A quick hit tonight.

Jonathan Yardley reviews "Doing Our Own Thing: The Degradation of Language and Music and Why We Should, Like, Care" by John McWhorter at washingtonpost.com. [link] McWhorter's point, in brief, is that, much to his lament, modern formal writing and oratory have lost their eloquence and power.

In the review, Yardley quotes an amusing (and trenchant) observation from McWhorter's book, which made me laugh out loud at the same time that it made me feel profoundly sad that oratory skill is no longer required in our leaders:

Here would seem to be the place where I am supposed to launch into a fulmination about how inarticulate George W. Bush is. Many have rued that Bush's almost bizarre clumsiness with the English language ('I know what it's like to put food on my family,' etc.) comes off as folksy and accessible to voters, which would underscore my point about our devaluation of articulateness. But Bush's malaprops go far beyond the rustic or relaxed, and from what I see, Americans of all political stripes see high comedy in Bushspeak. It is more to the point that the way he talks has not prevented him from becoming President. Candidates bite the dust for being untelegenic, dour, visible present-day philanderers, too strident, or looking silly posing in a tank -- but both Bushes show that having trouble rubbing a noun and a verb together is not considered a mark against one in applying for the leadership of the land.

I think McWhorter has hit upon something here that goes to the point I made last week about failures to lead. A leader who cannot inspire others can't possibly be said to be leading, can he? People seem to think that oratorical skill is not valuable -- think about the relative esteem in which football teams and debate clubs are held in high schools across America. And yet, forceful oratory is one of the most potent forces that we can muster. If our President can't, as McWhorter put it, successfully rub a noun and a verb together, how can he lead us?

This is what puzzles me.