Tuesday, October 17, 2006
The Narrative and Elections
Awhile back, I looked at the power of narrative, even a very specific narrative, and how controlling that narrative affects Americans support for the GWOT. Narrative is probably THE indespensible tool for moving the nation on anything, not just war. This is why movies have so much cultural power.
The narrrative may have unique power when it comes to war because war requires national will on a scale not demanded by any other governmental activity. However, elections demand a significant amount of national will as well, and a campaign for national office is largely about defining and maintaining a narrative. This is both a blessing and a curse.
When leaders inherited office, the days of aristocracy, they cast themselves as the hero of the narrative and used it to garner the national will for their agenda. But in a democracy casting the narrative in such a fashion is problematic. "Ours is a nation of laws, not men" says that old phrase from Civics class. We should not vote for heroes, we should be voting for the men or women that will best operate the controls of government and its application of law. Ask yourself, how can a candidate cast a narrative that inspires and motivates when the hero is not a person?
I would argue that no one has sufficiently answered that question to date. Thus when a candidate runs for office, most especially the presidency, we are treated to narratives that paint the candidates just short of Superman. Consider the now famous "Man from Hope" video from the 1992 Democrat convention, or Clinton's "WWE walk" from 1996. To get elected, we grant the person far more importance than our governemental system was designed to provde for.
This has happened for a number of reasons, the power of media, the general inattentiveness of a large segment of the population to many matters governmental - the very success of our nation makes seriousness about matters governmental less necessary than they used to be.
The effect is that things unimportant become important, and positions arrived at for silly reasons. Thus, the religious affiliation of a candidate matters more than the stance on issues derived from that affiliation. Thus we see "Bush hatred" mandating stances on every issue from the left.
The narrative that matters in elections is not the narrative of the candidate, but the narrative of the nation. But people are so focused on the individual anymore that the narrative of the nation seems secondary. People seem unable to see the bigger picture.
I have to confess something - I was a very reluctant Bush voter first time around. I voted for him because he had the Republicans sown up, and I'm a party guy, but I was not overly impressed. Then came 9-11 and the man quit worrying about getting elected and started leading. He let history write the narrative about the events, instead of trying to control the narrative about himself.
I think the candidate that can really restore the necessary narrative balance in this country is the one that will lead in the campaign, and let history write the narrative. I also think this candidate will have enough natural appeal to win the day.
This means the canddate that I think will do best is the one that tells the nation's story, not his, or her, own. That's the narrative I want to hear in the '08 election cycle - and I think it is the one America wants to hear as well.
Related Tags: election, narrative, America, President, story
The narrrative may have unique power when it comes to war because war requires national will on a scale not demanded by any other governmental activity. However, elections demand a significant amount of national will as well, and a campaign for national office is largely about defining and maintaining a narrative. This is both a blessing and a curse.
When leaders inherited office, the days of aristocracy, they cast themselves as the hero of the narrative and used it to garner the national will for their agenda. But in a democracy casting the narrative in such a fashion is problematic. "Ours is a nation of laws, not men" says that old phrase from Civics class. We should not vote for heroes, we should be voting for the men or women that will best operate the controls of government and its application of law. Ask yourself, how can a candidate cast a narrative that inspires and motivates when the hero is not a person?
I would argue that no one has sufficiently answered that question to date. Thus when a candidate runs for office, most especially the presidency, we are treated to narratives that paint the candidates just short of Superman. Consider the now famous "Man from Hope" video from the 1992 Democrat convention, or Clinton's "WWE walk" from 1996. To get elected, we grant the person far more importance than our governemental system was designed to provde for.
This has happened for a number of reasons, the power of media, the general inattentiveness of a large segment of the population to many matters governmental - the very success of our nation makes seriousness about matters governmental less necessary than they used to be.
The effect is that things unimportant become important, and positions arrived at for silly reasons. Thus, the religious affiliation of a candidate matters more than the stance on issues derived from that affiliation. Thus we see "Bush hatred" mandating stances on every issue from the left.
The narrative that matters in elections is not the narrative of the candidate, but the narrative of the nation. But people are so focused on the individual anymore that the narrative of the nation seems secondary. People seem unable to see the bigger picture.
I have to confess something - I was a very reluctant Bush voter first time around. I voted for him because he had the Republicans sown up, and I'm a party guy, but I was not overly impressed. Then came 9-11 and the man quit worrying about getting elected and started leading. He let history write the narrative about the events, instead of trying to control the narrative about himself.
I think the candidate that can really restore the necessary narrative balance in this country is the one that will lead in the campaign, and let history write the narrative. I also think this candidate will have enough natural appeal to win the day.
This means the canddate that I think will do best is the one that tells the nation's story, not his, or her, own. That's the narrative I want to hear in the '08 election cycle - and I think it is the one America wants to hear as well.
Related Tags: election, narrative, America, President, story
