Post by dagalla35 on Nov 16, 2011 20:25:54 GMT -5
America’s Pet Chameleon
The nature of American society is that one must agree-or at least act like he agrees-with the consensus in order to gain power. This characteristic has been present since the beginning of the America, and has not disappeared over time; allowing an individual like Mitt Romney to manipulate any consensus simply by changing what he portrays to be his belief system. In Romney’s case, he does this for two separate consensuses: the liberal and the conservative. The capability of the American consensus to be manipulated is shown by the way Romney advances his political position by first conforming to the belief system of the liberal consensus, then doing the same for the conservative.
When Romney was running for Massachusetts in 2002, he was a conservative candidate in a liberal state. His only hope of being elected was to change his views, or at least act like he did, to those of the liberal consensus. For this reason, he took a fairly moderate stance, advocating the right to gay marriage, the right to abortion, and the benefits of stem-cell research, all against traditional conservative values. Through his conformity, he was elected governor of Massachusetts, securing his power in the consensus.
By 2006, however, when Romney first started running in the Republican primaries for the presidency, many of his views had “evolved.” He had already secured power from the liberal consensus, but realized he had the potential to gain much more through the conservative. Where he once supported the right to gay marriage, he had then emerged as a leading vote against it. He also changed his view on abortion, using the rhetoric of the conservative consensus when he declared himself, “pro-life” in an editorial in The Boston Globe in 2005. Additionally, he shifted his stance on stem-cell research, saying it “crosses the boundary of ethics.” All of these changes showed the clear manipulation of a new consensus, simply changing his stance to gain support. Romney continues this strategy in the present as well, his conformity vaulting him to the position of frontrunner in the current Republican primaries, showing both the American consensus’s capability of being manipulated as well as the fact that there are certainly manipulators to take advantage of it.
The manipulability of American society causes the obvious dilemma that candidates can simply serve their own interests by conforming to the will of their consensus, and not do what is best for the nation as a whole. If manipulation is used to the extreme, it even has the potential of harming the nation. This makes it even more imperative for the American people to stay on guard for political conformity like that shown by Romney. Many Americans have, in fact, already started this process, catching on to much of the hypocrisy of Romney, best shown by competing candidate Rick Perry saying, “You cannot lead a nation by misleading people.” (huffingtonpost.com) This means that while the typical American consensus is easily manipulated, the power from that manipulation is not absolute, as it can be thwarted by vigilance. However, while these recognitions give hope that the American society can recover from manipulation, they do not mean that it is not dangerous, for by the time enough people actually realize what people like Romney are really doing, it is often too late, where their manipulators have already secured power. Even with the vigilant of society, Romney is a clear example that the American consensus can be-and is-manipulated by those that are simply willing to conform to it, a trait that is arguably its most dangerous.
595 words
www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/12/mitt-romney-flipflopper-_n_1089932.html
The nature of American society is that one must agree-or at least act like he agrees-with the consensus in order to gain power. This characteristic has been present since the beginning of the America, and has not disappeared over time; allowing an individual like Mitt Romney to manipulate any consensus simply by changing what he portrays to be his belief system. In Romney’s case, he does this for two separate consensuses: the liberal and the conservative. The capability of the American consensus to be manipulated is shown by the way Romney advances his political position by first conforming to the belief system of the liberal consensus, then doing the same for the conservative.
When Romney was running for Massachusetts in 2002, he was a conservative candidate in a liberal state. His only hope of being elected was to change his views, or at least act like he did, to those of the liberal consensus. For this reason, he took a fairly moderate stance, advocating the right to gay marriage, the right to abortion, and the benefits of stem-cell research, all against traditional conservative values. Through his conformity, he was elected governor of Massachusetts, securing his power in the consensus.
By 2006, however, when Romney first started running in the Republican primaries for the presidency, many of his views had “evolved.” He had already secured power from the liberal consensus, but realized he had the potential to gain much more through the conservative. Where he once supported the right to gay marriage, he had then emerged as a leading vote against it. He also changed his view on abortion, using the rhetoric of the conservative consensus when he declared himself, “pro-life” in an editorial in The Boston Globe in 2005. Additionally, he shifted his stance on stem-cell research, saying it “crosses the boundary of ethics.” All of these changes showed the clear manipulation of a new consensus, simply changing his stance to gain support. Romney continues this strategy in the present as well, his conformity vaulting him to the position of frontrunner in the current Republican primaries, showing both the American consensus’s capability of being manipulated as well as the fact that there are certainly manipulators to take advantage of it.
The manipulability of American society causes the obvious dilemma that candidates can simply serve their own interests by conforming to the will of their consensus, and not do what is best for the nation as a whole. If manipulation is used to the extreme, it even has the potential of harming the nation. This makes it even more imperative for the American people to stay on guard for political conformity like that shown by Romney. Many Americans have, in fact, already started this process, catching on to much of the hypocrisy of Romney, best shown by competing candidate Rick Perry saying, “You cannot lead a nation by misleading people.” (huffingtonpost.com) This means that while the typical American consensus is easily manipulated, the power from that manipulation is not absolute, as it can be thwarted by vigilance. However, while these recognitions give hope that the American society can recover from manipulation, they do not mean that it is not dangerous, for by the time enough people actually realize what people like Romney are really doing, it is often too late, where their manipulators have already secured power. Even with the vigilant of society, Romney is a clear example that the American consensus can be-and is-manipulated by those that are simply willing to conform to it, a trait that is arguably its most dangerous.
595 words
www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/12/mitt-romney-flipflopper-_n_1089932.html