President vs. Poet- 5 of 12

To conclude her essay, Zadie 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?

 

At first glance, one may think how can we compare the president to a poet. Well I know I did. They’re both at opposite ends of the spectrum. But then at a closer glance, if you really think about it, they’re pretty similar. Both of them manipulate language in a manner which the audience is moved by. Looking solely at Barack Obama’s speeches, he has such a way with words in which he moves his audience. He brings the nation together as one. As Smith pointed out, down south he talks about Wall Street and up north he talks about the south. One does not have to agree with him, but he knows how to move an audience.  Even Zadie Smith agrees on this.
A poet is very similar to a President. Like a president, they manipulate the language and create a speech, an argument, a statement and much more. Each piece a poet writes may generally have one voice, but then their entire collection can have different voices. There shouldn’t be a problem because the poet has freedom to express themselves through any form. Like anyone, they have the right to have different voices on different aspects.