Presidential Pronouns

Presidential Pronouns --> Originally publised at Faithfully Liberal
By Pastor Bob Cornwall

I don’t know if we should make too much of the way a person uses pronouns. But, being that I am a preacher, I do know a thing about how pronouns are used in speech. Preachers have to be careful about using “I” and “you.” There are, of course places where I is important if a sermon is to have any personal component. And at times we must make an invitation to the congregation – that’s you. But more often than not preachers use “we” and “us.” We like to include ourselves in the call to the community to act.

Presidential pronouns tend to have a slightly different sense to them. This is especially true for candidates. If you’ve been listening to the candidates of late, you may notice a difference, especially on the Democratic side. Have you wondered what this means?

Hillary Clinton uses “I.” She touts her “experience” and her willingness to fight. Barack Obama, on the other hand, more often than not uses “we.” The differences could be stylistic and not worth our attention. But, they could also speak volumes about intent and purpose. They could illuminate important differences in how they see their role and how they might govern should they be elected in November.

Hillary’s “I” seems to suggest that if elected “she” will do what is necessary to achieve her agenda. In her speeches and pronouncements I get the sense (and this true of others as well) that she will use a top-down form of governance. She and her advisers will decide what is important what is good for the nation – Remember GW’s use of the word “Decider”?

Barack’s “we” seems to suggest a more collaborative approach. Such an approach is often used by charismatic leaders who can gather together disparate voices and encourage their working together. Many consider Hillary to have a more substantive “plan” than Obama. But that may be intentional. If you are going to operate from a more command model, you need clear blueprints, but if you’re going to use a more collaborative approach, detailed plans can get in the way. Yes, you need a vision and a sense of purpose. You need to know where you’re going, even if all the details aren’t in place. Obama is a movement politician – which is why he uses “we.” A community organizer, by trade, he understands the importance of the grassroots and of listening to the people.

Movement politics isn’t as orderly, but I think it has the potential to bring more effective plans into existence. I don’t think that Obama will jump into quagmires like Iraq, because he’ll bring together people to consider the issues. Now, in emergencies he’ll have to act quickly and decisively, but this is really an on-the-job kind of training. George Bush is a Decider kind of leader, and he’s not shown good judgment. He doesn’t seem to listen and so we’ve gotten ourselves into trouble.

The choice is before us. A movement or a Decider (McCain and Hillary are, it would seem, Deciders).