The article, Obama Take His Offensive to GOP Country, appeared in the Washington Post last Thursday. Examining President Obama’s recent appearances in GOP states, the article looks at The President’s recent efforts to gain support of voters. However, in my opinion, he has done the complete opposite.
Instead of gaining votes by addressing issues and concerns of the people, he more or less attacks the Republicans. According to the article, “the president dismissed Republicans as ‘not serious.’” At a rally in Madison, Wis., on Tuesday night, of more than 20,000 people, “Obama accused the GOP of working to ‘hoodwink a whole bunch of folks all across the country’ about his governmental philosophy.” As a republican, this would not be the to my vote. Verbally attacking the whole Republican Party is pretty immature. In fact, Obama went on to “twice sarcastically dismissed Republicans as not ‘interested in facts.’”
In regards to Obama’s disapproval, it was not a surprise that he made a statement about his lack of ability to please the American people. “At one point, responding to criticism that he hasn't done enough yet, he said, ‘I've only been here two years, guys. . . . I figured I needed to have something to do for the next couple of years.’” In a response to this statement, I feel as though he isn’t taking the Presidency seriously. Perhaps if he wasn’t so busy traveling and going on vacation every few weeks, the President would be able to make the necessary improvements needed in our country.
More or less, the overall point that I am trying to make is one that Waterman makes in the book, The Image-Is-Everything Presidency. In chapter 5, Waterman addresses the uses of successful speech making. In order to be successful, “presidents have to increasingly used speechmaking as a means of promoting their image and their popularity” (103). With this said, one has to wonder, was this the idea that Obama had in mind when he was addressing the GOP states? While this chapter also discusses the increasing popularity among presidents to give more speeches but not exactly address policy, I still don’t see the purpose in Obama’s direct attack. He didn’t have to address policy; however, he could have given a more personal speech rather than one he gave.
sources:
Waterman, Richard W., Robert Wright, and Clair Gilbert K. St. "Historical Images." The Image-is-everything Presidency: Dilemmas in American Leadership. Boulder: Westview, 1999. 23-44. Print.
I've considered myself a liberal, and I fully supported Obama when he was running for president, but I would have to agree with you that he is not handling his image very well right now, especially by bashing the Republican Party. In a time when he should be focusing on garnering national support, blaming his failures on a party that is supported by roughly half of the nation is a risky, bold, and pretty stupid move. Obama's initial strong wave of support came from his ability to "speak more" while "saying less," as suggested in Chapter 5 of the Waterman reading. His speeches were powerful, moving, and full of promises. He truly SPOKE to the American public, and this is why his supporters loved him so strongly.
ReplyDeleteNow, however, things have changed. These days, Obama has entirely reversed Waterman's mantra, and is "saying more," yet "speaking less." As a result, it seems that the next move is to try to use Michelle Obama to help the president's public image. In the past, first ladies were typically portrayed as a "model of American womanhood" (Burns 84). But, of course, women have since asserted their desire for equality, and so it is important to portray first ladies as a woman of power. This is because the image of female empowerment has become more pertinent among women, and so an empowered first lady will resonate much better within a female audience. Of course, a positive image of the first lady will not save Obama's image, and at this point I feel the only thing he can do is follow Waterman's advice and try to revert back to the old Obama who spoke more while saying less.
Midterm elections are less than thirty days away, and most Democratic candidates are trying to close the gap between their Republican opponents. In the past, this has always been a time for the President to make campaign stops for various Democratic candidates throughout the country. However, this year, with Obama’s approval rates as low as they are, and the nation as disappoint as they are with Obama, most Democratic candidates have opted for other prominent political figures such as Former President Bill Clinton and First Lady Michelle Obama. As a result, Obama has resorted to attacking the Republicans for their “not serious” approach to politics.
ReplyDeleteOn several different occasions through various media outlets, President Obama has made countless attacks on the Republicans in an effort to illustrate what Congress would look like if they were to win control this November. The tactics that the President has been using and continues to use throughout these midterm elections is not going to get him the results he wants. In fact, his tactics are most likely going to result in the complete opposite. Obama is almost yelling at the public to get out and vote. No one, regardless of political affiliation is going to respond to this kind of campaigning in a positive manner.
According to Richard M. Waterman, in The Image-Is-Everything Presidency, “substantive accomplishments alone would not mark a successful presidency. What is important is how a President’s message is communicated and how it appears to the public” (65). For Obama, the emphasis placed on the failure of Republicans to pass any legislation that he proposed rather than realizing what kind of image he is demonstrating throughout these elections might have long term detrimental consequences for our President.
President Obama can certainly go ahead and take his attacks to GOP country. However, here is the problem he faces. Republican voters are fired up, they are amped, and they are READY. This voting block is going out to vote no matter what, come hell or high water. Democratic voters, well, not so much. And the problem with the Democratic voters isn’t that they believe in the Republicans, but that they no longer are fired up, and are not marching in lockstep with the President and his policies. Nor do they believe in the message the party is trying to carry. The Republicans being the party of no is not anything new, is not a message that tells us how you are going to fix things. And sarcastically dismissing republicans as people who just say no does not change the fact that most voters will be saying yes to them come November. Maybe THAT is what the President ought to be focusing on.
ReplyDeleteI agree that not only have Obama's recent speeches been directed in a less-than-productive way, but I also agree that when he isn't attacking someone in a speech, he's just not saying anything. I attended a panel in DC about Obama's first 100 days, and I remember them talking about Obama is a good campaigner, because he can speak with fervor and passion when he is fighting for something- or in this case, against something such as the Republicans. Many of the comments after Obama was elected, and even before, were that people didn't know what the "change" was that Obama was campaigning for. He wasn't specific enough in his speeches, and it would take people being active to find exactly what his policies were. This is similar in Waterman's Chapter 5 this week, because he speaks on how the speeches that had "sexy" topics were accepted more positively by the American people (and subsequently had higher polling numbers) than those that were strictly policy related. Obama did a successful job in promoting his "image" of someone who is going to change things, but the disconnect now comes when he is trying to present the policies that come with that change.
ReplyDelete