It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.

Creeds in 2008 Democratic Primary

-- By RobertCorp - 13 Feb 2008

Introduction

Thurman Arnold stresses that the most effective creeds for a political campaign are those that lack any tangible meaning. Overarching truth-isms and broad, vague aspirations allow for people with diverse, conflicting interests to believe that their cause is championed through the creed. Ultimately it is the organization (in the relevant case here the individual) which will come to define itself; its creed it has little relation to reality.

Barack Obama

Hope

Obama's presidential candidacy is ideal from Arnold’s perspective. Obama is running on a platform of hope. He has defined his campaign as pursuing the values of justice, opportunity and prosperity. Obama’s campaign embodies Arnold’s belief that affirmative arguments are the most persuasive. Offering a message of optimism attracts many whom would not agree with the candidate’s policies.

Advantages

The beauty of the Obama’s creed is that hope does not have the internal contradictions that the best of politicians are forced to maneuver around. Typically, inconsistencies manifest in political platforms (i.e. provide more services while lowering taxes). Obama has managed to craft an umbrella wider than that formed through vagueness and inconsistency-obscuring politicking that Arnold values. It is not a platform predicated on vague policy stances, it is a shift of attention away from policy; the source of inconsistencies for others.

Obama has the luxury of a short political career, resulting in a lack of inevitable inconsistencies to rectify to his constituency. He has become a superstar without having to compromise for political expediency; this has resulted in the perfect storm for Arnold’s politician. He has a broad umbrella, yet lacks inconsistencies. Obama also utilizes masterfully the rhetorical strategies Arnold values, harkening to past heroes (J.F.K.) and to the forefathers’ ideals.

Hillary Clinton

Pragmatic?

At first blush, it may seem that Clinton has failed to create an ideal creed. Her typical campaign speech runs through a litany of programs that are political, and therefore divisive. Arnold says “content and logic are the least important thing about (creeds)” (Arnold, 21). This would seem to be a damning indictment of Clinton’s candidacy, as her focus steers voters toward her content.

Clinton’s Own Creed

This analysis would be faulty. Arnold would say that Clinton’s content is indeed her creed, but not because of the content itself. Clinton’s creed is the pursuit of practical change; the nature of this aim is secondary to the fact that she has it. This must be the case; those who support her because of her policies do so while Obama pursues nearly the same things. The willingness to talk about issues works to craft an aura, a creed, of pragmatism.

Clinton, like Obama, is an irregularity in the Arnold perspective. While Arnold demonstrates that technicians fail as politicians, Clinton frames herself as a technician. This creates an image of expertise and experience. This strategy is not without pitfalls; it concedes that it is necessarily limiting the breadth of her appeal. Clinton, however, had no other choice, as the preferable lane of ‘change' had already been clogged by her more inspirational opponent. Clinton is thus refuting the idea that “the roles of an actor on the stage and the technician who directs the play are entirely different”; she is combining them (Arnold, 357).

2008 Politics

Vacuum

That either of these individuals may become President is possible in large part because of the moment in history. Bush’s failures created a vacuum. Arnold states that it is the failure of a previous institution that allows for a new movement to emerge, rather than its own strength (Arnold, 388). Both of these candidates are departures from the status quo, albeit in differing degrees. Obama’s candidacy, in particular, is bolstered by the public’s distaste for the current state of affairs. In 2000, following a decade of relative peace and prosperity, vague allusions to hope would not have propelled a candidate far (allusions to morality and piety worked far better at the moment, given Mr. Clinton’s transgressions).

Can Change Happen?

A notable difference between the political realities of 2008 and those of 1937 is the rate at which change can develop. One cannot ignore the technological advancements and society’s inter-connectedness. Arnold emphasizes that change in any institution is gradual. In 2008, trends and movements can propel rapidly because of 24 hour news cycles, blogs and Facebook.

The speed with which information can spread and the various avenues for reaction and organization seemingly will alter the pace with which change can manifest. Arnold states that “changes in institutional habits are made only by the gradual substation of new habits” (Arnold, 352). A pivotal question for 2008: Is it the case that 21st century has changed the rate of institutional adoption such that gradual advancements are unnecessary? Or is the political institution itself isolated from quick changes, preserving the need for a willingness/ability to use the existing framework?

Conclusion

Clinton is much like Arnold’s England. Clinton has the ability to put on a public show and to be practical behind the scenes (Arnold, 384). If the answer to the preceding question is the latter, she has demonstrated herself to be well suited for the job. Change at the federal level is inherently slow. This makes a creed of pragmatism appealing, not only does it stand for change; it demonstrates an ability to make it happen.

Clinton has crafted a creed out of issues and policies. This alienates some. However, it also serves as a mandate if selected. Whereas Clinton is running on ‘changes’, Obama is running on ‘change’. Obama’s campaign has brilliantly masked that there are fundamentally differing opinions on issues which he will pursue. Obama may be hamstrung by “unity”, and thus may achieve only a compromised version of his plans. Without having faced the adversity of managing compromises before, Obama lacks the practicality that, for better or worse, Clinton has.

The beauty of Obama’s campaign is that he has an answer to ‘can we make them stop hating us for our freedom?' ‘Yes - We - Can’. Will this meaningless answer have meaning enough for American voters?

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, RobertCorp

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list