The First Post-Modern Campaign. Pt 1: The Situation

I admit it. Four years ago, I was just learning how to define the post-modern movement. How could I comment on whether that presidential race was post-modern or not? While my philosophy may be amateur, and I'm trained in doing history rather than political science, I have absorbed political and current events for several years now. And like many other people around the country, I stayed up till the wee hours of the morning to see just which way Ohio would go.

But I believe this election is very different. There are, of course, the obvious reasons. The reasons every commentator says this is a historic election. We have our first potential African American president. Two women took the national political spotlight in presidential and vice presidential races. The demographics of the candidates alone shatter the mold of what presidential politics can look like.

Still, if you look past these (very significant) social distinctions, there is something more that sets this campaign season apart from those that came before it. If you listen to the candidates and the commentators, there is something deeper at work. If you listen to voter reactions, there is a desire for a new kind of politics. What lies beneath the surface of all this, I believe, is a collection of post-modern ideas, filtered down from the academy and into popular culture. Popular culture, that is, in so far as politics and news outlets can be considered popular.

Barack Obama has fashioned himself to be "post-partisan" and "post-racial." I have a feeling he is rather sincere in these hopes. Whether or not he has been successful in these aims deserves a fuller analysis in a later post. By "post-partisan," he means looking beyond the traditional party lines whether in being negative towards opponents on the campaign trail, or in voting without ever crossing the aisle. Such a stance is not alien to the GOP, though it has not been expressed in so blatantly "po-mo" terms. John McCain and Mike Huckabee both vowed during the primaries to stay away from negative campaigning. John McCain himself likes to be known as the "Maverick" when it comes to party loyalty. By "post-racial," Obama means that his campaign has had significant success, as one person said, "not because of his color but with indifference to it." While the Republicans can't really provide a counter example on this score, we can perhaps also speak of a "post-feminist" culture with Senator Clinton and Governor Palin. It was hardly until January that we heard much talk at all about Hillary Clinton being a woman. And while it, strangely, has party pundits somersaulting over their normal positions, Sarah Palin has become a successful woman (even before the Veep nod) and remains the mother of a large family to boot. Perhaps this all gets back to the fundamental social distinctions mentioned above. More than that, however, it suggests to me an attitude by political establishments and voters alike to look beyond traditional categories and to find other defining characteristics by which to choose their leaders.

Which brings us to reactions by the general public. I do believe, at some level, Senators McCain and Obama have a disdain for negative advertisement. But their pledges to such can be construed as politically motivated as much as anything else. Now, popular disdain for negative ads is not a new trend. I don't know that it can really even be considered part of the "po-mo" movement. But on another level, I believe that it can be. Part of this whole thing is "trying to understand the 'other'." Personal reservations aside from the logical implications of this, i think the general public has developed adverse reactions against taking ideas and comments out of context and putting a derisive or false spin on it. On the one hand, Democrats downplay McCain's "Maverick" status by saying he has voted consistently with the current administration. This ignores the major issues where McCain has disagreed with the conservative base such as with immigration, ear mark reform, and campaign finance reform. On the other hand, we've heard much in the past week about the merits of being a "community organizer." Remarks at the RNC snidely overlooked both the political impact this can have in inner-city Chicago, as well as the social improvements such work can bring. Generally speaking, voters are tired of this aspect of politics. It is a tried and true method. To build your guy (or gal) up, you must tear down the opponent. The attack dog is a difficult member to jettison from the political establishment. The candidate with a clean campaign will run the successful one.

Finally, the post-modern mentality has broached the punditry as well. One cannot sit through a half hour of political coverage without hearing the word "narrative". However it happened, news commentators became aware of the fact that we can shape our own stories. That can mean either the story of where you came from, or the story of where you are now. The pundits became aware that the way you tell the story really determines the way in which people will interpret your actions and position. This is true both in the general story of the candidates and their campaigns, as well as the specific issues and topics that they have to face. On this specific level, the terminology gets switched to "framing the debate". If a person, or their staff, can get to a topic first, and set the parameters around which the topic is discussed, the ball is already, so to speak, in their court. Perhaps more literally, a journalist who moderates an actual debate gets to choose the questions that are asked. By asking certain questions, to one certain respondent or the other, the moderator can quite easily put a frame around how and when the information is delivered. In this age of information glut, and accusations back and forth of media bias, the chance to "frame a debate" can be priceless.

Such is the basic situation. This analysis is probably both too general and too technical. I have perhaps expounded longer than intended, but it is necessary for understanding where we are and the possibilities for where we might go. I maintain that such rhetoric is new to the political stage on a national and popular level. Commentators like Chris Matthews have made post-modern remarks before this, but they have not been echoed across the board. The 2006 congressional elections hinted at some of these issues but did not force the doors open. Whether this was because the ideas were not so widely developed or because congressional races do not carry equal weight with their presidential counterparts is hard to say. In any event, it is safe to say that the post-modern philosophy has infused the language of the American political stage. What the implications are for the actors both in the campaign bus and the voting booth is the subject of my next post.