Slate's Bizbox
the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

Michael Chabon and Frank Rich

the breakfast table
entries
12345678910111213141516
from: Michael Chabon

Show Me the Emotion

Posted Thursday, Jan. 25, 2001, at 5:03 PM ET

Dear Frank,

Boilerplate. I'm so weary of boilerplate, from the right, left, and center. Candidates Bush, Gore, and Nader all exhibited the same almost instinctual lack of candor, the unwillingness or inability to say what they thought, to express how they felt using language designed to convey meaning, affect, or intention. God forbid Al Gore should ever say, "How do I feel? How should I feel? I'm pissed, dude!" There were one or two moments during the tail end of his tenure when Clinton verged, in certain interviews, on seeming to say something that he actually felt--moments invariably followed, in subsequent days, by the retractions of administrative underlings and paid squirrels. It's as if the practiced style of null speech adopted and honed by professional athletes over the years--a style captured during the amusing scene in Bull Durham in which Crash Davis coaches Nuke LaLoush on the art of speaking to interviewers in platitudes--has become the standard technique among politicians as well. An interview is a purely formal exercise in the exchange of token signifiers along the lines of an Indian potlatch or the sending of holiday greeting cards. I'm not talking about avoiding making statements that might be parsed for their political significance, the kind of caginess that is part of the craft of a careful politician. It's a total indisposition or aversion to giving the impression that one ever feels anything at all beyond the range of emotions appropriate to on-the-job flight attendants or Gap greeters, as if the capacity for experiencing anger, disappointment, frustration, glumness, or even despair were a mark of personal weakness.

One might suppose this aggressive emotional vacuity to be endemic to politicians everywhere were it not for reminders such as the exchange reported in the Times this morning between Tony Blair and one of his opponents in Parliament. Don't you enjoy watching the televised sessions of Parliament when they show up on C-SPAN? There is a make-believe, theatrical quality to the proceedings, true--itself refreshing when contrasted with the largely tedious droning of American legislators--but more often what I'm struck by, even amazed by, is the way those people get irritated and testy and outraged and openly scornful of one another, often, most amazing of all, employing interesting language and correct grammar as they do. I was struck by Tony Blair's willingness to exhibit something as commonplace as glumness in his rejoinder and then by his vigorous, terse defense of his admittedly dubious chum.

Best,
Michael

the breakfast table
entries
12345678910111213141516
from: Michael Chabon

Show Me the Emotion

Posted Thursday, Jan. 25, 2001, at 5:03 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Michael Chabon's latest novel is The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. Frank Rich is an op-ed columnist for the New York Times and author, most recently, of Ghost Light.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments From The Fray:




Thank you Mr Rich for bringing up the no tanks in the streets comment repeated by all the talking heads on TV. I too was shocked by it. We should be celebrating because there are no tanks in the streets? We settle for so little. They had an election in Canada recently, with very high turnout(by American standards) modern voting machines, and yes no tank in the streets. The winner was declared within hours. Unlike the US they can be certain that the man in charge was elected fair and square.

Why do the talking heads repeat empty pieties? Healing, closure, no tanks, peaceful transfer? Is it to create a false sense that the system works even when there are signs that the system failed?

--James Lynch

(To reply, click here.)


The news coverage of the inauguration seemed so rote. It reminded me of my local cable access channel, which replays the same prom footage over and over and at odd times. It's odd to channel surf and come across high-schoolers decked out in tuxes and gowns, standing awkwardly on lawns, getting into limos, walking into a dance hall over and again. I'm sure the kids in the video might like the event, and must love seeing it.

So too this inauguration. The hard core Bushies and the hard core Clinton-haters were likely cheered and moved by the whole coronation process. But really. It was so forlorn.

And even Bush's well-crafted--it's a pleasure to read--acceptance speech sounded tin coming from him. Every time he speaks, even when the rhetoric's lofty, I can't help but hear the C- student he usually is, the one who describes or explains things by restating the obvious (I'm a uniter, not divider, and that means I try to bring people together, not push them apart.). I'm so used to circular logic from Bush that I'm edge whenever he speaks.

And too, Clinton's 7.5 minute farewell, it seemed to me, had more oomph and staying power than W.'s 14 minute at bat. So as Rich suggests, W. pales not only because I usually find him dim, but also, in this case, by comparison to Clinton's superior oratory style.

--Nick Carbone

(To reply, click here.)

(1/22)

Washington Post