, especially in the executive branch.

Eloquence, Performatives, and the Presidency

So I have 8000000000000 things to do right now, but I'm going to take just a moment to comment on something because I think it's important to note.

The New Yorker's Obama endorsement makes many excellent points. You should read it. But to my mind, the most important point it made was this one:

Although his opponents have tried to attack him as a man of “mere” words, Obama has returned eloquence to its essential place in American politics. The choice between experience and eloquence is a false one––something that Lincoln, out of office after a single term in Congress, proved in his own campaign of political and national renewal. Obama’s “mere” speeches on everything from the economy and foreign affairs to race have been at the center of his campaign and its success; if he wins, his eloquence will be central to his ability to govern.

See, the presidency is largely a symbolic office. Congress is the body that's going to have to actually make and pass these tax cuts and health care policies--all the president can do is encourage and sign. One of the reasons I was an early Obama supporter was that he seemed to have a much better grasp of and less warmongering slant on foreign relations. And foreign relations are carried out by, yes, talking. Words. Speeches.

There's a huge place for performative language in all of this. Timothy Cook outlines this whole process expertly in Governing With the News. The president makes a speech, and policy changes. Need an example? Remember the "Axis of Evil" comment, and how suddenly after that we seem to be dealing with North Korea and Iran increasing their nuclear capacities?

Every time the president makes a speech, it is news. Even now, when the candidates make a speech, it is news. That news gets carried not just to voters, but to other countries and other governments. The reason McCain keeps harping not on Obama's willingness to go into Pakistan in search of Bin Laden, but his willingness to talk about it, is that he knows that by making a statement the president has to back it up.

A popular president's speeches could buoy Wall Street just by pledging support; it is a measure of Bush's lame duckitude that he can't. Any president can screw foreign policy up majorly just by mistaking the names of countries or leaders; just ask Richard Nixon about Mauritius and Mauritania.

The president has to know when to speak and when to shut up, what to say and what not to say, and yes, be willing to talk to other leaders. Talk doesn't prevent action, or require some sort of soul-selling to Ahmadinejad like McCain seems to think it does. But it does indeed have an effect on what happens.

So having a president who is a man of "mere" words, as opposed to one who regularly mistakes one country for another (or one Supreme Court Justice for another--ask Justice Breyer if he's slightly insulted at being confused with Alito this morning) is actually rather important when you think about it.

And after watching those debates, which candidate do YOU think is more likely to shoot himself in the foot while attempting diplomacy, whether it's face to face or through the press?

More on the Favela Violence

Not to put too fine a point on what I've been saying recently about calling favela residents "traficantes", but today's passage in the New York times (an AP report, and not Larry Rohter's reporting) really reinforces what I said. Favela-resident community organizer Edmundo Santos Oliveira points out,

"For the police, everyone is a drug trafficker, especially after they’ve killed you.”

Ah, that passive voice....

Among increasingly damning evidence that the government knew what it was doing far more than it let on regarding the fired US District Attorneys, Alberto Gonzales admits today that "Mistakes were made." Note he didn't say he (or Miers, or Sampson, or Rove, or anybody) made mistakes, but that "mistakes were made".

This is a ploy often used by sports stars when they are busted for improper behavior ("I'm sorry it had happened"), and there are definitely people out there who absolutely hate this refusing-responsibility-while-trying-to-appear-responsible (strangely enough, Michael Wilbon, of the Washington Post sports section and of ESPN's "Pardon the Interruption", is one of the most vocal opponents of this linguistic dodge of responsibility). I, like Wilbon, absolutely hate this linguistic turn - it gives the speaker credit in the public eye for being recalcitrant even while he/she refuses to acknowledge his/her personal responsibility in wrongdoings.

THIS is why professors teach active voice to students who are amazed to see there IS a difference between saying "3000 were killed in Chile between 1973 and 1990" and "The Pinochet-led state killed 3000 Chileans between 1973 and 1990".