isleofus
01-12-2008, 03:18 PM
I've noticed that Dr. Paul has a much more calm, focused, inspirational speaking style when speaking to individuals in "real life" who are receptive to his message. He brings up all kinds of subjects that concern us as a country--mostly of an economic nature (because that is his forte, besides the Constitution)--and goes into depth with serious, mature, measured thought. The "debates" and "interviews" that he is given on television often make him appear tired, cranky, shrill, or not able to speak clearly and at length about the important subjects we all hunger for--we are left with this sense that he is pressed for time, that he will be inerrupted at any minute, cut off, questioned about irrelevant issues, harassed, mocked, patronized. Television is not a good medium for Dr. Paul at this time because he is framed to look like he's either rushing to fit all his "kooky" ideas in in the short time allotted, or that he is exhausted and not forceful enough. I saw his interview with Bill Moyers on PBS and there he was able to sit and speak naturally, and Moyers gave him respect and time to reflect. Ron Paul is a reflective, caring human being who cannot be cornered into giving easy platitudes that can be digested like pablum--to truly get his message you need to be a thinking person who knows how complex the world really is. His deep, reflective qualities are not expressed to their fullest through the popular media, which loves to package things neatly for the "common folk."
So should Ron Paul become a slick salesman of his revolutionary message when he appears on these mass-produced programs? I don't think so--but public "image" and "charisma" hypnotise so many people into choosing other candidates who have skilfully mastered the art of appearing to be what they are not--and he is who he is, and that's why we love him. I'm thinking that the process of getting prepped and groomed for television interviews and debates is such an unreal, surreal process, that perhaps our man Paul is sometimes forced to appear less than what he is--and he does not manage to make all the points that we wish he would on a public forum.
MY point is--to anyone who is ever disappointed with his "performance" on television and thinks he should talk about things that we want him to talk about--realize that he is hedged in by the constrictions of a media form that tends towards shallowness and short attention spans--and realize that if any of us "common folk" actually sat down with this truly thoughtful, intelligent man and discussed all the issues, we would get all the answers we needed.
So should Ron Paul become a slick salesman of his revolutionary message when he appears on these mass-produced programs? I don't think so--but public "image" and "charisma" hypnotise so many people into choosing other candidates who have skilfully mastered the art of appearing to be what they are not--and he is who he is, and that's why we love him. I'm thinking that the process of getting prepped and groomed for television interviews and debates is such an unreal, surreal process, that perhaps our man Paul is sometimes forced to appear less than what he is--and he does not manage to make all the points that we wish he would on a public forum.
MY point is--to anyone who is ever disappointed with his "performance" on television and thinks he should talk about things that we want him to talk about--realize that he is hedged in by the constrictions of a media form that tends towards shallowness and short attention spans--and realize that if any of us "common folk" actually sat down with this truly thoughtful, intelligent man and discussed all the issues, we would get all the answers we needed.