http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/16/elitism/index.html
The above article captures, i believe, very much the essence of what we have been examining, articulating the paradoxical and slippery nature of political intelligence expectations in America.
First off, the irony-in contemplating and publicly analysing what they call "a potentially toxic image problem" the author Kristi Keck is arguably engaging- at least to an extent- in exactly the elitism on which she comments.
Keck goes onto set the background for the irony that laces the issue when she reminds that, beneath anything else, the presidential office is by its very nature an elitist position.
Accusations of elitism are, notes Keck, an ever-present trap in presidential campaigning, Obama's opponents, for example, jumped on a comment about small town residents bitter over gun laws. Hillary Clinton joined in the condemnation by branding Obama "elitist, out of touch, and frankly patronising".
Yet Clinton herself has by turns highlighted her privelaged education, whilst also posing for publicity shots with guns and beer.
Republicans have historically made a tactic out of portraying their Democratic rivals as the "liberal elite", placing emphasis on their ability to connect to the "everyman" in America.
What makes the difference, suggests Keck, is the way that a candidate responds to such allegations- former democratic candidates Kerry and Gore failed because, she says, they allowed such a label to stick.
However, that is not to say that fighting back does not pose its own risks, as a candidate could then be branded uppity and too un-elite.
Therefore, it again comes down to-as i have mentioned in a previous post- a candidates public approval and whether voters want to look positively on a stance, a situation that appears to have served Obama well so far.
In a quote from Dr. Drew Western of Emory University, Keck sums up the crux of the situation;
"I do think it speaks to one of the conflicts that Americans have about their leaders, which is that we want them to be like us, and we want them to be above us at the same time".
Thursday, 17 April 2008
Wednesday, 16 April 2008
Obama's Bold Gamble on Race
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1723302,00.html
The above article comments on a speech that Barack Obama made in response to public concern about the racial views expressed by his own pastor.
The speech was particularly striking as it was Obama's first real departure from the strategy of treating race as a non-issue, in contrast to the tactics of Hillary Clinton, who has consistently made her gender a part of her campaign.
Obama had therefore been treading a fine line of commenting via not commenting, a tactic which also relies, to some extent, on public acceptance and confidence.
Without the latter, Obama's actions would, arguably, inevitably be seen as negative.
This particular, brand of appeal has been evident throughout the campaign.
Directly making race an "issue" was thus a huge risk, acknowledgement threatening presumed endorsement.
On an issue that those in power rarely asked the public themselves to confront, Obama handed just such a challenge to the people of America, not demanding that they came up with a definite answer, he sought only that Americans understand that there were no such answers.
Therefore, the speech arguably displayed an ambiguous, complex quality, but this could be said to reflect the nature of the subject itself.
It may not have been the simpler, definitive message prefered by politicians, but that commentators and the public allowed Obama to give this speech, and responded to it positively, is revealing of their connection to the candidate.
The above article comments on a speech that Barack Obama made in response to public concern about the racial views expressed by his own pastor.
The speech was particularly striking as it was Obama's first real departure from the strategy of treating race as a non-issue, in contrast to the tactics of Hillary Clinton, who has consistently made her gender a part of her campaign.
Obama had therefore been treading a fine line of commenting via not commenting, a tactic which also relies, to some extent, on public acceptance and confidence.
Without the latter, Obama's actions would, arguably, inevitably be seen as negative.
This particular, brand of appeal has been evident throughout the campaign.
Directly making race an "issue" was thus a huge risk, acknowledgement threatening presumed endorsement.
On an issue that those in power rarely asked the public themselves to confront, Obama handed just such a challenge to the people of America, not demanding that they came up with a definite answer, he sought only that Americans understand that there were no such answers.
Therefore, the speech arguably displayed an ambiguous, complex quality, but this could be said to reflect the nature of the subject itself.
It may not have been the simpler, definitive message prefered by politicians, but that commentators and the public allowed Obama to give this speech, and responded to it positively, is revealing of their connection to the candidate.
Hillary Clinton's "silly" Irish Peace Claims
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml&page=2
The above article reports on recent debate surrounding claims made by Hillary Clinton that, during her time as first lady, she "helped bring peace to Northern Ireland".
In doing so it raises many points about political intelligence and experience, the particularly American role of the 1st lady, and the influence of gender in a political campaign.
At stake here is firstly the question of what exactly constitutes "experience"- just how much does it matter?- and within that, ideas about the relative importance/influence carried by the role of first lady, and indeed, the role of a wife.
Her claims are imbued with gender influence when Clinton talks of hosting a meeting which bought Catholic and Protestant mothers together "for the first time", a declaration acceptable as a woman but also limited by its image as what Lord Trimble describes "a classic woman politicky sort of way".
This was also seen to collide with the cut and thrust of politics as commentators remember that particular meeting being crammed with reporters.
Gender again clashed with protocol when Hillary hugged and kissed Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness, a move that Lord Trimble suggested "lost all credibility".
But perhaps none of this matters-arguably what is interesting here is what Americans are prepared to accept, to believe, and the freedom allowed for in American political intelligence.
The above article reports on recent debate surrounding claims made by Hillary Clinton that, during her time as first lady, she "helped bring peace to Northern Ireland".
In doing so it raises many points about political intelligence and experience, the particularly American role of the 1st lady, and the influence of gender in a political campaign.
At stake here is firstly the question of what exactly constitutes "experience"- just how much does it matter?- and within that, ideas about the relative importance/influence carried by the role of first lady, and indeed, the role of a wife.
Her claims are imbued with gender influence when Clinton talks of hosting a meeting which bought Catholic and Protestant mothers together "for the first time", a declaration acceptable as a woman but also limited by its image as what Lord Trimble describes "a classic woman politicky sort of way".
This was also seen to collide with the cut and thrust of politics as commentators remember that particular meeting being crammed with reporters.
Gender again clashed with protocol when Hillary hugged and kissed Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness, a move that Lord Trimble suggested "lost all credibility".
But perhaps none of this matters-arguably what is interesting here is what Americans are prepared to accept, to believe, and the freedom allowed for in American political intelligence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)