Down to the Wire: The Politics of Hope versus the Politics of Merit
With the Republican race mostly (if not officially) over for nearly a month, attention has been turned toward Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who today will be battling for votes in both Texas and Ohio. The intense and close race will either spell the end of the Clinton campaign or a continued struggle, possibly all the way until the Democratic convention in Denver this summer. With all the attention focused on who is going to win these crucial contests, there has been very little attention paid (beyond the usual partisan rhetoric) on who deserves to win them– beyond merely the question of who has run a better campaign, but rather, who has provided the most positive influence on the process.
Obama fans will no doubt balk at the mere fact that such a question would be asked– after all, hasn’t it been Hillary, not the Senator from Illinois, who has engaged in so many of the underhanded political tactics and smears thus far in the campaign? Isn’t Obama’s platform one of “hope” and “change” and all sorts of idealistic ideas regarding how much work there is to do to clean up Washington? And isn’t Clinton the “Washington insider” who has spent much of her career pandering to special interests– even taking large amounts of money from them to fund her campaign?
To but it bluntly, yes. However, scrutinizing the Obama campaign reveals that while Obama might not be as plugged into the Washington scene as Clinton, he has entered into his own campaign of smear tactics and underhanded ploys to acquire as many votes as possible. The contrast is not how much more or less manipulation the Obama campaign has engaged in, but rather, how much better they have been at it. The image of Obama as an idealistic newcomer to the political scene is a prevalent one, and it is largely to blame for his “bulletproof” status as a political candidate– the best Clinton strategists, after all, have attempted countless times to find a way to criticize Obama without looking like the Washington establishment attacking an outsider, and failed. (In contrast, it is interesting to see how Obama is able to attack Clinton at every juncture without engendering the same response).
Much of this has to do with Obama’s infamous “politics of hope”, which are based not around the discussion of ideas and proposals of each candidate on the merits, but rather very large, expensive, and slick advertising campaigns designed to sell the candidate with as little mention of actual policy as is possible. Obama’s strategy could sell cars well– Clinton’s couldn’t. Who, after all, would like to listen to dry recitations of torque and gear ratios when instead they could be listening to how a car could change their lives and fix all of their problems? Its only natural that the latter approach is much more effective in selling something– but politics isn’t about selling something. Its about informed decisions and debate– something Obama has thus far steered as far away from as he can.
Obama unlike any other political candidate today understands the need to brand himself and sell himself– to make himself into not even a product, but rather the promise of one. Just as recent Apple commercials don’t emphasize what MacBook Air can do, but rather how sexy it looks, so Obama doesn’t spend a great deal of time talking about actual ideas, but rather runs a campaign that stresses emotional appeal and attempts to inspire “hope” within his supporters and to engender a cult of personality surrounding him.. These tactics, in and of themselves aren’t necessarily wrong or manipulative– but when they aren’t paired with serious attention to winning the political contest on the merits, they descend into simple, if tasty, political propaganda.
The emotional appeal of a candidate is very important beyond its pragmatic help in securing a nomination or a Presidency. It is important that voters feel encouraged by their decision, feel passionate enough about it to debate it about with their friends and neighbors– to blog about it and write endless forum posts on the matter. But it isn’t the entirety of what a candidate should have. Obama could have more than emotional appeal– his website, after all, has significant policy proposals outlined that could easily make it into the debates, the rhetorical sniping, and political infighting that is a political primary. But he chooses, quite deliberately, I’m sure, to forgo making issues a major part of his campaign, instead choosing to appeal to how people feel, rather than think about him.
As has been pointed out, Obama does have substantive political ideas, (even if they are often naive and far from “reality-based”) and as such, I think its unfair to characterize his supporters as merely brainwashed zealots caught up in a cult of personality. Many, I’m sure, have chosen to support Obama because of those proposals. Nonetheless, I think its clear that by and large, the Obama campaign isn’t targeting that particular demographic– they are targeting the sort of voter who simply doesn’t want to think about issues, but rather wants to support a brand like they would when buying Nike instead of Reebok or BMW instead of Mercedes.
This is incredibly damaging to the political process in a secular liberal democracy. Just as Mike Huckabee shouldn’t be nominated in a national referendum on what religious beliefs a candidate should have, so Obama shouldn’t be nominated in a national referendum on what candidate has the best graphic design or most inspiring speech. The nominating process is designed to choose the most qualified candidate– not the one with the best eye-candy on their website or in their television ads.
It is particularly ironic that progressives– many of whom have long posited that the political process in American can’t possibly reflect the will the people, but rather is merely a contest of who can raise and spend the most money– now support a candidate who, more than any other has attempted to buy his way to the nomination, shunning at every possible opportunity the chance to engage in serious, honest, and open debate.
Now playing on iTunes: Regina Spektor – Us via FoxyTunes