A systematic analysis of whether the two candidate’s acceptance speeches were more forensic (past-oriented), demonstrative (present oriented) or deliberative (future oriented) could be performed by going through each speech with a set of colored markers and color coding every verb based on whether it appears in the past, present or future tense.
But after performing such an exercise (and jiggering the tally to remove verbs related to casual asides, such as the many “Thank You’s” that dot each speech), you would probably end up with the same impression you would get from watching and then close reading the same speech once or twice. Namely, that both candidates did a good job keeping their acceptance addresses focused on the future, making most of their presentation deliberative (as any good political speech should be).
I was amused to see even references to the past delivered in a deliberative fashion (as in President Obama’s statement that “…we’re not going back.” – with “going back” being something you actually do in the future).
Now there may be more than one explanation as to why both Mitt Romney and Barak Obama were so comfortable dwelling on what comes next, rather than what was or what is.
For example, perhaps they are both avid listeners to the Critical Voter podcast and through this exposure knew that they would be doing themselves a disservice by dwelling too much on assigning blame, i.e., dwelling on something that can’t be changed (the past). Or maybe, as professional politicians, they simply understand these rules instinctively (an answer that avoids a post-hoc fallacy on my part.)
Then there is the nature of the acceptance speeches that cap a weeklong party convention. On the one hand, they are meant to be uplifting, especially since they are the only speeches the wider public (including opponents and undecideds) tend to watch and critique. So positive messaging (which means a deliberative presentation (since things can always be better in the future) should be the language of these addresses (especially since the job of nastier finger-pointing was already handled by surrogates earlier in the conventions).
There is also the possibility that, by their nature, both Mitt Romney and Barak Obama are optimistic people who really do prefer talking about a brighter future.
But I would also like to add one other reason why it was easier to focus on the future than the past this time around: the fact that the past is rather up for grabs with regard to many of the issues that will be the cornerstone of this year’s campaign.
Take the deficit. There’s no question that it has skyrocketed during the Obama years. But there is also no question that this skyrocketing began during the years of the previous Republican administration. Now one can argue whose skyrocketing was larger, faster and more (or less) responsible. But it does make finger pointing a bit more difficult than it would be had Obama inherited budgets that weren’t already well in the red.
Other issues, like the 2008 financial crisis, now seem in retrospect to have had multiple parents (not just “greedy bankers,” but also overzealous politicians from each party who created laws and regulations with unintended consequences). So opening up this can of worms can also confound the blame gamer.
Whether this means we’re due for a positive, deliberative campaign between now and Election Day is still uncertain. But if the past is any guide, don’t expect it in the near future.
The post Romney vs Obama – Past, Present and Future appeared first on Critical Voter.