Obama’s campaign has relied heavily on a tagline for change. If “change” means making a series of almost unachievable promises, then his speech to the Democratic National Convention overwhelmingly succeeds. Obama makes borderline ridiculous promises to cut taxes for 95% of working families, while setting broad general goals such as recruiting “an army” of teachers and very specific goals such as allocating 150 billion dollars for investment in clean technology. This obvious contradiction could undermine his credibility to part of the 40 million viewers who may not already be sold on this change. But Obama’s promises do not stop there. Many will probably remember for years to come his promise to end America’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil within ten years. Because of this bold statement, history will recall this speech as that one where Obama made a shocking Joe Namath style prediction, or became that kid in the school election who promises fruit punch drinking fountains.
Specific policies aside, Obama litters his speech with logical fallacies and blatant miscues in logic. While shamelessly bashing his opponent, Obama embraces the causation fallacy in full force, even if he did say later in his speech that this type of dirty politics had to be done away with. The ad hoc is most apparent when Obama makes the association between the increase of America’s import of oil and McCain’s tenure in office. He states that America has tripled its import of oil since McCain took office, ignoring the countless subtle nuances that could be responsible for such an increase. Using that logic, any Democratic congressman, senator, or president who was in office in the last 30 years is equally culpable. Ah, and then there is the guilt by association. Obama wastes no opportunity to connect the decision making of McCain and Bush, who he knows is unpopular, in any way possible. But how could Obama take this tactful approach one step further? He immediately resorts to misleading numbers. He says that McCain agrees with Bush “90% of the time”. Obama completely ignores the fact that this number is extremely misleading, chiefly because there are countless inconsequential bills that pass through Congress that leave very little room for disagreement. Even Obama’s voting record agrees with Bush’s position 40% of the time. But overlooking this, Obama embellishes the misleading statistic by stating quite proudly that he was unwilling to accept a 10% chance on change as if it were somehow possible to quantify the probability of change and that this one statistic would be its only measure.
Obama made it clear that the perfect way to compliment this misuse of facts was to patronize his largely supportive audience in the most direct possible manner. Obama told countless anecdotal stories of steel workers in Chicago who were unemployed after the plant closed. He spoke of proud autoworkers in Michigan who kept working even after they found out that their factory was going to close. He sympathizes with the military families sending their children away for their fourth tour of duty and the forgotten veterans sleeping in the streets. He talks about the worker in Indiana who told his family in tears that he felt like a failure because his job had been shipped to China as well as workers cutting back hours so that their friends don’t lose their jobs. He doesn’t forget about the hardworking Amtrak train conductors or a woman in Ohio one illness away from disaster. He calls on us to help the citizens drowning before our eyes, the waitress who wants to take the day off to look after her sick kid without losing her job, and finally soldiers who want to reenlist even after losing their limbs. The frequency of these anecdotal stories made me realize that I was really….. really…. really sick of anecdotal stories. This strategy was so already worn out and obviously political when Al Gore overused it in the 2000 election, that it’s surprising to see Obama use this strategy with such dedication. We get it Barack. You can “relate” to us. He was practically adlibbing them around story five or six. The prompter might as well have said, “I’m talking about the [blue-collar occupation] in [rural area or impoverished metropolitan] who [heart-wrenching story].”
But why does Obama use such questionable logic and lowbrow campaign strategies. Is it because he’s stupid? No. It’s because he thinks that you’re stupid. He includes a handful of remarks and references that are actually rather intelligent. These include references to the story of Cain and Able when Obama says “I am my Brothers keeper,” an allusion to Einstein when he makes a remark about trying the same things and expecting different results, and his commentary on the need to find a middle ground in bi-partisan politics. But these intelligent remarks are a scarcity in Obama’s speech. Instead he assumes we are too ignorant to identify with his true level of intelligence, and instead appeals to the lowest common denominator.
So, as long as senator Obama does not respect the intellect of the American people, expect to hear more promises so outrageous that the inability to provide them will hopefully be overlooked. Expect Obama to bank on the success of Democratic presidents like Clinton, Roosevelt, and Kennedy while mysteriously overlooking other democratic presidents such as Jimmy Carty. And expect constant reminder that McCain is in cahoots with Bush, and that he is solely responsible for the increase in oil consumption. If Obama’s speech is indicative of the type of change that he is going to bring to the Whitehouse, it is clear that we are about to see the same type of politics we have seen for the last two centuries. Now, get back to your second job at the sawmill in northern Iowa so that you can pay for your crippled child’s piano lessons.
No comments:
Post a Comment