America is great because America is good

[Valley Oak]

‘America is great because America is good’: Deep thoughts of Hillary Clinton

Published on Jul 29, 2016
Deep thoughts of Hillary Clinton speaking at democratic national convention.

[Shandi]

Sounds to me like something a child might say. How can a country be "good"? How is a country judged? Food for deep thought....

Just after I posted, I found that this quote has been used before, but Hillary gave no reference to it:

“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

― Alexis de Tocqueville

[Valley Oak]

Excellent find, Shandi! If the 'great' Alexis de Tocqueville (he was French) said it about America in the early part of the 19th Century then Hillary has some support!

I just couldn't pass up the obvious poor logic in her words. Clinton's statement can be defended but it would have been much better if she had spoken more eloquently and America needs that more now than ever. The oversimplification of language and logic (if there is any) is already a negative hallmark of Trump. I wouldn't have said it, at least not the way she worded the essential idea or intent. And it remains ambiguous.

I voted for Sanders in the primary and I will proudly vote for Clinton this November.

In 2008, I voted for Hillary against Obama in the primary and later voted for Obama in the general election with great enthusiasm.

...

“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

[gypsey]

How about putting context around HC's quote. The substance of her speech is that America is great b/c its PEOPLE are good...and the ideas which formed it (e pluribus Unum.)

Excellent find, Shandi! If the 'great' Alexis de Tocqueville (he was French) said it about America in the early part of the 19th Century then Hillary has some support!

I just couldn't pass up the obvious poor logic in her words. Clinton's statement can be defended but it would have been much better if she had spoken more eloquently and America needs that more now than ever. The oversimplification of language and logic (if there is any) is already a negative hallmark of Trump. I wouldn't have said it, at least not the way she worded the essential idea or intent. And it remains ambiguous.

I voted for Sanders in the primary and I will proudly vote for Clinton this November.

In 2008, I voted for Hillary against Obama in the primary and later voted for Obama in the general election with great enthusiasm.

[Valley Oak]

Therein lies the problem...

The unreasonable expectation is that the audience has to guess the message correctly. I was taught in my English courses that I need to explain things clearly so that my readers are not confused by what I'm trying to tell them. If my readers don't understand what I'm trying to tell them then it is my fault, not theirs, that they are not getting the message that I'm trying to convey to them.

Furthermore, if a speaker or writer makes an assertion (and many assertions were made, of course, especially in a political speech) that does not make sense on its own then that is a failure to communicate on the part of the speaker/writer, not the audience.

"America is great because America is good" cannot stand alone--period! It is an absurd statement, even if the audience correctly guesses 'the context.' And expecting that the audience should be able to figure out the puzzle that the speaker gave them is unreasonable. This reminds me of 'doublespeak' in George Orwell's, "1984," and one of the most famous slogans of the former Soviet Union, "2 + 2 = 5." Even if 'taken in context,' '2 + 2 = 5' is a ridiculous statement. This also reminds me of the overly simplistic circular logic from Aldous Huxley's, "Brave New World," were to be good is to be gamma and to be gamma is to be good.

The objective truth is that the phrase is just plain wrong and makes Hillary look like someone who is, in a small way, 'going off the rails.' A person who says things that are confusing will only alienate people, not garner their votes for an important contest such as this one. Some folks will try and blame the intelligence of the audience for not getting it and this is a tragic mistake and is also disrespectful to the very people whose support is being sought.

Clinton made a mistake by using such a poor statement to help her win the presidency. She and her staff should not have allowed that flawed statement in her acceptance speech. It only served to further confuse and alienate American voters who are on the fence in this race and whom she needs in order to be elected POTUS.

How about putting context around HC's quote. The substance of her speech is that America is great b/c its PEOPLE are good...and the ideas which formed it (e pluribus Unum.)

[podfish]

Therein lies the problem...

The unreasonable expectation is that the audience has to guess the message correctly. I was taught in my English courses that I need to explain things clearly so that my readers are not confused by what I'm trying to tell them. If my readers don't understand what I'm trying to tell them then it is my fault, not theirs, that they are not getting the message that I'm trying to convey to them.

another inference is that maybe you're not the audience so the speaker wasn't trying to make sure you understood. She's also been challenged for giving details when platitudes are expected. Again, that's a case of the listener not being the intended audience. Now, whether the speaker is reaching the intended audience is something else altogether..

[Valley Oak]

Good feedback, as always, Peter.

Well, I am going to vote, proudly, for Hillary in November. If I'm not the intended audience, who is? I'd like to know the demos on them. Perhaps it is only the same people who have been supporting her since the beginning of her campaign. Granted, I voted for Sanders in the primary but that does not exclude me from what should also be her target audience (certainly if she wants to get Sanders' supporters on board with her now in the final stretch).

If my post challenges her for details when a subtle platitude was meant in her statement, "America is great...," then I hope I'm not in the same boat as Trump supporters and company (KKK, David Duke, etc).

I hope she reaches at least enough of the intended audience so that she gets elected. She has my vote all but guaranteed. She's had it from the beginning since I only supported Sanders because his message resonated with my political sentiments almost 100%. I have NEVER experienced that in my 55 years! But I knew that Hillary was going to win the primary anyway.

I know that Clinton is going to be a good president. I also know that she is going to do things that will disappoint me. That's the way politics works. I already know some of the areas of public policy where I disagree with her. I voted for Sanders in the primary because I liked his policy positions better than Clinton's.

another inference is that maybe you're not the audience so the speaker wasn't trying to make sure you understood. She's also been challenged for giving details when platitudes are expected. Again, that's a case of the listener not being the intended audience. Now, whether the speaker is reaching the intended audience is something else altogether..

[spam1]

Therein lies the problem...
The unreasonable expectation is that the audience has to guess the message correctly. I was taught in my English ... .

One problem today is that speakers must account for the ignorance of their audience, and she failed to do such.

Great is not the superlative of good. Great is a measure of magnitude (e.g. substantial, influential) whereas good is a measure of quality (i.e, moral). Thus the sentence could be paraphrased as "America is a substantial, influential nation because America is a moral nation". Not as pithy.

Voldemort (and Hitler) did great things; terrible things, yes, but great.
#Idontlikehitler -please don't say I admire Hitler even if you don't now understand the difference between good and great. I don't.

Left and Right have a chasm between them when we try to parse "good" or "moral". Religious people (i.e., Muslims, Catholics, Evangelicals, even some Buhdists) think changing laws to enforce their particular superstition w.r.t. proper behavior is the hallmark of a moral nation: thus their outrage over gay marriage, abortion, women driving cars, etc, which violate their self-imposed moral codes.

Progressives think that changing laws to enforce their particular code of "wise" behavior is the correct way be moral: hence the laws that require grown adults to wear motorcycle helmets, strong gun control laws, forced vaccinations, taxes on sugary drinks, and increased government regulation of many behaviors.

I would suppose the Founding Fathers would say a moral nation is one that respects the liberty of its citizens.

Finally, it is after all a campaign speech with a throw-away line, that isn't even from d'Tocqueville. Also incorrectly attributed to him: The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

Let me conclude by quoting d'Tocqueville "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"
.
.
.
#I_Know_It's_Not_d'Tocqueville!