“It’s continuity — and more significantly, it’s theater.”
It’s always difficult to completely separate politics from theater. I suppose the prevailing belief is that elected Presidents have already been vetted through the election process and in their prior public endeavors, and that the term ‘theatrical’ therefore applies to delivery as opposed to substance.
Intentional or not, Obama has made delivery much more important than the substance of his policies and speeches. How would he be perceived if one day, he delivers a poor speech without the soaring rhetoric, and without the calm demeanor? Would that be a good day for Obama, even if the underlying substance was good and sound?
The MSM has argued that Obama understands nuance and tone, and that he is using these as tools of persuasion. But the reality is that when Obama takes a position, he undermines the opposition to reinforce his position. For example, he could have taken a nuanced position on Gitmo explaining its benefits and problems. However, he chose to portray Gitmo in purely polarizing terms, a conflict between justice and injustice. He tried to use his ‘dueling’ speech as a vehicle to destroy the opposition, rather than debate it. (I know I was alienated by the content of his speech.)
The US can suffer greatly from a President who likes to talk convincingly about policies, despite questions about substance. The world will force Obama to answer the question: Can failures be reconciled with words?
