|
|
|
Last Updated: Apr 22, 2008 - 12:07:40 PM |
Wilson knew; the one time civil
rights activist had made it far and it had taken a lot more than attitude.
I wish that Clinton and Obama had heard him because both candidates have
constructed campaigns that are extraordinarily egocentric, overburdened with
image manipulation and devoid of that arcane element known as issues that one
used to find in campaigns. Of course, they are not the first to practice this
sort of politics; it was, after all, Senator Clinton's husband who convinced
her party that it didn't need to believe in anything.
Certainly Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos didn't help matters with
their churlish questions. But, among the media, it wasn't only their fault. A
few days later Teresa Wiltz raised the level of the campaign with this analysis
on the front page of the Washington Post's Style section:
" There's Barack Obama, fresh from Wednesday's debate dust-up, beleaguered
but still standing, acknowledging that he's taken some hits from his opponent,
some mighty hits, but you know, it's okay, because that's politics. Ultimately,
you've got to . . . And then he -- pay attention now -- brushes the dirt
off his shoulders. Repeatedly. The crowd leaps to its feet, applauding and
laughing. Talk about a major Jay-Z move. People, we're talking about a seminal
moment in the campaign, the merging of politics and pop culture: in which a
presidential candidate -- a self-confessed hip-hop head and Jay-Z fan --
references a rap hit and a dance move."
Consider the Gibson-Stephanopoulos knife jabs. If Obama had a serious plan to
deal with the economic crisis, the environment or public education, even a lazy
television head might have picked one of those topics. But what sort of
question can you ask Obama? You ask him about anything serious and you'll
soon be choking on the abstractions and the babble about hope and change. So
it's too inviting to turn to malicious trivia. And if you're a journalist stuck
for a lead, you happily make the major Jay-Z move.
Both Obama and Clinton have made themselves the only issue that matters and
both are paying the price of it - with more of the cost yet to come.
In one case, the plan falters on the fact that a guy who was an unknown state
senator only four years ago has, through the magic of cliches and public
relations, transformed himself into an appealing mythical metaphor of
multiculturalism. And as he put himself in The Audacity of Hope, "I am new
enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which
people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."
Since writing that book the screen had remained remarkably vacant,
demonstrating at least the audacity of Obama's own hope.
In Clinton's case, we have the myth of her 35 years of experience, largely
undefined except for length, although it is likely that the GOP will fill in
more of the gaps during the general election should she pull off the
nomination.
While Bill Clinton got away with treating national policy as one long
television commercial, it is worth remembering that he initially snuck in
thanks to Ross Perot. Further, as a con artist, he is far more skilled than
either his wife or Obama.
The Republicans, on the other hand, can put up a candidate as intrinsically
weak as John McCain and still have him run neck and neck with either of the two
Democrats, despite each having extraordinarily passionate constituencies.
The difference is that the GOP believes in something that transcends whoever is
running for office. For nearly three decades, in fact, Republican mythology has
so dominated political discussion that the media and the public accept much of
it as the norm, witness in the war on terror and the limitless virtues of
capitalism.
The fact that the GOP is wrong, heartless, stupid and mean about much of this
merely adds power to the argument that it helps to believe in something.
Ever since Bill Clinton dismantled the Democratic belief system, his party has
virtually forgotten what it thinks. It has no comprehensible plan for the
economy, the environment, the Iraqi war, cities, education or who's coming for
dinner. It has become just another House of Pancake Makeup, presenting what it
believes will look good on television.
But if it is enough that Clinton is the icon of feminism and Obama the image of
a new, younger, hipper America, why aren't they doing better?
Obama gave part of the answer, unintentionally, with his bitter analysis of
small town America. Like any good postmodernist he could deconstruct the
problem; he just couldn't reconstruct an alternative. And so he reduced the
people he was meant to be helping to just so many more subtexts.
If the Democrats really want to win this election they have to come up with
better reasons than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And they need the Obamas
and the Clintons of the party to be able to express these reasons in a
passionate, convincing manner that will appeal to voters. Among the useful side
effects of this: who ate dinner with Obama ten years ago becomes far less
interesting.
It shouldn't be that hard to argue that collapsing pension plans are more
important than a few married gays in the neighborhood. Or that poor healthcare
kills more people than abortion. Or that retrofitting America so our children
won't have to live in an ecological desert isn't a bad idea.
But until people in the party's high places come to believe in something, the
Democrats will continue to wallow their apathy over issues and wonder why the
GOP does so well. And their perfect candidates will continue to lose and they
will continue to wake up the day after the election mumbling, "It isn't
fair"
FDR's campaign manager, Jim Farley, would sometimes tell unhappy members of his
party: "Just remember, behind a Democratic candidate, no matter how bad,
are other Democrats. But behind a Republican candidate, no matter how good, are
other Republicans."
It was a good line because in those days everyone knew what a Democrat stood
for. Today, nobody does
.
Source:Ocnus.net 2008
Top of Page
|
|
|
|