Obama: Just Talk????

(Below, Black Utah Dude responds to a past post of mine, specifically the part where I wrote:

“Criticize B. Obama all you want about being mainly an eloquent wordsmith, but so far, he hasn't made any mega-blunders like this (and the 5 million other ones Billary's made, like the Dr. King thing....what will Billary pull out next to make sure the Reps win????)”

For what it’s worth, I appreciate the feedback BUD, particularly because you are one of the most spiritually versed brothas I know – from Utah or anywhere!)


I made the observation in an earlier email to you that obviously the man [Obama] had appeal because he was "attractive, eloquent, witty, and above all sincere". However, I know you were not referring to me in this quote.

But I want to raise this question: what's wrong with words? What's wrong with being mainly an eloquent wordsmith?

The Bible says "in the beginning was The Word". The Vedas say that it was the Divine Word which existed before creation, and which was the blueprint of creation as well.

Actions speak louder than words (and of course our actions must align with our words), but without words and the ideas they can convey, the emotions they can arouse, and the visions they can establish, there will be no call action and there will be no change.

This whole country was founded on words (Ben Franklin, et al.) which later led to revolution. And if you think about it, every revolution begins with powerful words. Without those words, you'd just have frustrated masses grumbling about their miserable lives, void of any vision of a new direction.

What if humans suddenly lost language? Civilization would disappear.

Once we give up on words, we're just left pointing guns at each other in a Mexican standoff.

There is an old Sanskrit maxim stating that the highest class of people can be motivated through reason alone -- words; the second class of people are unaffected by reason but will respond to flattery (more words); the third class of people will respond not to reason or flattery, but with promises of material goods (requiring words to entice), and the fourth class of people will respond only to threats of punishment (even more words) or actual punishment.

There's an inverse implication to that last one: punishment need not be meted out by the speaker, but the speaker can manipulate others using the fear of punishment from others, which is what politicians often do: "If my opponent wins, this is what will go wrong in your life."

If we accept this model, we have to acknowledge that, regrettably, the voting public consists of all four kinds of people, and if you expect to be elected in a democracy, you need to appeal to all types of people. In order to do that, you need to be a master wordsmith. It doesn't matter how good (or evil, for that matter) your ideas are, if you cannot reach into people's hearts and convince or flatter or entice or scare them, how will you reach them?

Of course, just because someone is an eloquent wordsmith doesn't mean they're right, it doesn't mean they're good. Sweet words can mask all manner of evil and Kool Aid may be laced with cyanide. But this is not the fault of words--it is the fault of the speaker. Being a gifted orator doesn't automatically mean that the speaker is up to no good. Having said that, we obviously have to examine our own motivations when we give in to (or revolt against) their message as well.