About nothing much at all
May. 2nd, 2008 09:42 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fpbIt occurred to me that Senator Barrack Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney have much in common.
1) They are both handsome, well mannered and elegant, with an unmistakeable touch of the upper class. This is not a bad thing, but it can be a serious problem with those parts of the American electorate that are suspicious of "elitism" in its various guises.
2) They both have a political background that is significantly to the left of their prospective electorate. After his performance as Governor of Massachussets, Romney had a serious problem convincing any registered Republican that he was any kind of conservative.
3) They both have a religious background which the majority of Americans find suspicious, and which they have to play down. Romney was rather more successful in this than Obama; probably because, whatever most Americans may think of Mormonism, they do not find its mainstream version subversive or immediately dangerous. (In fact, I head it said that if you want to send your kids to a top university but keep them from promiscuity, drugs, and moral relativism, Brigham Young is a good choice.) But I think in both cases the burden has been rather more serious than the media realize.
What does this mean? Nothing much. I just found it interesting. Point 3 is perhaps worth noticing: evidently, the days when someone had to convert to Unitarianism or Episcopalianism to be a full-time member of the American upper class are long gone.
1) They are both handsome, well mannered and elegant, with an unmistakeable touch of the upper class. This is not a bad thing, but it can be a serious problem with those parts of the American electorate that are suspicious of "elitism" in its various guises.
2) They both have a political background that is significantly to the left of their prospective electorate. After his performance as Governor of Massachussets, Romney had a serious problem convincing any registered Republican that he was any kind of conservative.
3) They both have a religious background which the majority of Americans find suspicious, and which they have to play down. Romney was rather more successful in this than Obama; probably because, whatever most Americans may think of Mormonism, they do not find its mainstream version subversive or immediately dangerous. (In fact, I head it said that if you want to send your kids to a top university but keep them from promiscuity, drugs, and moral relativism, Brigham Young is a good choice.) But I think in both cases the burden has been rather more serious than the media realize.
What does this mean? Nothing much. I just found it interesting. Point 3 is perhaps worth noticing: evidently, the days when someone had to convert to Unitarianism or Episcopalianism to be a full-time member of the American upper class are long gone.
