Here’s a word you need to get familiar with, if you have not already done so—"nuance." It has a soft, lilting sound to it. A sort of Dance of the Seventh Veils spelled out in six letters. Lots of tease, little of actual substance.
Webster’s New World Dictionary defines nuance as a noun meaning “a slight or delicate variation in tone, color, meaning, etc.; shade of difference.” A classic definition, one that fails to capture the potent force hidden within the modern usage of nuance. Nuance is the best friend of politicians, the bogeyman of an ill-informed or forgetful electorate.
Ever since Mitt Romney emerged as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee with the departure of Rick Santorum and the awaited capitulation of Newt Gingrich from the field of GOP candidates, Romney and the Republican party elite, along with play-along media, have been talking up his need to appeal to mainstream voters, independents who will determine the outcome of November’s election. They’ve been using words like nuance or “pivot” or “redirect” to explain what Romney needs to do to soften the conservative positions he espoused to secure primary victories and delegates.
Now, we are being told, the real Romney will emerge and present himself as someone who the full electorate can embrace. Are they kidding? Do they hold us in such contempt and disdain that they think we will quickly forget how reactionary Romney has been to any thoughts of compassion for the needy and investment for the country?
Sadly, I believe they are right. American voters have soooooo little memory it is easy with enough dollars to propagandize yourself to victory—and clearly in this year of the super-PAC advertising blitz it will be easier to warp the truth than ever before.
Romney’s Achilles’ Heel in all this pivoting and nuancing is the belligerency of his fellow Republicans who continue to ratchet up their attacks on women, children and the less fortunate. Take, for example, their proposed budget, which Romney has labeled as “marvelous.” As a NY Times editorial the other day pointed out, the GOP-controlled “House Agriculture Committee voted ... to cut $33 billion over the next decade out of food stamps. That would immediately end benefits for two million people, and reduce benefits for the remaining 44 million people who use the program. A family of four would find their benefits lowered by $57 a month beginning in September, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The committee trimmed job training for food-stamp recipients by 72 percent; 280,000 students would no longer be eligible for free meals.”
How does that square with Romney's promise to preserve the safety net? Perhaps the nuance of his words is that he will preserve it—in cold storage!
You could argue Barack Obama has not been a great president. But you can’t blame him for the lousy economy, or the growing deficit, at least not if you have a memory that goes back before January 20, 2009. Romney et al would have us believe the Bush years never happened. They’re hoping for collective amnesia.
Or they’re looking for a scapegoat for all of our troubles. Stephen Colbert came up with one Democrats and Republicans could agree on. Take a look:
