The Contemporary Practice Of Political Spin - Essay Example

3. The contemporary practice of political spin affords us many examples of signs put to deliberate use in order to shape our perception of reality. Analyze any aspect of contemporary political discourse and/or the way that this discourse is staged and presented. How do politicians package themselves and their messages? Some examples you might consider include the 2004 presidential elections, the war in Iraq, the "War on Terror," same-sex marriage, abortion, corporate financial scandals, Bill Clintons infamous Lewinsky deposition and so on. “Religion is the opiate of the people.” Karl Marx Karl Marx advocated secularism with the argument that a State could not truly be emancipated until it freed itself from all prejudices, be they communal or religious. In his paper, ‘The Jewish Question’, he states that “it is possible, therefore, for the state to have emancipated itself from religion even if the overwhelming majority is still religious. And the overwhelming majority does not cease to be religious through being religious in private.” The United States of America is the world’s most prominent democracy, and though never openly calling itself secular, it has been overt in proving its colorblindness in the matter of religion. But without doubt, Americans are probably more devoutly religious then any other people of the West. This devoutness has been the target of the Republican party of the United States ever since George W. Bush won the election in the year 2000. The stance taken by the present government in the issue of gay marriages and the status of immigrants in the United States provides ample proof of the importance of ambiguity and ‘spin’ in U.S political rhetoric. The Republican Party cannot openly show its opposition to the proposition of same-sex marriages, considering the position that gay people have managed to win in society. Neither can the US government openly state that it considers closing the borders of the country a viable option for ensuring home security, considering that a giant portion of the American workforce comprises of immigrants living and working illegally. Thus in both cases the government has cultivated the backing of the Christian right by using religious terminology and hyperbole. Working on the emotion of the people, is a safe way of garnering their support. Especially if the Government also has control over the media and can project its own views onto the majority. The media is a powerful weapon if a politician is able to manipulate it accordingly. McCarthy’s power depended on his ability to control the media and swing people’s favor in his direction. A politician’s authority is based solely on his ability to direct television, radio, newspapers, and any other means of mass communication, and to do that he/she should be able to project himself in a way that the average person will be able to relate to his or her views. A politician is first and foremost a salesman. He sells himself to the masses, and to do that he creates an image. An image is created by careful selection of background information, hyperbole and in some cases misinformation. To win votes, a politician must make himself a product worth buying. If one recalls the presidential election of 2004, when George W. Bush was running for his second term against Senator John Kerry, the election race became a fight over more colourful Vietnam records. Careful portrayal of the candidates backgrounds and their acts of valour during Vietnam became the main factor of contention rather than their individual views on matters pertaining to the War against Terror, the occupation (or liberation) of Iraq, Home Security, and the growing unemployment rate. In a similar way, during the 2000 election, to win the support of the gay and lesbian community, George W. met a select group and promised administerial positions for deserving homosexuals, during his tenure. Thus he managed to swing more than a million gay votes in his favour. Yet in 2004, to win the backing of the four million or so Evangelist voters who had not supported Bush during his 2000 campaign, the administration started careful ‘gay-bashing’; and amendments to the constitution were suggested which would curtail the progression of gay rights. According to the Advocate, this change in attitude, although having alienated the gay and lesbian community, has brought many conservatives and Evangelists marching to the present administration’s side. The government also proposed amendments to the national security laws by rephrasing certain passages. It was revealed in March that the White House had rewritten the rules to say national security clearances cannot be denied "solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual." The previous language, instituted by the Clinton administration stated that sexual orientation "may not be used as a basis" for denying clearance. Many gay rights advocates see this as a way of saying that sexual orientation could be used as a reason for deportation, and thus showing a definite leaning of the Bush administration towards the evangelists. This vague amendment had many gays and lesbians worried about the future of their struggle for allowances of gay marriages. Where the Bush administration is trying its hardest to swing the conservative vote in their favor, this supposed “betrayal” has the homosexual community feeling alienated and at ends with the government. Thus, if one takes view of the larger picture, the Bush administration hoped to win the much larger Christian Right wing by sidelining the gay community, which did not make as large a portion of voters. More recently, the immigrant question has come into the forefront. America being a country created by immigrants (migrated from England in 1620, on the historic Mayflower) the Bush administration has had to tread softly on this sensitive issue. To fully appreciate the depth of the matter, one has to recall the lines written on the Statue of Liberty, welcoming the people of the world to the shores of America. Franklin Delano roosevelt, while speaking to the Nativist Daughters Of the Revolution, pointed out, “Remember, you and I both are children of immigrants.” To counter this backdrop of emotion, George W. Bush has constantly been stressing the need for cross border security, while assuring the powerful Hispanic lobby that the ‘American dream’ is still open to them. Two conflicting ideas are proposed in the same statement: “You got people coming up who want to work, see. Theyre going broke at home. They want to put food on the table. They go to unbelievable lengths to come and feed their families. Were catching them. Were putting them back in. Were stopping that.” What starts as a sympathetic description of the plight of most immigrants ends where…? And thus, though the administrations current priority is making the country less accessible to immigrants, its wordings have been cautious and a bit more wary so as not to offend the large Hispanic community that forms a major portion of the United States workforce. In another speech he sugarcoats certain measures, that if stated plainly would show Nazi tendencies. [“…Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire by creating a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility. The system should include a new tamper-proof identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card would help us enforce the law and leave employers with no excuse for breaking it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place.”] Measures like this would remind people of Germany in the 1940’s, had the administration not been constantly reminding the ‘American people’ the threat that the rest of the world poses to them. Constant harping about ‘the enemy’ and ‘terrorists’ gives them carte blanche in the name of American Security. And yet, by manipulation of the media, the role of American Foreign Policy in creating the ‘enemy’ and those ‘terrorists’ is conveniently ignored. We can see from the following excerpt of a speech George W. Bush recently made how by using the fear factor, the government can justify any of its actions. [“Theres a practical reason why we shouldnt isolate ourselves, and that is, theres an enemy that still wants to hurt us. And its important for you all to know that everyday that I wake up I think about the war on terror. I knew that after September the 11th -- and many of the decisions I make are based upon what happened on that day, September the 11, 2001. Whats unsettling about these times for some is that we face a determined enemy. Let me tell you what I think about the enemy. The enemy is -- theyre cold blooded killers, the best way to describe them. They will take innocent life to achieve a tactical and strategic objective. These are people that are bound by an ideology. See, theyre driven by an ideological fervor. In other words, theyre not just isolated angry people; theyre people that have got a point of view”] This ‘scare strategy’ was the moving force behind the attack and occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq, and also the new, much harsher entrance policies. Once a government has its people believing that they are in constant peril, the people will give their government complete power to ensure their protection. And their complete support. Hence the Bush administration finds it necessary to remind voters again and again how his policies have made the country a safer place. Brainwashing, like the example cited above, won him his second term, and will continue to win him the backing of the American people as long as Osama bin Laden is still ‘alive’ and missing. The American Government’s ability to ‘spin-doctor’ scenarios according to the needs of its foreign policy is probably the reason it is still the only Superpower in the world. This meticulous blending of hyperbole, mass manipulation, and propaganda is the factor behind every good politician’s standing in the world of power and government. Bibliography: 1) “On The Jewish Question” by Karl Marx 2) Online resource: http://www.whitehouse.org 3) The Advocate Oct 2004. “Bush’s Betrayal: by welcoming gay and lesbian Republicans into the party, George W. Bush earned 1 million gay votes in 2000. Four years later, many of even the most faithful gay Republicans have deserted him” written by Sarah Wildman 4) “Viewpoints: Statements by Leaders” Journal Article (Civil Rights Journal) Vol. 2, 1997 5) “An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror” 2004 Parameters Vol. 34 written by W Andrew Terrill Word Count: 1,660 Read More