Desiring Machine

While rereading a little of E.D. Hirsch Jr.’s classic work “Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know.” I came upon this great little quote:

Radicalism in politics, but conservatism in literate knowledge and spelling: to be a conservative in the means of communication is the road to effectiveness in modern life, in whatever direction one wishes to be effective.

I find this statement remarkable and compelling. Say what you will about Hirsch’s basic argument for school curriculum, it is definitely provocatively conservative and controversial, but there are many insights in his analysis. And this quote in particular holds a lot of truth for me. I often cling to the practice of remaining completely open and radical in my thought but strive to remain relatively conservative and staid in my manner of behavior and speech. I think this is a trait I acquired from my grandfather in many ways. I think Hirsch is totally correct about its effectiveness. For starters, I think it is very disarming, and enables people to make a certain kind of prejudicial judgment about you that can work to your benefit. When your manner, behavior, and method of speech convey a certain aspect, I often find that it throws many people off guard when your views don’t conform to their assumptions. In this moment there is a kind of rhetorical advantage to be had because it creates a momentary paralysis in your would be antagonist. And in this paralysis you can accomplish and convey a lot if you are willing to effectively exploit it.

Reading this quote made me think about the current rhetorical age we live in post Rush Limbaugh and the ultra conservative talk radio and T.V. news pundit. In a certain sense folks like Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Coulter, and many others embody the opposite characteristics of this Hirsch quote. They tend be quite conservative in their thought, political and cultural, but rather reckless, sloppy, and hysterical in the means of communication. It is almost as if they have no cultural literacy or awareness or even a sense of shared national identity. The respect for calm, collected, modern, and conservative modes of communication that our society is built upon are almost entirely disregarded. The mode of communication these pundits embrace, regardless of the political content, always hits my ears as utterly shrill. I always get the sense that they have a remarkably underdeveloped and perhaps rather crude cultural and historical awareness. Especially the likes of Hannity, and even Coulter when she talks about McCarthyism and Joe McCarthy as a liberal myth. These pundits’ mode of speech is very often jocular and jokingly derisive when they are challenged intellectually or politically.

I don’t have any particular insight in why this phenomenon exists or even why they are as popular as they are. They certainly speak to a segment of our society, but they definitely don’t share anything with the people in power that really run things in this country at the present. The Richard Perles, and Paul Wolfowitzes of the world don’t speak like they do. It strikes me as a relatively new phenomenon as well. One that has seen a ground swell with the presidency of George W. Bush. To hear Bush speak I get the feeling that there is a peculiar corresponding relationship between his mode of speech and the existence of these pundits. A lot of people call it the “echo chamber” and I think it is something Bush has relied heavily upon. But I say it is peculiar because it strikes me as rather unique for our political leaders. Just take the crude stammering of Bush especially when he is upset and challenged. His father didn’t have this problem, Reagan didn’t act like this, Nixon was rather well spoken, and Eisenhower was perhaps the most eloquent. And in my mind the Democratic Presidents in modern history have presented a pretty high standard when it comes to cultural and historical awareness and conservative modes of expression.

But this leads to a quandary. How effective are Bush and the pundits and this new colloquialism? I think Hirsch is basically correct about the effectiveness of conservative modes of communication. But when I see the likes of Bush in the Oval Office, or Hannity on my T.V. screen I have doubts. Either Hirsch is wrong about the effectiveness of cultural literacy and modes of speech or else our president and the radical conservative pundits are culturally illiterate in a most profound way.