Actor Forrest Whitaker spoke at Grand Rapids Community College today, urging people to vote for Barak Obama. One main argument he used, a common one from liberals in this race, is that we will make history by voting in Obama. Whitaker really pulled on the egocentric strings of contemporary American youth when he claimed that, in fact, it would be they who made history, while Obama was relegated to merely making history "along side them."
Not only is this argument a non-starter as a reason to vote Obama/Biden over and against McCain/Palin, since voting in a woman veep "makes history" too, it really demonstrates the surface-level thinking many voters operate at. Since thinking is a chore in our fast-food nation, let's by-pass the thinking and go with slogans that sound good. Rather than engage in thought-out conversations with others to convey our views, now we can tell others what we believe by placing a bumper sticker on our car.
There's no concern with the details. Forty years ago the kids at the colleges were told to make love not war. Yet if you sleep with someone else's wife, you just made love and war. Yeah, "make history." Who cares what history you make, though. I mean, Hitler "made history" too.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteWelcome to GR!
I'm voting for Baldwin to make history. Can you imagine the first Constitution Party President? Well maybe I have better reasons.
Anyway, any chance that you may have a debate(s) while you're living here?
Hi Gary,
ReplyDeleteThanks, good to be here.
Yes, I suppose that win would "make history" too. So, we have an equal playing field of reasons to vote for any of the parties. :-)
I don't have any plans for debate(s) but there's always a chance(s) since I'm not opposed to the idea.
You're completely distorting everything that Forest Whitaker said. At no point did he argue that anyone should vote for Barack Obama simply to make history.
ReplyDeleteAs one can see from the transcript, his opening comments were entirely aimed at dispelling the cynical notion that many young voters have that their contributions don't count. It was about empowerment.
Contrary to your other criticism, he talked specifically, and at length, about economic issues like poverty, unemployment, and access to health care (even quoting statistics) as the reasons why they need to participate in government.
Here's a partial transcript:
"Now we’re at a point where we’re making another stance and you’re taking a stance for yourself and your future. It’s interesting because it’s a very powerful thing when a space opens up where the stance you take that the country needs, the community needs and the people need. When your destiny walks in that same alignment with the destiny of the future.
When you say to yourself “okay, I have to make a choice right now because unemployment is rampant, we’re at war, the economy is falling, and you take it away from this whole concept of bailouts and these large amounts of money that it’s difficult for us to really get our minds around.” And you think about it like this; I got a call yesterday from – I can’t say he’s a friend, I’d worked with him before; he was a manager in my business – he called me because he had lost his home. He lost his home and he had lost his car. He already went through a bad divorce, so he was talking to me about his children.
He said “I have to take care of my kids; I don’t know how to take car eof my kids. What am I going to do. I’m not asking for a handout, Forest. I’m not asking for money. I just, I need a job. I need a job so that I can take care of my kids. If there’s anything you can do, if there’s any way you can help me – please.”
So I started making some calls – and hopefully, hopefully he’ll be able to pull himself out of this mess that a lot of us are finding us in. I mean, I’m here in Michigan because, honestly, of the states in this nation – it has some of the largest problems. The unemployment here is a little less than it is in Detroit – it’s 22 percent of people living under poverty. Ten percent, one in ten people not having a job – being unemployed. In Detroit it’s 35 percent poverty; 50 percent of kids are living in poverty. That’s something we can’t allow. We can’t allow it.
I read a paper when I was coming over here that said there are 10,000 homeless people in Detroit alone. That’s not counting the state itself, or where we are. How can we feel that we are living in a civilized society when we can watch like, sit on the streets not begin able to survive or take care of themselves? How is it that we consider ourselves civilized if we allow these things to happen?
That’s why we have to take a stance. That’s why you guys are here – I’m so excited; because everybody you touch can like, help move it forward. This is the thing – everyone is talking about Barack Obama – whom I greatly admire, who I think is placed in that position to help us move forward not just as a country but the world – but; you’re the ones.
I say this quite often; I’m looking out at you right now and if I take a picture of you, a photograph, 20 years from now my grandchildren may be able to look at that book, as you do – when you look at those pictures from the ‘old’ 60s and you wonder who that person is – that person is – who’s the person that, like, actually made some change… you’re those people. That’s what this is about. It’s about you being the power to move us forward. You are the ones who are going to change – you are the ones making history. Yes, Barack will make history alongside you – but you’re the ones. You’re the ones as you go out today and talk to five, ten twenty, thirty people and convince them that they need to go out on November 4th and vote. It’s going to change the future. It’s going to make it possible for my grandkids and your children, and all of us to have a decent life. Think about it."
The entire speech is available for viewing here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nI2ezIt900
The Hitler comparison is completely out of bounds.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteI'm not distorting what he said, you're showing an inability to think.
Notice that there was no *argument* from the descriptive facts that we are in hard times to the noramtive conclusion that one *should* vote for Obama and his leftist, liberal policies as the policies that will solve our problems.
Notice that, as with a majority of liberals, the argument seems to be:
[1] It sucks now.
Therefore,
[2] Obviously Obama will make it un-suck.
What is it "about?" Is it about doing some hard thinking and *demonstrating* that voting for Obama is the best choice? No, Whitaker *tells us* what it is "about:
"That’s what this is about. It’s about you being the power to move us forward. You are the ones who are going to change – you are the ones making history. Yes, Barack will make history alongside you – but you’re the ones."
This is an appeal to emotion. It is *non-political* claim used as a reason to make a political decision. Obama's *skin color* is completely *irrelevant* to the issues we are facing. Whitaker *had to be* referring to skin color 'cause that's the "history" to be had with Obama.
Indeed, as I listened to NPR today I listened to a roundtable discussion between "blacks and browns." They played the "history" and "race card" hard. They even admitted that Obama wouldn't necessarily solve everything, but we had to vote him in because we have to make history. We need to empower the black and brown people by moving forward to a new stage in history. He even invoked the spirtual mixture of African and neopagan American metaphysics.
Anyway, I see nothing in your transcript that contradicts what I have said.
The "make history" argument is a non-starter. And to that end, my Hitler comment was apropos. Your analysis of his talk makes me depressed when I think about today's voters. That you could think the mere *mentioning* of hard times translates to some kind of substantive dissertation on economics vis-a-vis Forest Whitaker, is simply baffling.
Furhtermore, if you didn't bother to notice, the entire thing started off fallaciously.
ReplyDeleteNotice the black student union gentleman said in his introduction that Whitaker won many acting awards and that made him an authority in "whatever he has his hand in." This is a fallacious appeal to authority since there is no correlation between good acting and smart politics.
Also notice that the very *first* thing Whitaker pointed out was that "these is exciting times because we were going to make a change." That statement, in the context he was invited to speak in, was *clearly* a reference to voting in the first black man.
Whitaker and those like him are actually evil when they treat black people as so stupid that they have to play on their emotions and get them to do something for illogical reasons. How disrespectful.
It *had to be* racial since voting for a liberal democrate doesn't "make history." It is *clear* that his strongest rhetorical sophism was in hinting that black students should vote the black man in.
This is actually racist. Quite ironic that it's coming from the demoncratic side.
Again, as he closed, he said, "let's make history."
That you let this sail right over your head shows that you're not voting with your head.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteYou can say what you want but the comments were intended to deride both Whitaker and America’s youth in general as being “egotistical,” superficial and unable to focus on concrete details.
I beg to differ; there was an argument about the descriptive facts: we can’t stand idly by while these inequities persist. You criticize the nature of Whitaker’s argument for being absurdly simplistic, AS THOUGH every other candidate running for office (even the third party candidates) isn’t running with the premise that “(1) it sucks now” and “(2) [fill in the blank] will make it un-suck.” You’re hypocritically holding “liberals” to a standard I don’t see you holding any other candidates or ideologies to.
Appealing to emotion is what gets people elected for office; someone who plays the Hitler card should understand that well. Emotional arguments work far better than logical ones. That’s why Triablogue has no less than eight posts on its front page (out of 12) dealing with abortion (the ultimate irrational, emotional red meat issue of the right).
Our society is HIGHLY intolerant of intellectual, rational and detailed arguments and explanations of policy. Anyone who dares go down that route is bound to lose because our entire political system rewards vaguery and punishes specificity. As they say; “don’t hate the playa, hate the game.”
Whitaker’s “historic” comments were about the youth participating in the political process; not about getting a black guy into the white house. Every year the Democrats hope that the youth get out and vote and every year they’ve been disappointed. Race was entirely peripheral. Sean Astin was making the same arguments last week in Michigan (talking to young people) and I notice you’re not beating him up for it:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/C5/20081005/NEWS03/810050436/1110/CFP02
Doubtless some people will be supporting Obama specifically because he’s black.
Doubtless some people supported Hillary Clinton specifically because she was a woman.
Those people are not the majority, however and to write off every single Obama supporter by stereotyping them as one of these few is intellectually dishonest. As I mentioned earlier, I never claimed that Whitaker engaged in a substantive dissertation of economics – nice Straw Man argument (thanks for crow-barring that into my mouth). All I said was that his appeal was not as overly simplistic or racially motivated as you wrote it off as being.
The president of the Black Student Union who introduced Whitaker never claimed that Whitaker was an “authority;” he said that anything he has his hand in is “one of a kind and special.” Here, again, is a complete transcript:
“Well once again I want to say on behalf of the Black Student Union that I’m glad we can have this event here – it’s very special and I’m definitely looking forward to making change. The next person coming to this podium has dedicated his life to acting. A lot of you can say that it has definitely paid off. Doing movies from Fast Times at Ridgemont High (I can see that’s one of your favorite), Vantage Point and the Last King of Scotland it is clear to see that he is a star among many. Now, Mr. Whitaker has won over 20 major awards including an Oscar – and that is definitely a hint to say that anything he has his hand in is definitely one of a kind and special. Now, Mr. Whitaker got involved with the Obama campaign in 2007 and since then he has stayed faithful to his commitment. And now with voting coming up in less than a month – he is doing everything he can to push the Obama/Biden campaign, so please join me in welcoming Mr. Whitaker to the podium.”
Nothing about that is attempting to “fallaciously” grant Forest Whitaker “authority” in politics based simply on the fact that he’s an award-winning actor.
What’s interesting about the rally (that isn’t really visible in the video) is that the vast majority of the audience is white.
It strikes me that every single one of these claims you’re making is entirely subjective; if you look for racism everywhere – you’ll find it – and that’s what you seem bent on doing. Nothing is “clearly” said as you imply. I don’t see anyone here playing the race card except you. I think that says far more about you than it does about Forest Whitaker and “liberals.”
A blog as heavily-invested in illogical emotional appeals as yours really has no place calling anyone “evil” or “disrespectful” for “treating … people as so stupid that they have to play on their emotions and get them to do something for illogical reasons.”
Again; the historic aspect is the youth turnout; not Obama’s race (which is an issue the campaign has run from like the plague because it’s such a political third-rail):
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1700525,00.html
I never said how I’m going to vote; all I did was dispute your interpretation of the events. Thanks for the ad hominem attack about me not using my head to vote, though. That’s a nice touch for someone who purports to value logic and respect.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteWay to respond after 10 days...
"I beg to differ; there was an argument about the descriptive facts: we can’t stand idly by while these inequities persist."
Uh, that's not an *argument*, Seth.
"You criticize the nature of Whitaker’s argument for being absurdly simplistic, AS THOUGH every other candidate running for office (even the third party candidates) isn’t running with the premise that “(1) it sucks now” and “(2) [fill in the blank] will make it un-suck.”"
No, I characterized it as a *non-sequitur*.
It's a shame we have to remind you of the flow of the discussion. You tried to say that Whitaker gave *other* "arguments" and *not* the "argument" I said he did. Moreover, you specifically claimed,
"Contrary to your other criticism, he talked specifically, and at length, about economic issues..."
Not only is this false (unless you consider 10 minutes as "at length"), "talking" does not an *argument* make. I never *denied* that he "talked" about all sorts of things.
"You’re hypocritically holding “liberals” to a standard I don’t see you holding any other candidates or ideologies to."
The post wasn't about "other candidates," so how am I a "hypocrite." And, just so you know, I think plenty of the "arguments" McCain, Palin, Obama, Biden, et al. make are ridiculous *as arguments*. But apparently when I post on a specific incident at GRCC, I'm expected to detail the problems of every other politician over the course of America's history. Too much, you say? But one might just come along and say, "You're holding 21 century politicians to a higher standard than 18, 19, and 20th sentry politicians"!!!
"Appealing to emotion is what gets people elected for office; someone who plays the Hitler card should understand that well."
a) Standard example of what loads the pages of my informal fallacy books.
b) The Hitler example wasn't meant to be a comparison between Whitaker or Obama or anyone else. It was meant to justify the claim that "Making history" isn't a justification to vote or respect someone.
"Emotional arguments work far better than logical ones."
And this statement is based on a pragmatic argument, so I assume you think pragmatism rules the day.
Anyway, I know they do. I don't expect stupid people to listen to logic.
"That’s why Triablogue has no less than eight posts on its front page (out of 12) dealing with abortion (the ultimate irrational, emotional red meat issue of the right)."
Perhaps you can do a better sample by checking the archives. But that would take too much time and brain power.
Also, I've justified the logic and rationality and objectivity for the case for abortion.
Perhaps you can muster up the brain power to respond in a rational way?
"Our society is HIGHLY intolerant of intellectual, rational and detailed arguments and explanations of policy."
So, they were intolerant of black people too, yet that didn't stop some for arguing the side of what was objectively *right*.
"Whitaker’s “historic” comments were about the youth participating in the political process; not about getting a black guy into the white house."
Right.
"to write off every single Obama supporter by stereotyping them as one of these few is intellectually dishonest."
But I didn't, hasty generalizations and false accusations are not intellectually honest.
"As I mentioned earlier, I never claimed that Whitaker engaged in a substantive dissertation of economics – nice Straw Man argument (thanks for crow-barring that into my mouth). All I said was that his appeal was not as overly simplistic or racially motivated as you wrote it off as being."
Let's see what "Seth" said:
"Contrary to your other criticism, he talked specifically, and at length, about economic issues like poverty, unemployment, and access to health care (even quoting statistics)"
"The president of the Black Student Union who introduced Whitaker never claimed that Whitaker was an “authority;” he said that anything he has his hand in is “one of a kind and special.”
Right, because he was a good actor. Why think that EVERYTHING is "one of a kind and special?" He prefaced that with his comments about his acting.
I mean, you even quote where he supports my take:
"Now, Mr. Whitaker has won over 20 major awards including an Oscar – and that is definitely a hint to say that anything he has his hand in is definitely one of a kind and special."
Huh??? How so???
Winning *acting* awards is a "hint" that ANYTHING Whitaker has his hand in is one of a kind and special. How does that follow, at all? My doctor has won medical awards, doesn't mean he's a good auto mechanic.
Classic argument from authority. I'd read an informal fallacy text if I were you.
"Nothing about that is attempting to “fallaciously” grant Forest Whitaker “authority” in politics based simply on the fact that he’s an award-winning actor."
Now you can see you're wrong.
"What’s interesting about the rally (that isn’t really visible in the video) is that the vast majority of the audience is white."
So?
"It strikes me that every single one of these claims you’re making is entirely subjective;"
What "strikes you" as something doesn't equal out into an "argument." Perhaps you can muster up the resources to actually make a good argument rather than bare naked assertions.
"A blog as heavily-invested in illogical emotional appeals as yours"
Except you haven't *demonstrated* this, Seth. You've not named one fallacy or appeal to emotion.
Oh, btw, Seth, how does your theory explain all the data???
ReplyDeleteSee, Whitaker has given the SAME EXACT SPEECH to OTHER groups that were not made up of "young people"????????
http://blog.mlive.com/chronicle/2008/10/forest_whitaker_stumps_for_bar.html
Other people have noticed this about Whitaker's argument too,
"Marianne Harris-Darnell, chairwoman of Muskegon's Black Women's Political Caucus, reminded the predominantly African American audience in attendance that the U.S stood on the verge of making history -- electing the county's first African American president. Harris-Darnell introduced Whitaker when he arrived."
So, why will a bunch of *adults* make history?
Anyway, don't know why you all fired up, after all, those emotional non-intellectual comments from Obama will work better than good arguments.
You'll also notice the "make history" and "black" connection in Whitaker's celebrity colleagues too
ReplyDeletehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26438743/wid/17153378/
It’s pretty standard fair Whitaker was giving.
Anyway, you can lead a horse to water.
Oh, btw, who you’re voting for isn’t the reason I made the head comment. I’d make the same comment if you told me you were voting for McCain. I don’t think just because someone votes for McCain they have their head screwed on right. In fact, I’m not voting *for* McCain but *against* Obama and McCain is the way I can do the most damage to that end.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteSorry for taking ten days to respond (and even longer with this post); I work two jobs so I unfortunately I can’t spend all of my time responding to blog posts.
It works like this:
1) Our society is rife with inequity.
2) It is immoral to allow that inequity to stand.
3) Voting for Barack Obama is one thing you can do to address that inequity.
That’s an argument (with a call to action, no less).
A *non-sequitor* is what you just rebutted my observation with; you did indeed criticize Whitaker for his simplistic argument, and in doing so you’re giving a pass to everyone else stumping for other candidates with similar simplistic arguments. I did a cursory pass through the posts for the past couple of months and can’t find any where you address any candidates other than Obama.
The basis for your criticism of Forrest Whitaker’s stumping for Obama is what makes you a hypocrite – because every single other candidate (even the third-party candidates) has celebrities of one type or another running around the country making brief stump speeches on their behalf to help turn out their supporters on election day.
Your criticism should be of our electoral process in general (and it is, according to your subsequent comments). All I’m saying is that one single candidate shouldn’t be singled out and made into the whipping post for what the lot of them are doing.
If you had criticized the “Our Country Deserves Better PAC” for its appearance in Grand Rapids, or the McCain campaign for its Sept. 17 “town hall” appearance (which was just as devoid of details and specifics as Forest Whitaker’s appearance in spite of being four times as long) that would be one thing.
Throwing out Hitler’s name is a reductio ad absurdum argument intended to devalue Whitaker’s claims in support of (as you said) your claim that “making history” is an invalid reason to support someone. You could have used any absurd and unlikely figure for the analogy (Bugs Bunny, Homer Simpson, Captain America) but you settled on Hitler. The problem is, Hitler’s name is the most politically-charged firebomb anyone can toss out, and I don’t buy that you’re so coy you’re unaware of that.
If you read up on logical fallacies, then you know that your claim is a straw man argument because that wasn’t what Whitaker was arguing. Whitaker argued that Obama is a better choice to address the problems of the country, which is why he should get one’s vote. He happened to note that this was a historic election and that the youth of America were poised to play a historic role (which they did – turning out in the highest numbers since the 70s).
I’ve checked Triablogue’s archives; there’s plenty of content about theology and philosophy – but unfortunately for you, at the exact time you were criticizing Whitaker for superficiality – the blog you’re on was demonstrating a perfectly-timed commitment to superficiality and red meat during the run-up to the election.
Sidebar: For someone so versed in logic, you seem awfully prone to ad hominem arguments (and redundant ones at that).
With respect to our society’s lack of patience for rationality and detail in explanations of policy, I’m not even sure you know what you’re arguing against. You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that because I make an observation about the tendencies of our current political process I’m also endorsing them. I’m not.
Either you’re woefully inarticulate, or you did indeed generalize that all Obama supporters are superficial flakes who you allege are bowing to a Hitler-like “racist” who is “evil” for invoking racial inequalities. You even attempted to validate your blanket assertion by noting that a panel of “blacks and browns” on NPR admitted that everyone of their ilk was going to be voting along racial lines.
As for the introduction of Whitaker by the BSU president; again nothing about what was said was an attempt to “fallaciously” grant Forest Whitaker “authority” in politics based simply on the fact that he’s an award-winning actor. He was highlighting the fact that this is an indisputably unique election, and Barack Obama is a unique candidate.
Whitaker spoke in Muskegon Heights – but I see very little similarity in the scant few quotes that were posted in that article. Speaking of data – do you have a transcript you’d like to post so we can compare the two?
Why will a bunch of adults make history? Because “young people” aren’t the only ones making history with their involvement; there were a large proportion of older individuals (long disenfranchised) who had never voted before that were being turned out to play a role having been inspired by the Obama campaign. The spokesperson even notes this in the article:
"It's not enough to put out a sign," said Nicole Young, a West Michigan field operator for the Obama campaign. "It's not enough get people to register to vote. Some of those people have never voted before in their lives."
Here’s some “data” for you:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/06/new.voters.ap/
http://www.cpbn.org/program/youth-vote/episode/youth-vote-epilogue
http://elections.gmu.edu/voterfile_2008.html