Doing Well Shows Less Than Performing Well In Presidential Campaign

In this US Presidential Campaign, Barack Obama is obviously a radiating idol whose acting skills are not bad. At least his lines were delivered with instigation. In comparison, John McCain is a terrible actor, even though he has accomplished much in his political career. But when it comes to political games, doing well slows less than performing well.

On October 28 [Date error, correction: 18], Obama was standing on the stage in the town square of St. Louis, Mo., facing an audience of 100,000 people. He spoke into the microphone, and I can only think of one word for such a magnificent scene – wow.

“Wow” is indeed the best word to describe Obama’s present situation. In this era when Westerners have become more and more cynical about democracy, 100,000 people getting together to witness a politician’s personal presence is something splendid. Only a few people knew such a figure two years ago; he was just elected senator four years ago, only stepped out of his school campus in 1991, his childhood was precarious and he is a black man.

Nonetheless, Obama has probably gotten used to such an immense scale of support by now. Since the campaign started over a year ago, from east to west, from the Internet to the real world, from Europe to the United States, wherever this political star arrives, joyful screaming and shouting follows. When he spoke in New Hampshire, an audience of tens of thousands stretched out their arms and shouted rhythmically every few minutes: “Obama! Obama! Obama!” Such a scene of political fanaticism is also a familiar one, but the difference is that audience members did not each hold the cherished [Mao Zedong’s] little red book in their hands.

Those who have don’t follow the news may wonder: What kind of great achievements has this person accomplished?

It may sound strange, but perhaps the reason Obama receives such a strong patronage is precisely because he was nobody and has done nothing, therefore he can easily draw a line between himself and the power-exercising group in D.C. and disassociate himself from the economic storm and diplomatic sinkhole that the U.S. is currently facing, while showing his fresh new face on tour around the United States with a big sign that reads “change.”

Surely it will be inappropriately to say that he hasn’t said anything. Obama has spoken plentifully in appealing manner, which is all it takes for many voters. He says he will cut taxes for 95 percent of U.S. taxpayers and only increase taxes for the richest 5 percent of the population. He says he wants to move forward with a national health care system. He says he wants to develop clean energy, hence stop “borrowing money from China to give to Saudi Arabia.” Anyway, Obama’s world is absolutely beautiful. And Obama’s acting skills are superb, with a full range of tones and expressions in perfect accordance, first pontificating the “great American dream” in one line, and then emotionally recounting “I was born in a poor family and had a biter childhood.” No wonder he has enchanted the mass of voters.

Comparatively, McCain is a lousy lecturer. In several presidential debates he appeared feminine and dull, and even spoke incoherently. His answer to most questions is “I know I can do it.”

When the host asked him why he chose Palin to be his partner, he faltered for a while but could only circle around “Palin cares about families with special needs very much.” All right, perhaps someone who “cares about families with special needs” can be a good volunteer social worker, but that is quite different from being the president. Finally McCain even replied, “Her husband is also a very capable man.” Even if her husband is a very capable man, how does that relate to the presidential campaign?

McCain has a long list of political achievements. Obama often mentions, “If McCain is elected, we will have to endure the Bush government for the third term.”

In fact, McCain is very different from the Bush government on many crucial issues. He is among the reformers, not the conservatives, of the Republicans. His involvement reformed and regulated the “soft money” of election funds, and made efforts to eliminate the influence of lobby groups in Washington D.C. He also promoted the “anti-torture” amendments and is in favor of closing down the notorious Guantanamo Bay prison. He can jump out of the fort controlled by the existing interest groups and remain different and independent on many issues. This is why not only the Democrats but also many Republicans disagree with him.

Obama’s elevated heroic tone inevitably inspires thoughts about the relationship between modern democracy and emotionalized speech. On one hand, people desire a charismatic leader to be the humanized interface for the state machine in front of the vast bureaucracy of modern society. Therefore a speaker who is good at instigating people is a key to activate public life.

But on the other hand, instigation can easily overtake people’s reasoning in making fair judgments. When a politician stands on the podium, he or she faces the crowd instead of individual people to negotiate or debate with, and the crowd’s emotions are not only infectious but can also inflate the ego of the speaker. When Obama was verbalizing a series of parallel sentences of “Yes, we can change …” in a gradually intensified tone, he was not debating but rather hypnotizing. Meanwhile, his emotionally heightened audience has already been too melted in the ocean of collectiveness to attend to the devils in the details and analyze his promises.

For example, one of Obama’s core phrases is his words, “against the riches.” We have repeatedly heard him mentioning “Bush-McCain only cut tax for the Fortune 500 companies and their CEOs,” but his own policy is “cutting taxes for 95 percent of the U.S. population while increasing taxes for only the richest 5 percent.” This saying surely is instigating. But many commentators later questioned how Obama could possibly cut taxes for 95 percent of the Americans. Because of U.S. tax policy, the poorest 40 percent of the population do not pay federal taxes. Moreover, Obama is not going to point out to the public the fact that the 5 percent richest population is already paying around 60 percent of the federal tax (their income ratio is 37 percent), and to increase their taxes may undermine the environment of setting up new businesses and consequently affect employment opportunities.

In fact Obama also knows that even if he does increase taxes for that 5 percent of elites, it would not be a substantial amount. Although he has already promised to use this money on education, energy, environment, caring for senor citizens and medical care, as if the money is growing from a tree and can be used endlessly. By means of turning the 95 percent of population against the other 5 percent is not really solving the deficit situation of the government, but rather an election language to stir up the voters: Look at those rich people, they should not get away without paying.

Of course, winning or losing is based on more than only their ability to instigate. Like Obama said, he is not only leading a campaign, but a movement. McCain is behind Obama 6 percent in the polls, and it could be contributed to their instigation skills, temperament, demeanors, words and behaviors, but it really is rooted in their policy orientation and the collective thoughts behind it.

With economic instability, diplomatic disadvantage and the rising public resentment of the Bush government, people start to get tired of everything associated with the Republicans, and the reforming force that McCain represents would also be treated as the same, to be discarded. More and more people realize that the conservatism that rose when Reagan was in the White House has been gradually worn out under the Bush government, and the United States is about to enter a new leftist era. This means, perhaps Obama’s and McCain’s campaign strategies are no longer important, but rather which boat they are on, and which way that river of history is taking them.