"Just seeing the excitement on television is like watching the Super Bowl!" What seems an innocuous quote regarding the recent US elections, is actually a sad indictment of how the "race to the White House" is now won. The words come from a member of the hugely popular music group Black-Eyed Peas and this speaks volumes of a new style-orientated way of campaigning. There was once intense political debate; now there is a culture of sloganism. The focus used to be on appealing to people's heads; now it is about appealing to their hearts. Through this new focus, the candidate's campaigns are bettered or worsened by language, public image and the media rather than their policy. Surely this not only devalues the political process, but affects the rest of the world given America's global standing?
"Yes We Can". That was one of the many slogans that were carved into the electorate's mindset by the Democrat Party. Team Obama's slogans and catchphrases were matched all the way by "The Original Maverick", John McCain's Republican Party. The use of such propaganda completely detracted from any political issues. At a rally in Iowa, Michelle Obama perfectly captured this new focus on language. As Tony Allen-Mills of the Sunday Times reported, her speech was "a masterpiece in bland reassurance". Of serious policy issues barely a word was said, but that didn't matter because the public were informed by Mrs. Obama that her daughters would be dressed as a "corpse bride and evil fairy" respectively for Halloween. Is this necessary? What use is this to make an informed decision about who next to run the country at a time of global economic and military uncertainty? Of course, it is not just the Democrats who were at it. When asked about the issue of importing foreign oil, the Republicans gave a knowledgeable answer that provided great detail as to how to make the USA more self-dependent: "Drill Baby, Drill". For the best example, however, it is the Democrats who take the prize. Political commentator David Sirota described Barack Obama as "the most mesmerizing politician" he had ever met after speaking with him. Sirota, however, read the transcript of his interview and was shocked to find "Obama had been trampling what he had just said". The American people do not have access to a transcript for politician's speeches, so surely this shows that the ability to mesmerize with words is essentially a way of tricking the public into voting for a particular candidate.
Super Bowl 2012
The ability to communicate through slogans and speeches is only effective if candidates have the "image" to back it up. In fact, as Toni Preckwinkle of Chicago City Council said in an interview with Panorama, "it's bad enough to think you're the most intelligent person...but if that's the impression you give, it doesn't do you any good." Candidates therefore have to strike a balance between being seen as someone able to lead the country and also someone who you might want to have a drink with. A ridiculous situation? Yes, but one that has become part and parcel of campaigning. Early doubts were cast over Senator Obama's campaign because, as Joe Klein of TIME Magazine notes, he "represents this kind of multi ethnic America that scares the Hell out of some people". Public image is also dependent on more than personality; a candidate must look good to the electorate as well. Both Obama and McCain were, to an extent, judged on the appearance of their wives. One poll of Americans showed that 62% believed that what a candidate wears affects the public's judgment of them. If you think that is absurd trying telling it to the thousands of women who flocked to the shops to buy a dress that Michelle Obama wore in an interview with Ellen de Generes. What is truly worrying about this is that American can elect a leader to take major international decisions based partly on how they look. So forget foreign policy, Michelle's got a new coat on.
As Michelle's dresses turned heads, the Republican Party's selection of Sarah Palin as vice-presidential candidate raised eyebrows across America and within the party itself. Palin was chosen simply for the fact that, as Conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh puts it, "she equals guns, babies and Jesus"- the dream of the Republican wide right. It is clear no real vetting process took place: here is a woman who plunged her constituency in Alaska into debt, simply fired those who crossed her path without hesitation and shoots innocent polar bears and moose for a hobby. Palin is the embodiment of both image and language: the Republicans had to spend £92 000 on a new wardrobe for Palin in order to make her look more presentable while during her speeches, she hid behind a shield of sound bites. "Joe Six-Pack", "pitbull with lipstick" and "they don't call me Sarah Barracuda for nothing", were commonly used in her speeches. Palin was merely a puppet, chosen to distract from McCain's policies that were essentially the same as those of the deeply unpopular George W. Bush. She made wild statements such as, "(McCain-Palin) will never allow a second holocaust" that sounded great to the American people, but have no real substance. She is Exhibit A on the tour of how style was put in front of substance in an attempt to win votes and while the Republican Party's defeat may suggest that it didn't pay off, well "doggone it", guess who wants to run for Presidency in 2012?
In Britain, David Cameron was lambasted by the media for not providing a strong solution as to how to tackle the country's financial turmoil should the Conservatives challenge Labour at the next election. In America, the New York Times ran an article titled "Style points count". It described McCain as "frantic", Obama was "measured". The ease of contacting the media has also helped to paint a candidate in a certain light. The National Rifle Association, a pro-Republican organization, ran a radio advert claiming "predators are breaking into your children's bedroom-but Obama won't let you shoot them". The media is supposed to focus intensely on how one party will be better than the other through policy; instead it has become a vehicle that merely drives party substance into a brick wall.
The focus of the recent elections was on almost every aspect of the candidate other than policy. If people are limited to speeches filled with gushing emotional rhetoric and candidates that appear great but are actually low on ideas, how can an informed decision be made? The world depends on America and the decision made at election time can affect everyone, so surely it is a decision that should be made properly?
Bibliography in order of appearance
"Fergie" (Stacey Ann Ferguson), interviewed on Panorama, 16/10/08
"Yes We Can", Democrat Party slogan
"The Original Maverick", Republican Party Slogan
Tony Allen Mills, Sunday Times, 26/10/08- "Michelle loses radical image to become schmoozer-in-chief"
"Drill Baby, Drill", Republican Party slogan
David Sirota, Political Commentator, interviewed on Panorama, 16/10/08
Toni Preckwinkle, Chicago City Council, interviewed on Panorama, 16/10/08
Joe Klein, TIME Magazine, interviewed on Panorama, 16/10/08
Rush Limbaugh, Radio Talk Show Host, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 29/07/08
Sarah Palin, Vice-Presidential Candidate's Acceptance Speech 03/09/08
New York Times, "Style Points Count", 29/09/08
National Rifle Association, quote from aforementioned Sunday Times article, 26/10/08
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น