Ferguson, Obama, and the Pundit Class’s Fixation on Speeches

This is the top story at The New Republic tonight:

That really is the headline. The article doesn’t even call for
new legislation (like, say, Rep. Hank Johnson’s
Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act). It just urges Obama “to
use the bully pulpit to steer the national agenda in a positive
direction,” as though we’re sitting around helplessly seeking
presidential guidance.

Is there a term for this passion for speeches—this pundit-class
faith that it is inspiring words from a paternal figure that drive
the engine of history? How did anyone get such an idea? Did they
learn history from a highlights reel? Have they seen too many
message-movies that end with soaring monologues? Or do they
just dream of someday writing such orations themselves? (I
suppose we should be glad at least that TNR didn’t run one
of those “Dear Mr. President: I took the liberty of writing a
speech for you” columns.)

I watched an Obama speech tonight. The cable channels aired it
in a split screen with footage from Ferguson, so as the
president urged calm I could see a live feed of the country
ignoring him. His comments were predictable and bland, but even if
he’d given us the most stirring rhetoric of his career I can’t
imagine that it would have made much difference. This is the news,
not The West Wing. Words are cheap.