Analysis of “McCain’s Promise”

David Foster Wallace's essay on John McCain, called "McCain's Promise," showcased how clever wording, orchestrated media coverage, and the ability to "con" are all vital in shaping public opinion, especially during an election.   Interestingly enough, McCain wasn't an innovator, but simply a politician.   As the 2012 Presidential Election between Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama demonstrated, communication rhetoric seems to be the dominant factor in determining which of them wins the race for the White House.  Throughout the history of politics and the world, communication rhetoric has been used by world leaders and those of influence to garner support and shape the thoughts and opinions of various individuals.  In Ancient Athens during the time of Plato and Socrates, rhetoric was considered an art form.  By examining the definition of communication rhetoric and the role it currently plays in the political debates between Romney and Obama, one will see just how easy it can be to use the power of words to influence people.  

Aristotle described rhetoric as being, "the faculty of discovering in any particular case all of the available means of persuasion (Corcoran, 87)."  Communication rhetoric itself, no matter the validity of the statements being made, is designed with the sole purpose of influencing others' thoughts.  Oftentimes, whether or not the statements are factual or pure fabrication is irrelevant to the effectiveness of the rhetoric.  Rhetoric is used to convince people to see things the way that the speaker wants them to see it, usually for personal gains, such as narcissistic satisfaction or acquiring support (Corcoran, 88).  In 2013, rhetoric in its modern form is often expressed through politics.  Political rhetoric, which is often known as "spin," is expressly thought out of in a negative connotation when examining it scholarly, yet it has not seemed to dull its effectiveness. In some instances though, such as in Nazi Germany through Hitler, this form of communication rhetoric can lead to widespread indoctrination into an immoral idea.  

In modern times, it is often thought that there has been a decline in political rhetoric.  One of the reasons is partly due to the role of the mass media in election coverages.  Because the mass media has certain standards in terms of logic and criteria, politicians are often forced to change their speech rhetoric compared to hundreds of years ago (Edwards, 54).  In theory, a democratically-run political system should allow citizens to have enough information to be able to make a choice that is based on the facts of what is being said, rather than on the rhetoric.  The mass media, because it has now become both the supplier of the candidates' messages, rhetoric, comedy, and a political actor in and of itself, has grown in importance.  Politicians have had to change the way that they run their campaigns in order to accommodate the media, as well as the other way around.  What this interdependent relationship between these two forces has done is to create a new form of election rhetoric that is based upon the following principles:  incisiveness, personalization, simplification, and conflict centering  (Edwards, 55 ).  

Personalization refers to the political parties' main representatives garnering most of the media coverage on a national basis, which means that the collective bodies suffer.  As a direct result, a politician has to be aware that his or her trustworthiness and other personal characteristics are judged much more harshly  (Chambers, 101).  Incisiveness is based on presenting all of the political issues and topics in as direct of a way as possible.  Sound bites are key in this scenario, especially with the popularity of 24-hour media coverage.  Simplification means presenting highly complex matters in simple ways, partially due to the time constraints of speeches, as well as the limited media time that is available (Edwards, 61).  And finally, conflict centering means presenting the issues as a battle between both candidates.  This is what leads politicians to create many of their attack ads, as well as creates the negativity that is the norm rather than the exception in a political race now.  

Besides the influence of the media, there have been additional broad macro changes that have changed party rhetoric in terms of their communication.  One such example is that as the demographic makeup of the United States has changed, politicians have had to adjust to a whole new environment.  No longer does the Republican or Democratic parties only focus on specific social classes for their electoral base.  Instead, every member of the population is a potential voter.  They attempt to appeal to everyone as best as they can.  Some of the rhetoric that they use in their speeches are designed to be intentionally vague in regards to their specific stance on a policy so as to not offend anyone in particular (Corcoran, 145).  Secondly, their messages have become more propaganda-like in nature in an attempt to give off a positive image to voters.  

Voters too have greatly changed in terms of their demographics.  No longer is the population in the United States homogenous, which means that the rhetoric designed by candidates is formulated based upon the logistics of electoral competition, rather than that of ideology.  Instead of having a debate between two candidates where ideology plays a clear role, it has instead been replaced by more standardized and indifferent rhetoric in which the ideas are the same, just will small variations added to them (Chambers, 104).  Because politics has involved itself in more and more endeavors, this means that the outcomes of various political statements have become much harder to properly predict.  Making statements about the future that can turn out to not be true can come back to haunt them, as well as making misconceptions about the past.  

In a sort of paradoxical irony, many of the rhetoric stated by candidates have simultaneously become more vague and abstract, yet also more concrete.  This is because many candidates, such as Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, have created what many political pundits deem "down-to-earth" rhetoric, in which broad, macro issues are masked by "micro" anecdotes (Parry-Giles, 22).  An example would be when a politician starts to talk about economic policies, such as taxes and then states something along the lines of, "Take Jenny from Arkansas for example.  As a mother of three, not only is she responsible for paying high tax rates in her state but is faced with mounting debt.  This is something that I could relate to growing up."  It helps to showcase a bond between the politician and their audience.  In addition, studies have shown that concrete statements such as the aforementioned are more memorable than abstract statements (Parry-Giles, 23).  

There are some, however, that feel that this new rhetoric in the age of modern media is no different than in previous centuries.  The reason is that political rhetoric is fundamentally constant.  In relation to classical rhetoric, many of its principles are the ones that are guiding politicians today.  Politics, at its very core, deals with the art of persuasion.  Politicians and their campaign have adopted many of the principles that have been around since ancient Greece in order to create detailed and strategic plans in which they attempt to make sure that all statements are carefully calculated (Huddy, 44).  Because of this, elections are quite consistent in their rhetoric year to year, in which the delicate balance of power and persuasion are aspects of roles that the particular politician plays in order to win over the audience.  

Because politicians are mainly the products of their political parties, no discussion of political rhetoric can only be centered on the candidate alone.  Romney and Obama must "tow the party line" in what they state in public.  In the creation of political rhetoric, the political party bases its rhetoric on the particular opposition that they are facing in most cases  (87).  Both the reactions of the voters and of the political opponents must be considered.  General elections are often viewed as being a competition between the person in office defending his or her position and those opposing it.  

In the case of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, it seems as if Mark Twain summed it up best when he stated that, "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" (Buell and Sigleman, 56).  The disparity between campaign rhetoric and what actually occurs once a politician attains the position of power is quite striking.  Yet, every four years during the presidential campaign, in addition to all of the minor elections, a significant majority of the American public seems to be solely concerned with what the politicians have to say in regards to the "issues."  Seemingly ignoring the widely reported fact that politicians cater their "issues" rhetoric to appeal to certain demographics, most of the American public take what the politicians say at face value.  It is certainly quite a cynical approach to take to discredit politicians as being nothing more than self-centered, egotistical people, yet the facts speak for themselves.  Mitt Romney, for example, has been accused of catering his political speeches and stances on issues to fit the audience that he is speaking to, which has resulted in him sometimes taking two opposing viewpoints on an issue.  

Each has made a wide range of statements on various issues, both in general terms and against the other, including the issues of Health Care, Taxes, the NRA, Education, and Foreign Policy. The topics of debate that have caused a great deal of contention between the two of them have been on Jobs and the Economy, Health Care, and Foreign Policy. On the Economy, both Obama and Romney attacked the other's stance on the matter. At http://www.barackobama.com/record/economy?source=primary-nav, Obama's campaign attacked Massachusetts's performance in the economy during Romney's term as Governor of Massachusetts. Obama's campaign stated that Romney's negative performance in Massachusetts is because of the following statistics about Massachusetts during his term:

Jobs: 47th out of 50 states in job creation

Taxes and fees: Increased by $750 million per year

Long-term debt: Increased more than $2.6 billion

Outsourcing: State jobs outsourced overseas

Manufacturing: Jobs declined at twice the national rate

Romney's campaign, at http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/09/president-obamas-failure, pointed out how the United States's economy performed under Obama's presidency. While it didn't quite lay out the facts and figures as succinctly as Obama's website did, it did state that, "As of the second quarter of 2011, two years after the Great Recession officially came to an end, GDP still has not recovered to its pre-recession level. At the end of the recession, the average duration of unemployment was 24.1 weeks. Now more than two years later, that number has spiked to a shocking 40.4 weeks, the highest number since the Department of Labor started tracking the statistic in 1948." Both campaigns also released a multitude of press releases both defending themselves and criticizing the other. Obama's campaign releases a variety of press releases, though not as frequently as Romney's campaign. One release tackles Romney's economic policies here at http://www.barackobama.com/press/release/statement-romneys-big-bain-lie. It claims that the facts about Bain Capital's bankruptcies and layoffs state that Romney lied about his role, as he remained the CEO and president of the company until 2001.

Romney's campaign released a press release, which can be found here http://www.mittromney.com/news/press/2012/07/obama-america-ad-fact-check-choice, in which Obama's economic policies for the Middle Class are attacked. It provides various facts and figures stating how Obama's tax policies have and will continue to hurt the shrinking Middle Class and Small Businesses. Both press releases were covered heavily in the press, as these have been some of the main issues of contention. Fox News emphasizes Romney's press releases more, while news channels such as MSNBC are more favorable to covering Obama's. http://www.factcheck.org/ seems to be objective in discrediting both candidates for their misrepresentation of facts. One of the issues that FactCheck.org examined was the Obama Campaign's claim that Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50th in economic performance during his term. The website clarified this, stating, "The ad states that job creation in Massachusetts “fell” to 47th under Romney. That’s a bit misleading. Massachusetts’ state ranking for job growth went from 50th the year before he took office, to 28th in his final year. It was 47th for the whole of his four-year tenure, but it was improving, not declining when he left." (http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obama-twists-romneys-economic-record/) It also comes to Obama's defense, stating that Romney's claim that under Obama's presidency, unemployment, bankruptcies, and foreclosures are rising, is not true. The website states that Romney says the numbers for unemployment, bankruptcies, and foreclosures are “soaring.” That’s simply not true. They all started rising sharply under Bush, continued to rise for a time under Obama, but then peaked and are currently declining" http://factcheck.org/2012/04/romney-fundraising-pitch-skews-stats/.

It is quite apparent that many of the rhetoric techniques discussed were used in both the Republican and the Democratic National Conventions that took place at the end of 2012.  Each speech was designed to appeal to a certain demographic listening in which Americans were talked about in general terms so as not alienate too many voters.  However, a recent video was released in which Mitt Romney was seen speaking at a fundraiser in Florida in which high-paying donors listened to him speak.  Not aware that he was being recorded, Mitt Romney delivered a speech in which he lambasted 47% of the American population, as he stated that they were dependent on handouts.  Whether Romney believed this or not, it was quite clear that he was pandering to his audience.  

President Barack Obama is just as guilty in rhetoric, as evident by the fact checks that were aforementioned, as well as the fact that he has made many baseless claims throughout his Presidency.  One such example is the speech he made to the Arab League when he was first elected.  In the speech, due to his audience, Obama claimed that he would settle for nothing less than a two-state solution to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which remained one of his foreign policy goals.  Four years later, the situation in Israel has actually reverted.  

The only way to change this endless cycle of political rhetoric is for the American people to no longer put their faith in what politicians say.  "Actions speak louder than words" may be thought of as a cliche, but there is a great deal of truth to it in terms of how politicians should act.  The reason why rhetoric has been able to be a part of the political culture from the time of Ancient Greece until now is that people have allowed themselves to be easily fooled.  In the Information Age that we currently live in, in which internet penetration is at an all-time high, being ignorant about issues and taking someone's word for it is no longer a valid excuse.  Thus, it starts and ends with people.  An educated population is something that politicians do not truly want.  Asking too many questions exposes the empty promises and false statements that many of them continue to make.  One such proposal to eradicate rhetoric, besides the public becoming more educated, is to abolish the democracy and republic of political parties.  This would lead people to vote based on actual ideals, rather than mindlessly voting for the party that they belong to.  

In today's intense political climate, many of the tactics that were employed during The Cold War in The United States have resurfaced, especially when one considers the implications of The Patriot Act and the political rhetoric that currently exists.  Through a thorough examination of the history of Cold War propaganda and how propaganda is evident in today's society, one will be able to better see the parallels between both.  

After the end of World War II, two superpowers emerged, which were the United States and the Soviet Union.  Each nation had its own economic and government systems, and it soon became a battle between communism and democracy/capitalism.  The Federal Government, at first, didn't want to engage in such widespread propaganda.  In 1948, Congress passed the Smith-Mundt Act which outlawed propaganda for foreign citizens.  Soon, though, pro-propaganda advocates in the Federal Government were able to win out, as the United States Information Agency, known as the USIA, was founded in 1953  (Gaddis, 198).  It didn't outright use the word "propaganda" not to raise any fears from Americans.   As the United States began to engage in the Cold War through the arms and space race, as well as intervening in South and Central America to help curb the spread of communism, large amounts of materials began to be created that were entirely against communism.  The Government was able to distribute the materials through posters, pamphlets, newspaper comics, films, radio telecasts, and even on television shows, which by the end of the 1950s, had become almost an essential household appliance  (Hixson, 169). 

When democracy is manipulated in such a way where people are fed exaggerated claims or lies, then the voting that takes place, as a result, is compromised in terms of being a democratic decision.     Propaganda can make people slaves to false beliefs.    In modern times, there has also been a reemergence of propaganda, especially after the events of 9/11, in which America had to sell the War on Terror on the American people.  Almost immediately following the events of 9/11, the Federal Government was able to launch a propaganda campaign.  Just as emotions were running high at the end of World War II, the United States Government counted on the fact that many Americans were extremely emotional after 9/11.  One of the first ways that the Government was able to utilize propaganda was by stating that there was an alliance between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda  (Mayer, 50).  They did so by many of the same methods utilized during the Cold War, which included having the mass media, such as Fox News, make this claim, and by having many politicians give rousing speeches, both on television and in town halls and small gatherings across the country in the form of a grassroots campaign. 

One of the unique ways that the Federal Government was able to create an alliance was by making it a point to always mention the words "Iraq," "war on terror," and "9/11" in the same sentence  (Mayer, 62).  Iraq was thus guilty by association, even if politicians didn't directly state it.  Another method by which propaganda supported the War on Terror was done was through instilling fear in the American people through the Homeland Security Advisory System.  It was a color-coded system in which different levels of potential terrorist threats in the United States corresponded to different colors, with red being the most severe and green being the least severe  (Ifill, 104).  Each level also meant certain actions by all three governments in the United States.  One of the main criticisms of it was that the determination of what level to use was entirely subjective.  As a result, it was vulnerable to a large amount of Government manipulation, as simply raising the level would create a degree of fear amongst the citizens in the United States.  Oftentimes, only vague explanations were given for why the level had changed.  There have even been accusations that the level of it was raised in 2004 because it was an election year for George W. Bush  (Mayer, 187).  Nonetheless, this advisory system was based upon the same principle of anti-Soviet propaganda, as fear is what led people to irrationally decide to hate the blind enemy.  In recent times, after the ending of the Cold War, the rhetoric about communism and socialism had subsided for a large period of time, despite the continued embargo placed by the United States against Cuba.  As famed economist Joseph Stiglitz states, "Today's propaganda climate is less official than in year's past.  All it takes is statements to be made on television or printed in the media for belief to spread (Ifill, 87)"  Stiglitz makes a valid point, as most of the propaganda against President Obama, such as socialism, is not something that is done as vigorously in today's climate as it was in the 1950s and 1960s.  Politicians pray on the lack of knowledge of segments of the American public in order to spread propaganda about the other candidate or person in office.  Because of the prevalence of media coverage today, politicians do not need to print out pamphlets and create works of fiction to spread misinformation and fear.  Once something is said on television, it quickly spreads on the internet and is repeated on the multitude of additional news channels that exist.  It is quick, efficient, and less costly than in the past  (Ifill, 156). 

The Cold War era was one that fueled by misunderstandings and fear, all carried through the channel of propaganda.  Fear of communism drove many people to view it as being something purely evil.  The Federal Government did this by constantly reminding people of why they should fear the Soviet Union.  In modern times, propaganda once again reared its ugly head in full force after 9/11.  The Bush Administration during that time period attempted to sell the American people on the War on Terror, preying on the emotions that U.S. citizens had at the time.  Instilling fear was a tactic that was used, as was the spreading of misinformation.  This continued during the Obama administration, in which, for political reasons, there have been propaganda campaigns against him, with some deeming him a socialist, which has parallels to the McCarthyism of the 1950s, and some even doubt the validity of his birth certificate.  What changed is how the propaganda is spread.  While mass media is still the basis of it, in 2012, propaganda in its direct form in the 1950s through pamphlets distributed by the Federal Government can no longer be done now due to a more critical public  (Ifill, 180).  Instead, propaganda still utilizes mass media but in an indirect way.  It is spread indirectly in a way that is designed to not even seem like propaganda, such as by saying the word "Iraq" and "9/11" in the same sentence, counting on the fact that many Americans will construe that statement as meaning that Iraq was partly behind its operation.  

Part of the blame for the continued usage of propaganda has to fall on the American people.  Politicians rely on much of the American public believing in the validity of statements without doing any further research into how true it really is.  In 2012, there is simply no excuse for such gullibility, as the advent and widespread penetration of the internet has made information easily accessible for people.  In fact, there has never been more ease of access to information at any point in the history of mankind.  It is up to the American people to begin to educate themselves on issues from an objective point of view, rather than letting their prejudices convince them of things that are blatantly wrong.  Only then will the United States be able to minimize propaganda in all its forms.    Thus, ultimately, the propaganda used during the Cold War era was one that made up and exaggerated many of the claims that were made by both the United States and the Soviet Union.   Neither side has acknowledged this fact.

Works Cited

Bernhard, Nancy E.. U.S. Television News and Cold War Propaganda, 1947-1960. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.

Chambers, Sam. Rhetoric and the Public Sphere: Has Deliberative Democracy Abandoned Mass Democracy?. Political Theory, 37(3), 323-350. 2009.   Print.  

Corcoran, P. Edwards. Political language and rhetoric. Austin: University of Texas Press. 2009. Print. 

Edwards, James.. Gender and political communication in America: rhetoric, representation, and display. Lanham, MD.: Lexington Books. 2008.   Print.  

FactCheck.org | A Project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. (n.d.).FactCheck.org | A Project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Retrieved October 1, 2012, from http://www.factcheck.org

Gaddis, John Lewis. We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Print.

Hixson, Walter L.. Parting the Curtain: Propaganda, Culture, and the Cold War, 1945-1961. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997. Print.

Huddy, Lance. From Social to Political Identity: A Critical Examination of Social Identity Theory. Political Psychology,22(1), 127-156. 2009.  Print.

Ifill, Gwen. The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. New York: Doubleday, 2009. Print.

Mayer, Jane. The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals. New York: Doubleday, 2008. Print.

Mitt Romney for President | Mitt Romney for President of the United States of America in 2012.  (n.d.). Mitt Romney for President | Mitt Romney for President of the United States of America in 2012. Retrieved September 29th, 2012, from http://www.mittromney.com.

Hixson, Walter L.. Parting the Curtain: Propaganda, Culture, and the Cold War, 1945-1961. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997. Print.