Until recently I have been convinced that Barack Obama would be the next president of the United States. I thought it would be close, but I was pretty certain it would be Obama. Now I’m no longer certain. Obama and the Democratic Party’s mandarins are feeling the same; worried!
It is axiomatic in American politics that substantive issues are not what win elections. American presidential elections are decided by two things: hot button cultural issues which mostly are not presidential prerogatives anyway. Obama is pro-choice and McCain pro-life, but Roe v. Wade (1973) was a Supreme Court decision declaring state laws forbidding women to terminate an unwanted pregnancy unconstitutional. The president has no control over a Supreme Court decision. Even if the Court reversed itself most northern, urban states would immediately pass laws permitting this procedure and, of course, women from those states forbidding it would immediately go to those that allowed it.
The second is personality and something elusive called character. The candidate who inflicts the most damage by impugning his opponent’s character is the one who will win. In American political jargon this is referred to as “going negative” through the use of attack ads. In the academic or intellectual world, where contentious debate is normal, such tactics are referred to as ad hominem because they go after the opponent’s character instead of his argument. In the scholarly world, such ad hominem arguments are frowned upon and those who use them are considered foolish by their peers.
In the political world that is the United States, the exact opposite is the rule. Issues are completely secondary to whether a candidate can smear the other’s reputation and create fear and resentment in the voter. The reason why I’m beginning to have doubts as to the certainty of Obama’s election is that the Republicans are, by far, the experts in running negative campaigns, stretching the truth and downright lying. The Democrats have always been distinctly second to the Republicans when it comes to sleazy tactics.
Daily , 30-second, sound bite video films are produced by both campaigns and run in targeted TV media markets. These ads play to the emotions and the prejudices of the voters; never to their intelligence. As H.L Mencken once said, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.”
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Lisa Solod Warren
Sorry...and your conclusions is? That world events are taking over the election news?
I mean, this is interesting as far as it goes, and I was very much enjoying it.... but I am not sure what you want us to take from it. It sounds like you left off a page or something:)
2 - Zedd
Bill,
I do however see a contrast in the politics of the two (three-SA and Zim are world apart) regions.
I see a correlation in that greed is human. It matters not what sort of power is possessed, the public should always be watchful and monitor those that hold position private or public.
I think the tendency towards superficiality in America has some utility. If things look a certain way, they eventually become a certain way. For instance, democracy doesn't work unless people believe that it will. They will vote and participate in the process. If they don't do so, they system crumbles. Ideas succeed or become a reality because they are spread and people buy into them. Some of those ideas are good ones and others are devastating. Reagan said (basically) that Blacks were on welfare and did drugs. Eight years later, the Black community became the self fulfilling prophesy. Devastating! Although no one cared because they thought that that is how it always was, per Reagan.
To continue on the utility of fluff.... I have heard Zimbabweans mention just how unattractive Tsvangeria is. Great as his ideas are, they wish he he was easier on the eyes. Were he a stud, would the momentum towards change be greater? Probably. The same with Zuma. That enormous bald head compared to Mbeki's tailored suites and nicely trimmed beard... come on.
Were we machines the suggestion that politicians should be judged on utility alone, would be accurate. The reality is that we are not capable of making such evaluations. If we were, we would not have the ability to appreciate art or make other judgements that require subjective reasoning.
I do agree that there has to be a balance. We must be able to assess things based on what will suite are NEEDS best.
3 - alex
author of this article is a complete moron and an idiot.. has no idea of modern politics.