Presidents and Poets. (5)

To conclude her essay, Smith discloses: "In this lecture I have been seeking to tentatively suggest that the voice that speaks with such freedom, thus unburdened by dogma and personal bias, thus flooded with empathy, might make a good president" (192). However, she rejects this claim by advocating for the many-voiced role of the poet. What is the difference between the rhetoric of a president and that of a poet? Does Smith suggest there should be a difference?

Smith states that Obama "doesn't just speak for his people. He can speak them" (182). When speaking as a president, you must always be able to speak the voices of your nations' citizens. This is because you are representing the leader of the nation, and you often in time must speak what your country's people want. You know what they want to hear, because you know what they want you to accomplish. Unfortunately this rhetoric of a president does not please everyone, as he can only speak some of the ideas of his people, not all. This inevitably causes a dislike for the president from different groups that see differently. This causes tension between the president and the citizens, but there is really nothing one can do. A poet on the other hand has no issues with different voices. That is one of the factors to the art of poetry. The poet or the poem is often an enigma...giving the reader or audience to interpret the work on their own. By having several voices, the poet may give cause a reaction in the reader that he or she may not have intended to create. There is no significant difference in the rhetoric of poets and presidents, only a slight one, as poets reach the wants of their readers in a discrete way, allowing the audience to decide for themselves how to interpret what they are saying. Presidents on the other hand must be speak as a confident leader, disclosing their ideas clearly. However, both need to be able to open up their voices and ears to their audiences and be flexible with their words as much as possible. I think Smith views this in a similar sense as she states, "I believe that flexibility of voice leads to a flexibility in all things. My audacious hope in Obama is based, I'm afraid, on precisely such flimsy premises" (194).