Verbosity As A Reflection Of … ?

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen would dearly love to see George Bush defeated this year, even though he sees clearly, with the far-sighted vision for which our more profound pundits are known, that this would result in the election of John Kerry. Which is to say that, so far, Cohen is none too pleased with Kerry, mainly because of what today’s column calls “Kerry’s Missing Message.”

I am not here to quarrel with Cohen’s choice for president or to accuse him of political bias. I firmly believe everyone is entitled to his opinion, even (and this will reveal what an open-minded guy I am) authors of opinion columns. I would, however, like to take serious issue with another of his biases, one that is unfortunately widely shared among the ink-stained (now byte-bitten?) wretches of the scribbling class. That bias is the utterly mistaken notion that verbosity reveals intelligence.

You think I exaggerate? Silly you.

Bush is minimally articulate; Kerry is downright verbose. When Kerry opens his mouth, whole chunks of paragraphs fall out and hit the floor with a clunk. The Post’s John F. Harris last month compared the prepared text of a speech Kerry gave with what he actually said. The man is a master of subordinate clauses, of thoughts that meander into blind alleys. Campaign aides showed the article to Kerry, but it seems brevity is simply not in him. He truly knows too much — a charge that cannot be leveled at Bush.

Now, Cohen himself could afford to score a bit lower on the verbosity (and clarity) index: a true “master of subordinate clauses” would hardly allow his charges to “meander into blind alleys.” But my complaint is with the substance of what Cohen says, not his style.

Cohen believes that Kerry can’t express himself clearly because he “truly knows too much.” I suspect the opposite is closer to the truth. In any event I think there is another high barrier standing between Kerry and clear expression: any clear position he expressed would almost certainly conflict with one, or more, contrary positions he has taken over the years on the same issue. I am not persuaded that Kerry knows too much, but I do think he has said too much — for and against and in between — to say anything clearly now and be believed.

Say What? (8)

  1. R. Fliehr April 22, 2004 at 2:28 pm | | Reply

    Kerry is verbose because he’s trying to aviod being pinned down to a single position.

  2. The Trimblog April 22, 2004 at 10:22 pm | | Reply

    Kerry is so very. . .

    Verbose? Articulate? Wordy? John Rosenberg addresses the misconception that because Kerry is a good talker, he must also be smart and highly knowledgeable. “I am not persuaded that Kerry knows too much, but I do think he has said too…

  3. Stephen April 23, 2004 at 9:19 am | | Reply

    The continual allegations that Prez Bush is stupid and inarticulate are ruses. What they really mean is:

    1. He speaks directly to our national self-interest.

    2. He speaks directly to the self-interest of the people who vote for him.

    3. He’s a white straight man who isn’t apologizing for being same.

    A “smart” white straight man is expected to continually pretend that he has no self-interest and spends his evenings weeping over the condition of women, gays and blacks.

  4. Braddock April 23, 2004 at 3:30 pm | | Reply

    Kerry is dishonest, but lacks the facile mastery of language that allowed Clinton to dance around his contradictions.

    The more Kerry opens his mouth, the more the general public will shake their heads in disgust and disbelief.

  5. Eric E. Coe April 24, 2004 at 10:40 am | | Reply

    I think Bush has a hiereditary speech impediment. His father had it too. It has nothing to do with intelligence, pro or con.

    Of course, the liberals have claimed that every Republican president since Nixon was stupid – there is nothing very new about Bush-bashing. Ford, Reagan, and Bush Sr. were tarred with the same brush. Same old, same old.

    This fits in with the general “Republicans are stupid” meme that they constantly push – like recently with the acedemic hiring bais dicussion. All it reflects is the narcissism of their inability to appreciate points of view that differ from theirs.

    What is really irritating is that theirs is supposed to be the party of “compassion” for the disadvantaged. They supposedly frown on doing things like making fun of people who stutter, have a club foot, are confined to weelchairs, are black or hispanic, etc. But, as many have pointed out it seems that disadvantaged minorities aren’t; if they are Republicans. Witness the hateful things said recently in major media about Condi Rice or Colin Powell.

    And one wag put it: “It’s great that liberals have double standards, otherwise they wouldn’t have any standards at all”.

Say What?