POLITICAL DIARY #1
I decided to start my own 2008 political diary in order to write on certain topics that catch my attention, many of which would not fit into the regular topics on this site.
GOOD AND BAD NARRATIVES
At their best, stories tell us something essential about a candidacy and condense a myriad details into an easily understood form. They need not be true in a literal sense, since the best examples, such as Lincoln’s “railsplitter,” aren’t attempts to convey factual details. But rather, they convey some essential truth, usually in archetypal form, and the candidate’s message is attached to this.
Candidates don’t invent new stories out of a whole cloth, they use pre-existing ones and attach their message to them. For instance, although Andrew Jackson’s “Old Hickory” clearly expressed something about his character, it was less a statement about him than a statement about the American character. Moreover, Old Hickory not only expressed a factual truth about a resolute, individualistic American ethos, but more importantly, it told a story about how Americans would like to see themselves, and thus provided them with a template for their future.
At their worst, stories can be attempts at deceit, mere illegitimate attempts to graft upon an archetypal story-form. As such, they rely heavily upon the truth of that story-form, often to excess. Thus, a bible salesman, who appeared after a death, didn’t need to tell lies, he merely to needed to convince the victim of his con of the truth. The deceased was a good person, the deceased had been a religious man, and so on — all of which was either factually true or something the grieving widow was strongly predisposed to believe in any case. The con artist didn’t have to lie to execute the con — quite the contrary — his objective was to find an existing truth and graft a small lie to it. Thus the bible salesman who appeared after a death, with a tale of bible ordered at an exorbitant price, found a ready supply of marks throughout the bible belt.
THE LESSON BILL LEARNED
It never takes long to find new examples of illegitimate story-forms coming out of the Clinton campaign, since they produce them with stunning regularity. Today’s example plays upon an earlier controversy over smear tactics by the Clinton campaign.
The uproar created by those tactics led to a backlash that helped Obama trounce Clinton in the South Carolina primary, and Ted Kennedy was so outraged that he came off the fence to endorse Obama in reaction. Recognizing that they had made a mistake, the Clinton campaign moved quickly to reposition Bill’s role in order to avoid repeating their blunder.
FALSE CONTRITION
I’ve already written about the “false contrition” game, so I’ll merely provide a link to that posting below.
http://www.boomantribune.com/comments/2008/2/1/143636/3578/25#25
What’s pertinent here is how the Clinton campaign responded to the uproar over their tactics. As is usually the case, Hillary is loath to admit to a mistake, but the circumstances demanded it, therefore it was necessary to show contrition even while at the same time denying the nature of their offense.
THE MIXED MESSAGE GAME — the barking dog wags his tail
Acknowledging that he had made a mistake would be too much for Bill, and was hardly expected, but acknowledging that a mistake had been made was demanded by the rules of decorum. In the aftermath of the South Carolina primary, Bill assumed a lower profile within the Clinton campaign. There was also explicit acknowledgments from the campaign, although these were combined with efforts to recast the nature of their mistake. Rather than admit the true nature of their mistake, the campaign attempted spin their offense in order to graft it onto a different story-form.
THE REAL LESSON BILL LEARNED?
Instead of admitting that their dirty tactics had backfired, Bill’s act of contrition was to acknowledge his mistake as “defending his wife.” Much like Hillary’s earlier admission that her biggest flaw was her impatience for change. In other words, her biggest flaw was in trying too hard to bring about positive change. Mother Theresa pales in comparison. And Bill’s only offense was to defend his wife, and act that hardly requires contrition, despite his apologetic form of his admission.
Needless to say, I find Bill’s spin less than satisfactory.
SEE LINK BELOW FOR ARTICLE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080208/ap_on_el_pr/bill_clinton
