Lowry’s Meaningless Rhetoric

I’m glad to see that National Review editor Rich Lowry managed to watch a debate without seeing starbursts (presumably because Romney didn’t wink at him the way Sarah Palin did), but I have to point out the empty platitude in his review of the third debate. This isn’t unique to him, of course; it’s the kind of thing pundits and candidates say all the time but it is beyond trite:

I think Romney executed what must have been his strategy nearly flawlessly: reassure people that he’s not a bomb-thrower; project strength but not bellicosity; go out of his way to say how many Obama policies he agrees with to create a sense of his reasonableness; focus on the big picture of a world that seems out of control; get it back to the economy as much as possible; and communicate a real passion for the future.

Lines like that just drive me nuts. Communicate a real passion for the future? Seriously? WTF could that possibly mean? This is why our standard political rhetoric annoys me so much. Politicians, and many pundits, are masters at the art of talking much and saying nothing.

"I was thinking a sharp knife but perhaps a Burdizzo would be kinder."

Warning: Alex Jones is Going to ..."
"That picture of Trump as an orange is great. Where did it come from?"

Trump Supports Moore and Dismisses Accusations ..."
""... are we baddies?" Cue Mitchell & Webb."

Trump Supports Moore and Dismisses Accusations ..."
"RIP the Moral Majority. Your ragged corpse reveals the pestilence that always lay within."

The Vileness of Christian Right Support ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://cheapsignals.blogspot.com Gretchen

    It means he didn’t indicate a desire to commit suicide imminently?

  • Abby Normal

    Brings to mind a fun Failbook post a friend passed on to me yesterday. Enjoy!

  • Captain Mike

    I am, like, so horny for the future right now.

  • John Hinkle

    …a real passion for the future.

    And that passion is to take this country’s future back to the 19th century!

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Uh, get what back to the economy as soon as possible?

  • Uncle Glenny

    Uh, get what back to the economy as soon as possible?

    strategy; “what must have been his strategy”

  • Emu Sam

    Better than someone who thinks the Rapture’s coming in our lifetimes and that’s a good thing?

  • Nemo

    I’m not convinced that it really applies to Romney, but I don’t think it’s meaningless.

    The other day, on a forum I visit, I read a post that asked people to speculate about life 100 years from now, with some specific questions. A fun topic for me, and the sort of thing I think about all the time. But not everyone thinks like me. Here were some of the comments:

    “I honestly think the world will be destroyed from atomic and nuclear warfare.”

    “Hopefully [humans will] be dead by then”

    “Well personally I will be dead by then so I’ll let my children deal with the future.”

    “I’ll be dead so I won’t give a shit.”

    These are people who, I think it’s fair to say, don’t have a passion for the future. And there are a lot more like them in the world. They may well be the majority.

    For millions of people, the best future they can imagine is one that ends soon — whether in the Second Coming, or some more secular apocalypse. I’d like to change their minds.