Today, as I was clicking around various political/new-related links posted by friends and follows on Facebook and Twitter, I came across this article: Teddy Roosevelt on the Estate Tax, 100 Years Ago.
It's definitely worth a read, especially since it's very short. I agree with TR wholeheartedly, but I'm actually not interested in discussing the estate tax. What I'm thinking about today is a question I've heard from many of my young politically-minded friends; that is, "Why do historical figures sound so much more eloquent than modern people?" Usually, I dismiss it because it tends to fall under the category of "Things were so much better back in [some arbitrary time]." However, I think there may be a case to be made that speech in political rhetoric is far less eloquent than it used to be.
Here's a sample of Teddy's speech, if you happened to not click on the link (jerk):
We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community … The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.The reason I think this is a fairly good example is that this speech isn't particularly flowery. TR meant for this speech to be accessible to his audience (which was probably less literate than a modern one) and there aren't a whole lot of "big words" in it. To modern folk it may present a challenge, but only because some words aren't used as commonly anymore. We probably wouldn't say that something "by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind..." Rather, a politician might say "Extreme wealth is inherently different from middle-class savings because..." or a regular person might just say "Having lots of money is different from living paycheck-to-paycheck because..."
However, even these examples are hard to come up with because I find it unlikely that anyone would talk about these issues in this way. This is why it seems to me that our standards for eloquence in rhetoric have declined. TR was making an argument for something he believed in: progressive income and estate taxes to fund social initiatives like child labor laws and minimum wage laws for women. The words are less accessible now but, for people who understand it, the point becomes wonderful and reasonable rather than just an opinion and I don't think our current language is incapable of doing this.
Why is this the case? Well, first, it should be said that we definitely ascribe heavier meaning to archaic sounding speech. And why shouldn't we? It makes sense that only the most significant (inspired, blasphemous, prejudiced) examples survive to be remembered. This is why we don't have quotes from Thomas Jefferson which describe what he ate for breakfast.
One of the big reasons, I think, that things have changed is that pernicious concept of objectivity. In the '90s especially it became very important for talking heads on the 24-hour news channels to never voice anything that could be construed as an opinion. "Are there WMDs in Iraq?" became irrelevant because the Democrats said the answer was "no" so, therefore, it must be an opinion. This being the case, it's not that our language doesn't contain that amount of meaning and passion, it's that opinions aren't worth defending anymore because they're just the counter to someone else's opinion which we have no interest in debating. People, maybe, have become so entrenched in their ideas that taking the time to persuade someone is a waste when you could just yell louder or come up with a more convincing graphic.
These are all the unorganized thoughts I have for today's topic. Let me know what you think. Maybe my next creative project will be taking a political opinion I feel strongly about and trying to write a similarly-eloquent speech explaining my point-of-view. I encourage you to do the same.
