not a fine speech

Submitted by myth (Germany), Oct 8, 2012 at 20:50

Compared to Romney speaking freely during the past debate this is a lousy speech. The speech-writer displays many of the flaws Obama revealed during the debate. Here's why:

The text uses many adjectives that don't contribute to the statement made: "larger, tragic, broader, profound, dark, entire, explicitly"...

The author makes empty or confusing statements using negations. "not an isolated incident". Even worse are double negations like "no....question", "no...doubt". "no less", "do not want less". Negations like this contradict Romney's ambition "to make it clear".

The most frequent openings are these two: "I will", "It is". The first opening promises a policy action that subsequently does not follow. Contructs like "it is" let Romney avoid the term Islamist or the names of other groups. Vagueness often follows the construct as in "It is essential that..." If "it" is essential, "it" does have a meaningful replacement which deserves to be the first word of the sentence.

With respect the content of the speech, including its title, the usage of "leader", "leadership" is inconsistent. On the one hand Romney pursues "American leadership in the Middle East". On the other hand he attributes the same quality to the "leaders of Iran" by using the same word (why not use government or regime here?). A similar inconsistency separates "leader of the free world" from "american leadership in the Middle East" for the free world is distinct from the Middle East. This confusion goes beyond words. If Romney wanted to get involved in Syria this translates into two different choices: as leader of the middle-east one talks to Iran first, as leader of the free world one talks to Israel first.

I miss two key words which Romney used in the debate and which are absent here: "experience" and "plan". (Obama in the debate used "four years ago" or "problem" in similar context ) This last observation falls within Dr Pipes' analysis. I am afraid Romney's foreign policy views ignore experience and lack a planned approach.

I fear an attitude that goes like this: so long as the US has the strongest military and holds up the "torch" it does not need a consistent foreign policy.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".