To conclude her essay, Zadie Smith discloses: “In this lecture I have been seeking to tentatively suggest that the voice that speaks with such freedom, thus unburdened by dogma and personal bias, thus flooded with empathy, might make a good president” (192). However, she rejects this claim by advocating for the many-voiced role of the poet. What is the difference between the rhetoric of a president and that of a poet? Does Smith suggest there should be a difference?
As an American citizen, I feel that we (Americans) expect our President to be transparent in his speech. Having a President that is capable of mastering speech and manipulating crowds (“This new president [Obama] doesn’t just speak for his people. He can speak them” (Hutchins 182)) is extremely dangerous because the President may make political promises that he cannot keep; which would make him a liar. However, it is okay for a poet to have multiple voices because it is part of a poet’s art. The President has an important job to tend to, which should not require a “many-voiced role”, as opposed to the poet. Some poets—and song writers—do not like giving a concrete interpretation of their works. For example, System of a Down’s lead singer, Serj Tankian (also has toured solo), does not like telling people what his songs are about and wants his audience to interpret the songs for themselves. A President cannot give a speech and say to his audience, “Interpret this tax reform how you want”.
No comments:
Post a Comment