I'm excited to see what campaign slogan President Barack Obama's team chooses this time around. Politicians so often understand where our society and our collective understanding are at its weakest, and they aggressively leverage those gaps to put across a message that demonstrates what interpretive dunces we are.
For instance, "change we can believe in." The interpretive potential of that phrase is porous. Conservatives complained that the phrase meant nothing, but they didn't get it: it meant whatever the receiver wanted it to mean. After eight years of Bush, everyone was a bit tired, so the Republicans indulged themselves in a bit of fantasy, choosing John McCain in an effort to see what may have happened in 2000 if he had won in South Carolina. Obama was far from the obvious choice through much of the Democratic primaries, but the strength of his promise of change resonated with people who were ready for any alternative to President Bush. The fact that no one was very specific on what that change entailed didn't phase us; we were hungry for change and leapt at the first chance we got.
McCain and Company's slogans of "maverick" or "rogue" (in Sarah Palin's case) were just as nonsensical, or porous with interpretive potential, as Obama's. In what way is being a maverick or a rogue a good thing, in and of itself? Mavericks and rogues can be pesky people to deal with at best; at worst, they're pure nightmare. The problem with American politics isn't that the meaning of government word and deed is absent; it's that it mirrors our flimsy society. Everywhere we turn for messages that flatter ourselves and our ideas about the world. We don't want messages that are easy to interpret; we want messages so vague we can interpret them the way we want without feeling the rub the comes with twisting the meaning of something to fit the interpretation. The way that liberals and conservatives alike have come to interpret "change" since President Obama's election are both correct: Obama has delivered the change he promised, a nightmare to conservatives and (mostly) a satisfaction to liberals. (We'll forget those who think he hasn't brought enough change; that's not an interpretation so much as an unrealistic dream suitable for only the fringes of any movement. Perhaps it's a fundamental misinterpretation of the political system in America, but I digress.) No one argues with change; we just take its meaning differently depending on our presuppositions.
This current election cycle is mostly focused on the Republicans right now, but there is a disastrous lack of message that is already fuzzing the actual issues facing us. The issue right now is that we all recognize that our system is broken, and that the challenges facing us are great. The Tea Party and the Occupy movement both understand the problem, but their ideas of solution are radically different. No viable candidate has made the connection that Americans of the right and left are both angry about the same things; rather, the slogans and the messages are specific enough to tickle the ears of the faithful and vague enough to allow for wide interpretive room of the merely curious. Perhaps if we were more secure in our identities apart from groups and labels that we feel we must join or parrot, we would have the strength and courage to interpret the signs of the times and the words of our leaders, wannabe or otherwise. But instead we seek meaning externally, and therefore we fall prey to the words of those whom we wish to identify with, and meaning is deferred. The interpretive process breaks down again.
No comments:
Post a Comment