If you have not already done so, you may wish to read the
Introduction to Gnomica.
Sunday 26 August 2012
Read gnomica 1-100 here!
“Mr. Romney is, by nature, intensely private,
not given to talking about himself,
even with friends. One … said …”
Sheryl Gay Stolberg
“Romney in Crisis: 2 Dark Spots in Fortunate Life”
NYT Saturday 25 August 2012 p. A10.
The brainless drivel that high campaign season evacuates truly staggers the percipient mind!
Let me ask you this: do any people living the political life, whether going for local dog-catcher or President of the United States, do so in the firm belief that they need put nothing out there about themselves, reveal nothing about themselves, just so that they can maintain their intense privacy? Similarly, do odious thespians claim in the countless interviews they pay expensive p.r. firms to secure for them that they rarely or never give interviews for the simple reason that they are “intensely private” individuals?
Let’s unpack Stolberg’s comment about Romney.
If, truly, Mr. Romney is one of those “intensely private” individuals who is “not given to talking about himself”, how is it that one constantly reads of and hears of and sees clips of the man and his handlers (who I am guessing have had every word they utter about him personally vetted by the man himself) going on and on and on about his religion, his family, his business acumen, his political bona fides, his … well, his intense privacy? Given someone so ostentatiously “intensely private” we have come to know a very great deal more about this man – his tax returns aside, of course — than we have of almost any other human being on the planet.
Is Mr. Romney then doing something ‘unnatural’ by running for lofty office and necessarily having to have so much revealed about himself by himself and others – unnatural’ that is in the sense that he is after all “by nature, intensely private”?
Is there any kind of ironic disconnect in the observation that while he apparently keeps himself largely private “even with friends”, it was one of those very friends who violated Romney’s desire for privacy by speaking out about Romney’s desire for privacy. The world apparently needs to be put on notice about this need for privacy.
So now we know one more thing about the “intensely private” Romney.
Finally, I suggest to myself that the there must surely be some (unknown to me) intrinsic advantage, something desirable and admirable about being understood publicly as private. Why else would two of our most flamboyantly public of citizens — entertainers and politicians – share this trait of wanting to be seen as “intensely private”, a trait that so profoundly contradicts what they in fact are all about?