The New York Observer recently published an article contradicting, to some degree, the received wisdom among nearly all conservatives and a number of liberals: that Barack Obama is all flash with no content.
The article isn't a perfect defense of Obama's campaign style, and perhaps it would be unhealthy to spend too much sweat and tears defending anybody's political campaign. With the (possible) exception of that of the maverick Ron Paul, every political aspirant will de facto indulge in some image-mongering and dishonesty in the interest of saying things that will get votes, rather than lose them. This is just human behavior, and we see it in corporate meetings, at dinner parties, and on blind dates every day. Nobody is deliberately going to create a repulsive image for himself/herself.
However, it is fairly evident that Obama is coming in for more than the usual rueful/sarcastic "oh, those politicians (pat pat)" criticism. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that opposition media (and the Clinton campaign) are trying to torpedo his candidacy with this accusation of insubstantial posturing and hope-mongering. I won't linger on the depressing idea that "Hope" is evidently a commodity we can no longer deal in, or the implied preference for candidates who hawk More War, Tax Burdens for the Middle Class, Corporate Dominance of the Polity, Pervasive Surveillance, Torture, And So On. I'd personally take vacuous Hope any day.
I would like to linger a little, however, on this idea of "image" and how an image might relate to "ethos," which I here take to mean the "true truth" about a person and his/her views (insofar as that is even knowable). According to the New York Observer's article, "the style is indivisible from the substance" in the case of Obama. His "oratory" and "inclusivity [...] signify profound differences in approach and philosophy from Mrs. Clinton." Gasp. The idea! That an oratorical style might actually "signify" something! The point, as the article mentions and as we've all known for a long time now, is that the policy differences between Clinton and Obama are relatively insignificant. The angle from which they approach these views, and the image-construct via which they present them to the constituency, is where the difference lies. Hillary Clinton's approach has been far more "traditional" thus far, emphasizing (as has been repeated by pundits ad infinitum) long-term political conflicts and the division-lines between parties. Obama consciously seeks out common ground with Republicans and Independents, and even (notoriously) with "Axis of Evil" leaders like Hugo Chavez. Although his message about the state of America isn't always a sunny one, he offsets it with tremendous optimism, which has been the hallmark of many of our greatest 20th Century leaders.
I also want to emphasize that *all* of the '08 candidates, and all the candidates who have ever run for office in any public arena, have constructed images for themselves. Clinton, as the article points out, "proudly referred to herself as [...] 'battle-scarred.'" John McCain is the dogged, uncompromising veteran; John Edwards was the Common Man (who just happened to make millions as a lawyer, ehm); Mike Huckabee is still the divinely-inspired prophet who's cool enough to play the bass; Giuliani, in Joe Biden's wonderful quip, was "a subject, a verb, and 9/11." Some of these might be more ingenuous than others, but the point is that Obama is not the only candidate occluded in a mantle of hoopla and linguistic prestidigitation. Every candidate presents himself/herself in a manner that is delimited by a hundred factors, including genuine personality, well-paid image consultants and campaign managers, media bias, etc. Our job is to look at real statements from these candidates to determine how well they line up with the image. I suggest skepticism of these images, but we also must remember that they give some indication of each candidate's fundamental attitude. And after George W. Bush's attitude of insolence, arrogance, and confrontation, a more conciliatory approach looks more appealing than I can say.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Well, as I mentioned in a comment on my blog, I'm well aware of the fact that all politicians "package" themselves. Since the TV era (and probably before), this has become legendary and ridiculous. Think of that outrageous YouTube thing with Edwards brushing his hair! Goodness, I don't really care what a candidate's hair looks like. It sickens me that we have reduced ourselves to being more excited about someone kissing his wife than his ability to actually run a country like the US.
And that leads me to my biggest concerns about Obama (besides the fact that his policies are almost universally opposite to those that I hold to--especially on abortion), is summed up more or less in this article by Christine Flowers.
I don't object at all to someone being positive about America's future--the "hope" that everyone seems to be swooning over with Obama. But there's no doubt that the policies that he advocates are more of the same liberal democrat stuff that has been around since the days of FDR. And I just don't think that will work in the long run. Fortunately, I'm old enough that I may not be as affected by it all as you and your brother (and my grandchildren) will be. But that still concerns me! Fortunately, God is in control.
Oh, and check this out! It's pretty funny.
Oh, and this was my favorite comment on the article you linked:
"I don't understand why it is that JFK was the last democrat to understand how the economy works: every single cent, made won or spent, comes from BUSINESS....jobs come from business, taxes come from business, food stamps come from business, health care, fuel, clothing, food, welfare, toys, churches, armies, diapers......every single cent comes from business....so WHY do democrats raise taxes, which force businesses to raise prices or lay people off? WHY? as much of an idiot as bush was, his tax cuts generated RECORD tax revenue for the government...it's a fact. I see obama as the opposite of jfk, because the single most important issue, on which all other issues rely, is the economy."
Mom, while the article you linked to makes some good points, most of it is a summary of, like 90% of the G.O.P.'s strategy this election: using fear of terrorist attacks to intimidate people into voting for them. Because the Iraq War is what's keeping us safe?
But seriously, who is the only candidate who has recommended intervention in the part of the world (eastern Pakistan) where al-Quaeda is hiding? Oh, that's right. Barack Obama!
Post a Comment