Judging Book Covers

Pilgrim on Earth

New member
This article was written by a friend of mine...

Judging book covers

By Jay Kelley

Most of the polls showing John Kerry winning the debates with President Bush boil down to one great factor – Kerry looks more presidential.

Although some are unable to quantify that statement, it seems the impression has to do with diction and a calm, unruffled appearance.

Appearances, however, can be deceiving. There have been many great men and not a few world leaders in history who were less than imposing in person.

If we go back to the living memory of some readers, those who heard the Nixon-Kennedy debate on the radio thought Nixon had won – he had the better ideas. Of course, history shows he had more than his share of flaws as well, but it shows us visual impressions are not always correct.

I wonder how some of the great men of history would have fared in a sound-bite debate that doesn’t even really deserve the moniker.

The Lincoln-Douglass debates which are the precedent, but were actually done while both were running for Senate in Illinois, gave each speaker an hour and a half for opening statements and 30 minutes for reply.

Lincoln, by the way, would have been a political cartoonist’s dream with his gangly height and looks that would have made the best Hollywood make-up artist throw in the towel.

Thomas Jefferson had a terrible stammer and hated public speaking. He probably would have refused such an inane display and been summarily vilified by the pundits for cowardice.

One account of the apostle Paul said he was hawk-nosed, bow-legged and bald – not exactly a great stage presence.

While public speaking is important, one must be able to weigh the ideas presented. Mere presence on the stage, or lack of it, is not a reliable indicator of future performance or even the greatness of the ideas presented.

Lest we forget, one of the greatest public speakers of modern history was Adolf Hitler. His ideas should rightly cause any decent people to shudder, yet he led an entire nation into a program of genocide and world-wide war with his rhetoric.

Stage presence comes and goes with the times as well. After leading his country through World War II, Winston Churchill found his hard-line delivery was no longer desirable and lost the next election.

In the end, the message is important in a debate. The messenger must be judged as well, but not on his merits as a debater. Things like character and integrity cannot be judged in 2-3 minute soundbites. Those things must be judged from a person’s record.

The ideas espoused in the debate, however, should be judged on their merit and in that case, John Kerry has not won.

His burden of proof is to show us he can lead the country better, yet he has no plan, or at least has not explained the one he has.

He claims he can reduce the deficit and touts his record, but merely being in Congress during a time of surplus is no guarantee. He tells us he was one of the first to call for a balanced budget in the 80s, but his record shows he was trying to do so by gutting an already dangerously understaffed and under equipped military.

I wonder where we would have been in 1991 if he had succeeded.

George Bush, on the other hand, stands on his record, whether you like it or not. No, he hasn’t been perfect, but he has done a pretty good job considering what he has had to deal with.

So we have a choice. One guy touts a wonderful record that hasn’t accomplished anything and a great plan no one has ever seen. The other guy stands on a record of accomplishment in extremely difficult circumstances.

The choice gets clearer every day.
 
Back
Top