Poets vs. Presidents (5/12)

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?


Smith advocates that the president should be a "trimmer" in the positive sense- neither entirely here nor there, but skating in the middle and delving into multiple voices at once. Therefore I disagree with the assertion that Smith suggests a distinct difference between the voice of a president and the voice of a poet. From the text, I understood it that she believed a flexibility in voice was beneficial to both of them.  She praised Obama's ability to speak candidly, professionally, and to address each region in a way that would suit them best- she calls him the man from the City of Dreams, and suggests that poetry comes from the Dreamland itself. I believe that Smith thinks a poet should be able to use each voice more distinctly while a president should be able to move between them with careful, precise fluidity; but that the ability to float between voices is a positive trait entirely.