1. Obama’s speech yesterday was almost unbearably boring. It is tough to imagine anybody keeping focused on the whole speech who wasn’t being paid to do so. But boring doesn’t mean ineffective. Pete Hegseth got it about right. The purpose of last night’s speech was to make Obama seem like a moderate reasonable guy proposing reasonable, common sense policies. For these purposes, the general impression is more important than any particular moment. Obama can bring a certain kind of boring that is reassuring to the nonideological listener.
Yes. Can’t cut… our way…to prosperity. Sleepy now.
2. My totally unscientific survey result (not really a survey) is that Obama’s minimum wage proposal made the biggest impact yesterday. The minimum wage isn’t a top voting issue for most people, but that isn’t the point. People know Obama is for something they are for (rightly or wrongly.) It is a connection to (some of) their lives. Republicans need policies that make real world connections based on better policies.
February 13th, 2013 | 9:00 pm
One of the President’s many rhetorical tropes is the use of the phrase “common sense”: he possesses it and his proposals and policies flow from it; disagreement, ipso facto, must have irrational sources and motives.
February 14th, 2013 | 6:23 am
Americans love common sense. Haven’t we heard wildly disparate political proposals called common sense? You’re right, Paul, and I’ll raise you “balanced approach” as used by the president, which means any other proposal must be unbalanced, never mind that what he is proposing seems skewed or even loopy.
February 15th, 2013 | 11:35 am
[...] Narcotics Have A Purpose – Pete Spiliakos, First Things [...]
February 15th, 2013 | 1:43 pm
Not an Obama fan, but I’ll defend his use of “common sense.” For one, there is the revolutionary-era pamphlet of Thomas Paine — not that many products of public schools would recognize the reference. More to the point, everyone thinks that their view is, or at least should be considered, common sense. That’s why they hold it and not an opposing view. I think this is preferable to relativism.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact