Image vs. Substance

We are in an era that social theorists call post-modernity.  It is characterized by a problem with objective truth and a suspicion of cultural narrative.  Another way of saying this is that truth is relative and cultural narrative is made up of personal opinions.  I propose that this is why we don’t test political statements to an objective baseline.  We test them to our own likes and dislikes.  If it’s all personal opinion, why not accept what we like and reject what we don’t?  The truth?  Heck, who knows what that is?

A more subtle effect of post-modernity is the increased value of image over substance.  This has spawned celebrities who are popular for their celebrity and are devoid of any talent.  Paris Hilton comes to mind.  In case we disagree on her talent, I don’t consider making porno movies to be a unique talent.  But politicians are my topic, not porno movies.  I would argue that politicians are better entertainment anyway.

Image over substance is what our entire political process has become.  A good example is a Representative from Minnesota who is campaigning for the presidency in 2012.  If there were ever a better example of image over substance I don’t know who it was, with the possible exception of the ex-governor of Alaska.  Here’s the result:  regardless of the Representative’s stream of misinterpreted and twisted facts she is a front runner in the Republican primary.  There are those who will argue that Mr. Obama is guilty too.  But although image was the focus of his campaign, it’s hard to argue with his substance. 

I found another excellent example in the NY Times on July 19^th, 2011 — “Freshman House Republicans who rode a wave of voter discontent into office last year vowed to stop out-of-control spending, but that has not stopped several of them from quietly trying to funnel millions of federal dollars into projects back home.  They have pushed for dozens of projects in their districts, including military programs opposed by the president, replenishing beach sand lost to erosion, a $700 million bridge in Minnesota and a harbor dredging project in Charleston, S.C. Some of their projects were once earmarks, political shorthand for pet projects penciled into spending bills, which Republicans banned when they took over the House.”  But the best example is that “Representative Sean Duffy says his bridge measure is not an earmark because there were no specific costs listed in the bill.”  Huh! 

Pay attention to what we say, “cut spending”, not what we do, “continue spending”.     

How can this happen?  It can only happen if we turn our attention away from what someone says (substance) and toward professionally-designed public personas (image).  And of course, let’s not forget our penchant for selecting the facts that support what we already believe.

I think our focus on image instead of substance has a lot to do with 24/7 news coverage.  We are flooded with information.  Most of it consists of sound bites – short one and two liners.  No one has time to sort it out.  So repetition becomes the coin of the realm.   

Hitler’s propaganda machine taught us that when we hear the same lies over and over again, we begin to believe them.  I’m sure you’ve seen many instances of politicians answering every question with the same answer.  That practice is very well planned.  It’s called “staying on message.”  Both parties have political think tanks that develop the message and the phrasing to be repeated ad nauseam.    

Well, the process seems to work in campaigns.  Unfortunately, campaigning never ends.  My evidence?  The debt ceiling crisis is a result of continuous campaigning and repeating phrases designed to convince us that the other party is at fault.  It boils down to a very scary outcome.  Our political process now prohibits good governing.  We can’t have both.  And politicians have chosen party politics over pragmatic solutions.  

Robert DeFilippis