The Art of the Snark
Back on the campaign trail, George W. Bush has engaged, taking off the rhetorical gloves. Good. Interestingly, even for his admirers, it is easy to forget Bush's affinity for feistiness and trenchancy after a first four-year term presiding from firmness, composure, affability and (yes) compassion.
But Bush certainly can do snarky. Remember the brio with which he deployed it to discombobulate John McCain in the post-New Hampshire phase of the 2000 primary race? The spectacle of that macho tomcat-fight afforded the kind of rush Dynasty fans used to relish in an Alexis-Krystle face-off.
Now, even in the teeth of all the recent mealy-mouthed (and disingenuous) cries for "positive campaigning," snarky is welcome, both for diversion and for clarity.
For snarkiness to work correctly, it must be sharp and focused; it is the very opposite of the cushiony tactics of obfuscation, fudging and "nuance" at which John Kerry so excels. Moreover, snarky must be executed agreeably and authentically, which Bush can do. He does the spit-turn from the stance of temperate executive to scrapper on the stump with agility and panache.
Clinton could manage it, too, though with somewhat too much ingratiation for my taste. Reagan's snarkiness was quicksilver magic. Bush the elder could not manage it at all. Neither, really, could Al Gore, who alternated instead between the hamfistedness of a wacky prophet and the tendentious tedium of an academic shrew while consistently missing the middle poise of the truly snarky altogether. One expected 1996's Bob Dole to muster it vibrantly, so felicitous had his Senate leadership quips and jibes typically proven; but Dole's tap ran strangely dry that campaign season, even where snark might have seemed most indicated, e.g., in the encounters of direct presidential debate.
John Kerry? Well, since his positions on most issues are more like riddles for the haruspices than fodder for the commentator, and since his speaking voice bears no discernible human characteristics at all, let alone any "authenticity," the notion of his effectively snarking is moot.
Finally, I note with rue Jimmy Carter's missteps in snarkiness at the rostrum of last month’s Democratic National Convention. Frankly, the wispy Nobel laureate's effort to recast himself as some kind of termagant emeritus was just sad, and compromised the dearly-purchased respectability he has spent many waning years trying to cultivate. Tough talk from a feathery moral narcissist whose single presidential term was spent more like an Avignon pope in self-imposed exile from action while a recession crept over us and American citizens languished in foreign captivity . . . ? No thanks.
But Bush certainly can do snarky. Remember the brio with which he deployed it to discombobulate John McCain in the post-New Hampshire phase of the 2000 primary race? The spectacle of that macho tomcat-fight afforded the kind of rush Dynasty fans used to relish in an Alexis-Krystle face-off.
Now, even in the teeth of all the recent mealy-mouthed (and disingenuous) cries for "positive campaigning," snarky is welcome, both for diversion and for clarity.
For snarkiness to work correctly, it must be sharp and focused; it is the very opposite of the cushiony tactics of obfuscation, fudging and "nuance" at which John Kerry so excels. Moreover, snarky must be executed agreeably and authentically, which Bush can do. He does the spit-turn from the stance of temperate executive to scrapper on the stump with agility and panache.
Clinton could manage it, too, though with somewhat too much ingratiation for my taste. Reagan's snarkiness was quicksilver magic. Bush the elder could not manage it at all. Neither, really, could Al Gore, who alternated instead between the hamfistedness of a wacky prophet and the tendentious tedium of an academic shrew while consistently missing the middle poise of the truly snarky altogether. One expected 1996's Bob Dole to muster it vibrantly, so felicitous had his Senate leadership quips and jibes typically proven; but Dole's tap ran strangely dry that campaign season, even where snark might have seemed most indicated, e.g., in the encounters of direct presidential debate.
John Kerry? Well, since his positions on most issues are more like riddles for the haruspices than fodder for the commentator, and since his speaking voice bears no discernible human characteristics at all, let alone any "authenticity," the notion of his effectively snarking is moot.
Finally, I note with rue Jimmy Carter's missteps in snarkiness at the rostrum of last month’s Democratic National Convention. Frankly, the wispy Nobel laureate's effort to recast himself as some kind of termagant emeritus was just sad, and compromised the dearly-purchased respectability he has spent many waning years trying to cultivate. Tough talk from a feathery moral narcissist whose single presidential term was spent more like an Avignon pope in self-imposed exile from action while a recession crept over us and American citizens languished in foreign captivity . . . ? No thanks.
posted by Chet G @ 6:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home