I mean, even though people may not have lived together before, they usually knew each other fairly well
It's one thing to "know each other fairly well" in the sense that they've seen one another around town, but it's quite a different thing to have to live together. Clearly that involves adjustment.
Besides, a "honeymoon" is not about "adjusting"--what's so "sweet" about that?
The adjusting isn't the sweet part. The sweet part - the giddiness, etc. of the honeymoon - helps to paper over the awkwardness of adjustment. That was my point.
And a politician's "honeymoon period" is similar. It's not brought about by the public giving the politician leeway because of novelty! It's brought about by the politician starting off with initial goodwill and faith from his/her constituents that he/she is that he/she promised to be, and that he/she will be as wonderful as they hope.
Why on earth would the constituents - even those who voted for the other candidate - offer such a sentiment if not for novelty?
Comments 6
Reply
It's one thing to "know each other fairly well" in the sense that they've seen one another around town, but it's quite a different thing to have to live together. Clearly that involves adjustment.
Besides, a "honeymoon" is not about "adjusting"--what's so "sweet" about that?
The adjusting isn't the sweet part. The sweet part - the giddiness, etc. of the honeymoon - helps to paper over the awkwardness of adjustment. That was my point.
And a politician's "honeymoon period" is similar. It's not brought about by the public giving the politician leeway because of novelty! It's brought about by the politician starting off with initial goodwill and faith from his/her constituents that he/she is that he/she promised to be, and that he/she will be as wonderful as they hope.
Why on earth would the constituents - even those who voted for the other candidate - offer such a sentiment if not for novelty?
And Obama has basically been ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment