The Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention, while quite different in rhetoric, had one similar feature: a speech made by the wife of the candidate. Both Ann Romney and Michelle Obama delivered heartfelt speeches attesting to the characters of their husbands, their solid, down-to-earth goodness, their humble beginnings, and their love of family and The American Way.
But the question is, why? Do voters really need to know about how the presidential candidates met their wives, or spend their weekends? No matter how charming it is that Ann and Mitt met at a high school dance, or that Barack and Michelle's life pre-Washington was "filled with simple joys. Saturdays at soccer games, Sundays at grandma's house," the rundown of the candidate's home lives seem like something of a non sequiter.
The fact is, these speeches disguise, either cleverly or not-so-cleverly, an attempt to woo voters that are facing financial hardships. "Humanizing the candidates" is one thing, but these speeches have a greater purpose: convincing voters that even the rich politicians spending millions on their campaigns have had their own troubles. Ann describes the humble basement apartment that she and Mitt moved into, where their "dining room table was a fold down ironing board in the kitchen," and Michelle fondly remembers the car that Barack would pick her up in "that was so rusted out, [she] could actually see the pavement going by in a hole in the passenger side door." These anecdotes, while they do not attest to the current policy of the candidates, are meant to give the voter something to relate to in these trying economic times.
What do you think? Do the "humble beginnings" of the Obamas or the Romneys convince you that they care about the lower income brackets? Is there a place for talking about the personality of candidates in a political debate?
You can watch Ann Romney's full speech here. The full video Michelle Obama's speech is not yet available.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The presidential wives' reminiscing of the "tough times" are clever appeals to pathos; however, they are not indications of the presidential candidates'devotion to the interests of lower income citizens. This is especially true when such speeches are followed by a yacht party held exclusively for those who have raised over one million dollars for Romney's campaign. If he is truly concerned for the financially challenged, perhaps he should find a way other than throwing parties aboard 150-foot long yachts to thank his donors. They probably have their own yachts anyway--a simple thank-you card would suffice.
While the candidates' wives do humanize their husbands as well as themselves, the way in which they attempt to do this is somewhat facetious. Romney's dad was the head of an auto company and later the Governor of Michigan. Obama attended the most prestigious private school in Hawaii and went to Ivy League schools. His Grandmother, who was constantly referenced in Michelle Obama's speech last night, hit the "glass ceiling" which turned out to be the vice president of a bank in Hawaii. Basically, the humanizing stories of the candidates' poverty and hard work to escape it have to be taken with a grain of salt because both these candidates are not just your "average bear" and their stories are modified for the purpose of winning over voters.
The president's "story" has always played a big part in presidential campaigns. And the cynic in me says that there is a large amount of Americans who aren't well versed in politics enough to really understand what each candidate's platforms mean and how it will affect them, so they vote based on as Paniz said, pathos. Ann and Michelle's speeches and the personal stories of the candidates play a huge part in the votes they get.
While I do agree that these speeches help to humanize the candidates, I don't think that they should be involved in politics. In our reading "People of Paradox" there was a quote that stated that because of our expectations "politicians must be all things to all people." These speeches are an obvious attempt to gain support from the lower classes and to emphasize each candidate's ability to relate to average Americans. These speeches, although beneficial to the candidate's image, have nothing to do with policy or what kind of president they will be and unnecessarily take up time.
Post a Comment