Obama’s Acceptance Speech: Deliberately Re-Considered

Just about all observers seemed to agree that the Democratic Convention, with the speeches by Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton highlighted, was an unqualified success, especially when compared to the Republican convention and the speeches of Ann Romney, Congressman Ryan and Governor Romney. Post convention polls and political events confirm this assessment. A narrative was set up by the Democrats, establishing expectations for the President and the Governor, and in the past couple of weeks, they each have been following the Democrats’ narrative, suggesting electoral success, with the prospects for a strengthened Obama Presidency. The political conventions were significant theatrical performances. The Democrats had a hit, apparently with lasting effects.

Romney the unsteady parochial plutocrat, who doesn’t understand the daily struggles of ordinary Americans or the complex and difficult global challenges: witness the private Boca Raton fundraiser and the response to his response to the crisis in Egypt, Libya and the Muslim world. Obama the elegant warm leader, carefully calibrating American response to the crisis in North Africa and the Islamic world and understanding the concerns of “the middle class,” a man who responds to the Romney gaffes with well timed amusement and understated criticism.

But Obama’s acceptance speech received mixed reviews. It was judged to have missed the mark, by the left, right and center, and has been overlooked as it contributed to the convention’s success. The criticism came from all angles: not enough specifics about how the second term would differ from the first, on the one hand, too much like a State of the Union address (i.e. too policy oriented, not inspirational enough) on the other. And then there was David Brooks, who truly irked me, complaining that Obama lacked a clearly identifiable singular political project that would define his second term as healthcare defined his first.

The responses indicated to me less about critical judgment of the President’s address, more about the conflicting expectations Obama faced and, I believe, successfully addressed. This was substantially represented by the false choice Brooks asserted Obama had to make: focus on environmental degradation, economic growth and social justice, or fiscal responsibility and tax reform. This would clearly be bad politics and weaken governing prospects.

Jeffrey C. Alexander’s gets to the point in his piece today at The Huffington Post, though I think he exaggerates a little:

Voters do not decide whom to vote for by weighing their objective costs and benefits. They are not calculating machines, but emotional and moral human beings. Searching for the meanings of things, they want to make sense of political life, working out a grand narrative of where we’ve been, where we are now, and where we’re going in the future.

Well, perhaps weighing costs and benefits plays some role. But clearly, a good believable story, addressing costs, benefits and interests (think jobs, taxes and healthcare), given by an appealing statesman, is extremely important. People imagine a relationship with a potential leader and their linked fortunes, and decide which way to go.

As Alexander put it about Romney:

With Obama’s help, [the] Romney-character emerged as Bain ‘Capitalist,’ the quarter-billionaire who won’t tell us about his taxes and parked his hidden money offshore. Romney may have brain power, but he lacks symbolic soul. His character signifies self over community, a glad hander who’ll tell us what we want to hear, not what he deeply believes.

In contrast, Alexander continues, the President presented himself in a new sober role: “At least for now, Obama can no longer be a hero, but he can be represented,” indeed he successfully presented himself, “as working heroically for our side.”

Brooks and the other pundits misjudged Obama, as they didn’t seem to appreciate the method to his apparent madness, a cool speech in the middle of a hot political environment. Performing his political persona, revealing his character, showing the electorate and the world his serious authoritative stance in very trying times.

I listen to Obama’s speeches with a deep appreciation. If he makes a rhetorical move that I didn’t expect and don’t at first understand, I start by questioning myself, not him. Such, for example, was how I listened to his inaugural address. Commentators judged it to be a downer, below Obama’s campaign norm. Sitting in my community center with friends and neighbors, I also was a little disappointed. But looking back, it was the properly sober speech for sobering times, pointing to the very real difficulties ahead, rather than celebrating victory and imagining dreams. He understood the situation we are in and spoke to it in persuasive ways.

This is exactly what he did in his convention speech. He understood that the warmth of his personality was portrayed by his wife. That the policy debate, celebrating what he has accomplished and contrasting his program and its seriousness with that of his rivals, was expertly presented by Bill Clinton. Indeed that all different facets of the Democrats program and appeal were represented in a wide variety of speeches about woman’s rights and dignity, a truly diverse view of American citizenship and rights, concern for veterans and national defense (this not always to my liking) and much more. Obama revealed his character, his sound judgment, his understanding of the situation we are in, as individuals and as a nation. Review the speech and see how well this was done. It’s interesting to me to note that on YouTube over three and a half million people have viewed the video, suggesting that many are deliberately re-considering the speech.