HOME / kerryisms: The senator's caveats and curlicues.
Kerryism of the DayThe senator's caveats and curlicues.
By William SaletanUpdated Wednesday, May 19, 2004, at 1:44 PM ET
Since 2000, Slate has poked fun at George W. Bush for his torture—some say it's merely abuse—of the English language. Our "Bushisms" collection captures (as Editor Jacob Weisberg explains in his latest volume) the president's ignorance, incuriosity, laziness, and thoughtlessness expressed in frequent gaffes. Now that Democrats have settled on a presumptive presidential nominee, it's time to cast an equally cold eye on the pomposity and evasiveness of John Kerry.
Here's how to read a Kerryism. The text below is Kerry's quote translated into plain English. Kerry's actual quote, however, is full of caveats and pointless embellishments. To read these, click the numbers above the text, which will take you to the caveats and embellishments, presented as footnotes. (Words in brackets before a number are what a normal person would have substituted for the ornate phrase Kerry delivered. To see the ornate phrase, click the number and read the footnote.) To return to the main text, click the number at the beginning of any footnote. To see the whole quote as Kerry delivered it, with all the caveats and embellishments, click here. To get back to this Kerryism, click "Return to English version."
Related on washingtonpost.com
Find resources for explaining Election 2004 to kids: news, profiles, and polls on Election Webquarters.
Today's Kerryism:
Question: What is your position on Bush's fight to ban gay marriages?
Kerry: I believe that the president1 should not use the Constitution2 for election purposes3. It's a document that we haven't touched4 in years, and I don't think it should be used for the purpose of driving a political wedge through America. I think it's wrong.56789
[5]Now, that said, I have taken the position I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's my position, and I think that's the way you respect both traditional values.
The implied question behind "Bushisms" is, is George Bush a dolt, and if so, is a dolt qualified to be the most powerful man in the world? By offering "Kerryisms" as the opposite number, Slate asks the question: is John Kerry smart and stuffy, and is a smart, stuffy guy qualified to be president? What is created here is an equivalence between intellectualism and ignorance.
Jacob Weisberg has argued to great effect that George Bush's idiocy is a chosen idiocy. He donned the crown of doltdom on purpose, knowing on some level that it would allow him to dodge responsibility for his own incompetence and slough off the robes of his elite lineage in exchange for the guise of "the common man." What Bush has counted on is the long and shameful American tradition of equating folksiness and ignorance with the masses, and intelligence and learning with elitism. Note that Bush's extreme privileged status as the son of a president, as a Yale graduate, as a man who got out of Vietnam with the help of family friends, have not tainted him with the "elitist" tag. What is happening here is not the stigmatization of wealth, background and privilege - what truly create the "elite" - but the stigmatization of intellect. George Bush wants you to hate smart people, and Slate is happy to tell you that's okay.
"Bushisms" accuses the president of being clumsy and stupid. Of what does "Kerryisms" accuse the Democratic candidate? Of "pointless embellishments." Of not speaking "plain english." Of being "evasive." Now, Kerry's overwrought rhetoric is a lot of things - it's anachronistic, it's long-winded, it's campaign poison. But how exactly is using a lot of big words inherently "evasive"? Kerry's full quote reads like an awkward mess - but there's nothing being hidden by this overly-flowery speechifying. I have no idea why someone would even come to that conclusion, unless they have an instinctual distrust of anyone who uses polysyllabic words.
What kind of a statement is Slate making with this new feature, then? It can't simply be a devotional stance to journalistic tit-for-tat - Slate already has Mickey Kaus to drudge up any "Kerryism" out there. The only statement it makes is the statement George Bush has already been making: You can't trust that one. He's not like you. He's smart.
First, I have to say that whining about this new feature is kind of counterproductive. You just look like a sorehead--same as people who bitch about the Bush version. They're never going to cancel it (would look far worse than never creating it at all). So my advice is to lie back and think of England.
Second, by complaining you're more or less conceding the point that Bushisms was simply a hatchet job. If it's a "snarky" dig to compare simple declarative sentences with the ones that actually come out of Kerry's mouth, then the justification for parsing the, ah, simple declarative sentences of his opponent moves several notches backward on the PartisanYammering-SoberAnalysis continuum.
Moroever, with the advent of Kerryisms, I think an argument can be made that its Gnostic twin got a whole lot more interesting. For a significant part of the electorate, this election really is in part about whether the model of a political leader ought to be "someone like me" or "someone I look up to." Looked at dispassionately, Kerryisms simply cuts JFK's remarks down to what he would have said if he were an example of the "something like me" model. It's not that this is what Saletan thinks he should have said, it's that this is what he might have said had he, like his colleague from Conn--ah, Texas, been a member of the pork rinds and motor oil school of electoral politics.
Basically, by moaning about Kerryisms you're removing an excellent post-facto justification for laughing at Bush. I think it's pretty clear that the examples chosen thus far are pretty much softballs. Unless you are truly a fan of Airplane-Cabinese, Kerry comes out looking fairly good, especially in comparison to G. Walker Texas Ranger. --Moloch-Agonistes
Since 2000, Slate has poked fun at George W. Bush for his torture—some say it's merely abuse—of the English language. Our "Bushisms" collection captures (as Editor Jacob Weisberg explains in his latest volume) the president's ignorance, incuriosity, laziness, and thoughtlessness expressed in frequent gaffes. Now that Democrats have settled on a presumptive presidential nominee, it's time to cast an equally cold eye on the pomposity and evasiveness of John Kerry.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Hitchens: The "War on Terrorism" Didn't Cause the Fort Hood Shootings
Enter Slate's Write-Like-Sarah Palin Contest
Whoa! The House Health Care Bill Is Actually Less Expensive Than the Senate's.
Like Israel but Colder: The Jewish Autonomous Region of Russia
Why Everyone Should Read When Everything Changed
Spitzer: How Tim Geithner Was Fleeced by Wall Street
Remarks from the Fray:
The implied question behind "Bushisms" is, is George Bush a dolt, and if so, is a dolt qualified to be the most powerful man in the world? By offering "Kerryisms" as the opposite number, Slate asks the question: is John Kerry smart and stuffy, and is a smart, stuffy guy qualified to be president? What is created here is an equivalence between intellectualism and ignorance.
Jacob Weisberg has argued to great effect that George Bush's idiocy is a chosen idiocy. He donned the crown of doltdom on purpose, knowing on some level that it would allow him to dodge responsibility for his own incompetence and slough off the robes of his elite lineage in exchange for the guise of "the common man." What Bush has counted on is the long and shameful American tradition of equating folksiness and ignorance with the masses, and intelligence and learning with elitism. Note that Bush's extreme privileged status as the son of a president, as a Yale graduate, as a man who got out of Vietnam with the help of family friends, have not tainted him with the "elitist" tag. What is happening here is not the stigmatization of wealth, background and privilege - what truly create the "elite" - but the stigmatization of intellect. George Bush wants you to hate smart people, and Slate is happy to tell you that's okay.
"Bushisms" accuses the president of being clumsy and stupid. Of what does "Kerryisms" accuse the Democratic candidate? Of "pointless embellishments." Of not speaking "plain english." Of being "evasive." Now, Kerry's overwrought rhetoric is a lot of things - it's anachronistic, it's long-winded, it's campaign poison. But how exactly is using a lot of big words inherently "evasive"? Kerry's full quote reads like an awkward mess - but there's nothing being hidden by this overly-flowery speechifying. I have no idea why someone would even come to that conclusion, unless they have an instinctual distrust of anyone who uses polysyllabic words.
What kind of a statement is Slate making with this new feature, then? It can't simply be a devotional stance to journalistic tit-for-tat - Slate already has Mickey Kaus to drudge up any "Kerryism" out there. The only statement it makes is the statement George Bush has already been making: You can't trust that one. He's not like you. He's smart.
--Iron_Lungfish
(To reply, click here)
First, I have to say that whining about this new feature is kind of counterproductive. You just look like a sorehead--same as people who bitch about the Bush version. They're never going to cancel it (would look far worse than never creating it at all). So my advice is to lie back and think of England.
Second, by complaining you're more or less conceding the point that Bushisms was simply a hatchet job. If it's a "snarky" dig to compare simple declarative sentences with the ones that actually come out of Kerry's mouth, then the justification for parsing the, ah, simple declarative sentences of his opponent moves several notches backward on the PartisanYammering-SoberAnalysis continuum.
Moroever, with the advent of Kerryisms, I think an argument can be made that its Gnostic twin got a whole lot more interesting. For a significant part of the electorate, this election really is in part about whether the model of a political leader ought to be "someone like me" or "someone I look up to." Looked at dispassionately, Kerryisms simply cuts JFK's remarks down to what he would have said if he were an example of the "something like me" model. It's not that this is what Saletan thinks he should have said, it's that this is what he might have said had he, like his colleague from Conn--ah, Texas, been a member of the pork rinds and motor oil school of electoral politics.
Basically, by moaning about Kerryisms you're removing an excellent post-facto justification for laughing at Bush. I think it's pretty clear that the examples chosen thus far are pretty much softballs. Unless you are truly a fan of Airplane-Cabinese, Kerry comes out looking fairly good, especially in comparison to G. Walker Texas Ranger.
--Moloch-Agonistes
(To reply, click here)
(5/19)