Political Pageantry

There's nothing more appealing to fashion enthusiasts than a fashion show. A series of stick figures strutting their shapely frames across a lighted floor, posing against a symbolic backdrop, pausing with attitude, maybe a quick wink at the audience. Sharp features, appealing colors, the melody of their heels smacking the ground with confidence. Fashion shows are more than a showcase of designer work, they're an art form that specializes in appeal. The wider the audience it appeals to, the more successful.

It shares these same features with dramatized competition (ex. America's Got Talent, American Idol), toddler pageants, and...let's not forget...political conventions. With the RNC and DNC coming to a close this past couple of weeks, we saw the same symbolic backdrops, confident speakers, and done-up makeup as we do in the Ms. Universe pageant. All that was missing was Obama in a bathing suit.
Through it all however, intellectuals, or so I thought, kept a steady head. We know it's a show, we're not going to get sucked into it. Let's talk about the issues. 

It seems, however, that I may be mistaken. In a discussion I had recently with a group of college students who were watching the conventions, their talk didn't revolve around ridiculing the clearly manipulative messages, the slandering of actual facts, or anything of the like. Instead it focused on, in particular, an analysis of the speech givers speeches. I can see the appeal. Many college students with any aspiration will probably become public speakers themselves, in some form. Respecting a good public speaker, and learning from them, can be of great benefit.

But when did American policy become a speech competition? It seems rising intellectuals are falling for  political pageantry in a different way. Instead of falling for the showmanship of each party, they fall under a different mind control, one created by their own emphasis on analysis. For example, several students discussed how Mrs. Romney's speech lacked heart. There wasn't enough real (aka well-faked) conviction in her words, not enough to grab women votes. Others discussed Obama's speech, comparing it to his speeches at the last DNC four years ago. Instead of focusing on the actual issues, the discussion revolved around whether or not Obama would try another "hope" speech, or would he speak in a more grounded manner, what type of tone he would use, etc. The comments went as far as to recommend which type of speech would grab more votes. It's obvious these students know the goal of each speech, to grab votes, they know it's a show, so why is there such a big focus on it?

Someone might speak better. So what? It's the same show, just with a better actor. Are intellectuals accepting this speech competition as a legitimate indicator of a government's success? While much of America was sucked into the pageantry by the celebrity guests and the red, blue, and white, these students became trapped in contrast, by their own doing, by almost respecting the show rather than seeing through it. They applauded Obama's speech, not for what he said, but for how he said it.

And while college students don't speak for the entire intellectual community, as the forefront of the new generation, it was disappointing to see how they can still be controlled not by what the president may say, but simply by their analysis of how he says it. As future speech givers themselves, I'm sure many students were impressed by Obama's ability to move the public. A talent that has much less than do with ruling a nation, and more to do with gaining power within one.

On a very fundamental basis - Obama giving a great speech will make NO DIFFERENCE to the benefit of the economy, it will make NO DIFFERENCE to healthcare, what will make a difference is his plan, and what he plans to do. Yes, a better speech is great, it inspires, it provides hope, but it is not a qualification for presidency, just a benefit.

Why can't we see past that? Is it because we ignore the past (Obama's hope speech before the economy got worse, was phenomenal)? 

I can understand those who may say, a good speech can be good for the nation. Those who believe Obama's plan is a better plan are fully justified in applauding his speech for helping ensure his return to the white house. But their applause should be strategic, with the ultimate goal in mind, to put Obama's plan into action, not because the speech itself might have some direct affect on future policy. Sadly, it didn't seem like this strategic motivation was the reason behind these student's analysis of the candidates speeches. The conversation felt narrow minded, focused on the personae of the future president. As if another moving speech would somehow end the war in Iraq. 

Side note: I chose to focus on Obama here because he can actually speak. Don't get me started on Mitt Romney.