McCain: Preaching to the Choir?
This blog entry is part of a Fall 2008 blogging exchange between American University in Cairo and Stanford University's Online Activism class. To read all the entries, follow this thread; be sure read the earliest entries first.
We are writing this post in our writing and rhetoric class that looks at the intersection of the Internet and politics. Our group members are Max Del Real, Kelsey Walker and Claire Kouba. While Max is a registered Republican and Claire and Kelsey are registered Democrats, we are all Obama supporters. In this post we are analyzing the McCain/Palin campaign website.
Upon arriving at the site, the first thing we noticed was the option to pick a viewing preference depending on your political standing: “Supporter,” “Undecided,” or “Unregistered.” With this function, the site appears to be catering to multiple points of view – but there is a conspicuous lack of an option for a voter who is opposed to McCain. This reveals the target audience for the site: current supporters and potential votes. It is not meant to change anyone’s opinion; rather it is preaching to the choir (and to those considering joining the “team”).
This “target audience” is confirmed by the fact that all of the anti-Obama arguments are supported by little (if any) substantial evidence. Instead, these arguments are condensed into clever-sounding claims that sound good to those who are already McCain supporters. An example of this would be the “Decision Center,” where the site makes such assertions as “Obama says he would meet unconditionally with the world’s worst dictators, from Ahmadinejad to Castro to Kim Jong Il.” The lack of specific details leaves the reader of such a statement either blindly accepting the flaws of Obama’s foreign policy, or uncertain as to how the website came to this conclusion and why it is such a bad thing.
This sort of appeal to McCain’s base gets his intended audience riled up emotionally and more passionate about his campaign. Using this positive emotional appeal is thus highly effective with those who already agree with him, but does little to encourage actual debate about the candidates and their policies.
Comments
The charge that Obama would meet with the world's worst dictators is in fact a compliment.
McCain claims to be a maverick and have proven experience in foreign policy. I think there is a difference between foreign policy and the whole concept of the 'commander-in-chief' which seems to connote more 'warlord' rather than 'diplomat.' This precise difference needs to be fleshed out by thinking Americans and world citizens.
The best diplomat is the real foreign policy expert, the real maverick. Meeting with the world's worst dictators is like confronting a naughty child after it has done something wrong. Confronting the child, rather than sending it to its room, is the best way of embarrassing them, reforming their actions, and coercing them to act in your favour. You don't have to give the child a biscuit, but you can let it know it will get one if it does what you say...
It is a bit like when you see a dead body on the side of the road covered in plastic. Either you tell your kid not to look (they will) or you say 'if you look, chances are you will feel hurt, saddened, and perhaps scarred: it's up to you.' This second psychoanalytical method exposes the real desire as dangerous and coerces the viewee into complying with your wishes.
The skill is in the handling of the encounter. A good diplomat could do this.
Zizek describes the Left as constantly antagonistic, unaware of boundaries always looking beyond them and the Right as aware of its boundaries as a group; who lies in and outside the circle. This website demonstrates this. You either are in or out, included or excluded.
Deeper than this, to not 'second-guess' Israel to prevent a 'second Holocaust' is a misreading of history. It is, again, blind conclusion, to a priori establish a dogmatic policy without considering the possibility that circumstances might change. A 'rogue' government is not instrinsically rogue. But even to look over who is right and wrong with the Arab-Israeli conflict, the job is peace, not to take sides. As soon as America can take the impossible, objective stance on the world (if there is one) dialogue will ensue and peace can begin.
The Holocaust was a matter of history, a genocide (not THE genocide). It should be memorialized but not used as a justification for blind a priori policymaking. If America can say this about Israel then they must say to Tutsis in Rwanda that whatever happens they will support them if violence erupts again. Washington needs to take this blind position if they are to be consistent, to prevent a 'second Rwanda.' But of course, Washington has no interests in the region.
Foreign policy is about delicacy, understanding the contours in foreign relations and checking the balances, strategies for world peace. This is if you take the 'crazy' idealistic view that world peace is more important than self-interest. Big Other over self. Disturbing this fine equilibrium is easier to do than to keep it.
America meets a crux and a watershed now after eight years of pre-emptive, aggressive foreign policy.
Lets hope we choose correctly.
Posted by: Andrew Carruthers | October 22, 2008 05:49 PM