Much could be said about any of the stirring speeches and speakers at the recent Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida; but curiously, it seems that Clint Eastwood’s speech last Thursday has been the topic of the most discussion.
We could discuss the stirring speech of statesman Marco Rubio or the heart-felt speeches of friends of the Romney family who have been touched by the GOP candidate’s selflessness and generosity. These speeches, however, seem to call for little examination, explanation, or defense. They seem to stand alone as any honest and well-meaning words should stand. Why then, are we hearing so much about Clint Eastwood’s speech? There are a few obvious reasons.
First, Eastwood is a prominent member of the Hollywood establishment as a long-time actor, director, and musician. The fact, alone, that he would be willing to speak in a major Republican forum, automatically makes him a target among the liberal community of Hollywood and beyond. Like Mr. Eastwood offered as an opening point to establish credibility, Hollywood types are quite well known for their outspoken liberal views and loyalties. Liberals, then, view Eastwood as a traitor to their almost exclusive club of political ideology. He did, though, offer up that there are more conservatives in Hollywood than we think.
Secondly, it is much easier for liberal Democrat spokespeople to attempt to distract the public with sarcastic critiques of an actor’s speech at the RNC than to challenge the substance of the speeches of average taxpayers and policymakers, given that their candidate for reelection holds an indefensible record.
Thirdly, as an elderly gentleman (he is now 82 years old), Eastwood is also an easy target of the pop-culture-addicted liberal elite of modern America, who increasingly alienate the elders among us with their ideas, statements, and policies, and who seem to care little about their elders’ opinions.
Even in their critiques of Eastwood’s speech, his detractors have not largely attempted to attack the core content of the speech. After all, he did have some important things to say. He reminded the audience that “we own this country” and that “when somebody does not do the job, we’ve gotta let ‘em go.” Instead, they have criticized his talent at standup comedy, his failure to adhere to his allotted 5-minute time slot (the speech lasted 12 minutes), and his less-than-smooth and polished vocal delivery.
In his defense, Clint Eastwood is 82 years old, an American icon, and is not a career politician. It seems, then, that he should be entitled to some otherwise inexcusable liberty of presentation. As for the liberal talkers who have been so critical of the speech as one that went on with rambling and stammering, I think it would be interesting to compare Eastwood’s unscripted, 12-minute speech with an unscripted, 12-minute block of any one of President Obama’s speeches to see which speech included the most “uhs” and awkward pauses. That is, if we could find a speech from Obama in which he went without his beloved teleprompter for that long of a time segment. Eastwood is said to despise the use of teleprompters.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.