 | | John Kerry in testifying front of Congress in 1971 |
|
Two weeks ago, I saw an episode of the
Dick Cavett Show from June 1971 on C-SPAN. Although this talk show was taped years before I was born, it was surprisingly significant and relevant now, some 33 years later. Featured on the show were two young Vietnam War veterans, a man named John O’Neill representing a group called
Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace and a certain John Kerry, spokesman for
Vietnam Veterans Against the War, each presenting opposing views of the war in progress. President Richard Nixon had personally met with John O’Neill and dispatched him to debate against John Kerry, whose anti-Vietnam stance was gaining momentum and had Nixon worried. The show was like a time capsule. I was struck most not by the content of the debate, but by how two unrelated things have changed noticeably for the worse in the past three decades: the quality of American television talk shows, and John Kerry’s speaking style.
The Dick Cavett Show debate lasted close to 90 minutes, minus a number of commercial breaks, and for once, it was refreshing to see two young, eloquent people present their views without constant harassment from the moderator. In 2004, TV figures like Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity can’t seem to go 12 seconds without abusing their guests with snide remarks, sighs, laughs, and groans. Bill O’Reilly even tells his guests to “shut up.” Most talk show hosts are so self-indulgent and impatient that they won’t let their guests finish a sentence, let alone make a point. You’ve probably seen them: their shows feature dozens of sound bites, dramatic video feeds, fancy graphics and music, participants yelling and screaming in an effort to be heard above each other. These can hardly be considered news shows; they’re more like the evil love children of Ricki Lake and Survivor masquerading as “legitimate sources of information.” A cross between a melodramatic daytime talk show and a reality series, showcasing loud, obnoxious, maladapted guys in suits instead of loud, obnoxious, maladapted people in bikini tops or army pants. Let’s call each other names instead of discussing the facts! Every word should be screamed out as if it merits an exclamation point!
In contrast, on the Dick Cavett show, each guest was allowed a long opening statement without interruption. John O’Neill went first. His introduction was factual and to the point. Although he did lob a few insults at John Kerry regarding Kerry’s anti-war activities, his assertions were focused on the arguments he was making, and even the jabs were based on his anger caused by what he considered a misleading portrayal by Kerry of something O’Neill was personally involved in. I was deeply impressed by John O’Neill’s observations. He explained that the U.S. government was following the right policies despite the challenges in Vietnam, detailed the reasons why the war was morally right, and praised the military for doing a commendable job under the circumstances. O’Neill felt that progress was being made to the point where America’s objectives could be met, and the Americans could hand over sovereignty to the South Vietnamese administration, and then pull out of Southeast Asia. (Sound familiar?)
 | | The John Kerry of 2004 is not the John Kerry of 1971 |
|
John Kerry then had the chance to respond to O’Neill. In his answer, Kerry was animated, used inflection, and had a clear, sharp voice. He rebutted O’Neill’s statement with wit and pulled out facts and statistics of his own. His position was that the campaign had begun to fail, and America was perpetrating human rights abuses in the process. The conversation continued for the duration of the show, remaining at what seems now like a startlingly “adult” level throughout. Both guests brought notes, books, and articles, and quoted from them frequently. Dick Cavett remained entirely neutral throughout, interjecting occasionally only to clarify points for the audience. Meanwhile, I sat back in awe. Nothing that I’ve seen on TV in recent memory could compete with that high level of discourse. My friends of an older generation often lament that television programming simply used to be more sophisticated back then. The Lucille Ball Show aside, I’m beginning to conclude that the old-timers have a point.
Fast forward to 2004. So what has changed in 33 years? I don’t know what became of John O’Neill’s speaking skills, but John Kerry is out there touring the nation, displaying his cold demeanor, high-handed tone, and monotone voice. The same boring speeches aren’t helping define him in a positive way: “Benedict Arnold” companies, outsourcing, and mystery foreign leaders who would rather have him as America’s president than George W. Bush. We’ve seen this before, all too recently. Al Gore shot himself in the foot in 2000 with a monotone style that made him seem cocky, and nerdy. The American people don’t want a smart prick as their president.
Gore 2000 spoke and debated as if he hadn’t been properly trained in public speaking, an opinion I later formed about Kerry as well when I observed him campaigning for the Democratic primaries in late 2003 and early 2004. But after watching that episode of Dick Cavett, I concluded that Kerry’s reality is far sadder: once upon a time, he had been an eloquent speaker. He projected such a powerful presence on that show that it’s puzzling to watch the John Kerry of 2004. Whether nowadays he’s muzzled by his handlers or he lost his verve in old age, we’re left with a watered-down, undistinguished Kerry public persona destined to lock him out of the White House. And on top of it, a lamentably Attention Deficit Disorder-induced news media to cover the whole process.
