I think that’s about the best speech that Romney can give and by far the best I’ve seenfrom Romney . He found the range on the whole “fairness” thing. It also comes across pretty authentic-seeming. You can believe that Romney believes his optimism/business class meritocracy (as distinct from Obama crony capitalist)/economic growth/rising living standards stuff. Romney’s speechwriter or speechwriters deserve a lot of credit and Romney too.
One small quibble. the stuff on Greek columns was small and unfortunate. It isn’t even good at being cynical politics. If you remember and resent that Obama had Greek columns at his Democratic National Convention speech, then you already aren’t voting for Obama. If you don’t remember the Greek columns, Romney’s speech momentarily became a little harder to follow.
April 24th, 2012 | 8:52 pm
“It also comes across pretty authentic-seeming.”
I’m not sure if the inclusion of “seeming” is completely unnecessary or completely damning…
April 24th, 2012 | 8:57 pm
Maybe neither? Though I get your point and it is quite funny. Sometimes seeming is the best we can do. I bought the message of the speech on an emotional level and I’m pretty cynical about Romney (though I’ve voted for him in the past and expect to vote for him again in November.)
April 25th, 2012 | 1:16 pm
Dynamite speech.
April 26th, 2012 | 9:29 pm
The Greek columns thing was perhaps a bit too esoteric, but it pointed toward the imagery of both candidate Obama and president Obama as being larger than life that is entirely real in a version of the public imagination.
That is to say, the remark on Greek columns pointed toward the image of the transcendent Obama who was beyond race and politics in that that vision seemingly attracted many lukewarm supporters who hoped for something in politics that wouldn’t be same old, same old.
If the Romney campaign can point out how president Obama is himself exemplary of the same old, same old–then the critique of the president as exemplifying empty and dangerously utopian rhetoric is fitting.
But that means that Romney won’t exemplify same old, same old himself–and this is a hardly persuasive. If he follows this game, Romney finds himself as must needing to use such grandiose rhetoric to combat a false version of president Obama’s version of grandiosity.
I think this sort of critique of Obama’s charisma and salvific role can go too far, and it may seem to be mean spirited and personal. But in terms of a ridicule of the trope of the president’s alleged greatness and coolness, it is not bad for those former supporters who after the last three years have been brought down to earth regarding the president’s superhuman powers.
Needless to say, no one wants to be reminded of the fact that they were snookered by cheap marketing techniques, and the danger of Romney emphasizing “Greek columns” and the like (and there is a cornucopia of instances of the president’s self-grandiosity) is that Romney comes across as ridiculing those former Obama voters/potential Romney voters as being easily misled and therefore stupid.
It is true that the president can easily be ridiculed for his regular mistaking the extraordinary instance his own personal ambition with the larger destiny and purpose of the nation over which he holds the office of president. His grand rhetorical claims can be shown to be in league with his obviously pandering populism to particular groups like “women,” “students,” and “Hispanics.” The Obama mystique can be easily ridiculed in tandem with the failure of his presidency, and it ought to be.
However, ridiculing Obama’s most outlandish and self aggrandizing statements needs to be confronted with an alternative other than the equally vacuous rhetoric and gesture. Speaking of American optimism and can-doism is good, but is it enough?
Still, I don’t think it is a bad idea to point out president Obama’s pomposity, arrogance and narcissism.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact