Consumerism and its Role in the 2008 Elections

 

 

The current presidential race between Barack Obama and John McCain has had a great deal of overlap with our readings in consumerism so far. At the most basic level, a presidential race is about a candidate (a good) using many forms of advertising to convince the electorate (consumers) that they have the greatest use value. The race leading up to the election is about the candidates’ ability to self-brand in order to distinguish themselves from their opponents and win over loyal consumers. Then, on Tuesday November 4^th, it is often the candidate’s brand that makes a majority of voters make their final decisions. It is somewhat startling that after a year of campaigning it is only a snapshot of a candidate that dictates which lever the voter pulls 3 weeks from now.

            Joseph Davis, in his critique on self- branding, argues that one reason central to the explosion of individual commodification in society is a shift from social integration to “interpersonal intimacy.” People are focusing more on their inward self instead of seeing themselves through social organizations. In terms of the politics, people’s political affiliations are less dictated by the group’s consensus and instead are more focused on making up their own mind. The first and only time that I have come across a unionized voter was when I was door knocking last January in New Hampshire. He was a retired man in his late 70s who had been a member of the same carpenters union for his entire life. The union had endorsed John Edwards and the man told me that he was going to vote with the union, as he had his entire life, because they had always provided for him and his family. He exemplified the “organization man” of the past. If Davis’ observation is correct, then block voting according to organizational affiliations must have been much more common when this man first joined his carpenters union. Because of the decreased participation in social organizations; group endorsements have become purely a symbolic message to undecided voters.

            I would agree with Davis that it is fair to estimate that more than half of the American electorate’s decision will come down to “impulse.” But, using Davis’ concepts, I wonder if voter to voter dialogue now has more or less of an impact on the outcome of presidential elections that it has had in the past. In Davis’ past scenario it would seem as though while voters would probably engage in more open discussion with other group members they would often also vote in line with the group consensus. This explanation also makes sense when you think about how much more divided the electoral map used to be between red and blue states. While in the modern scenario, still following Davis, voters are unwilling to debate as openly (to protect their brand) and the voters decision a made internally, often by some media created image. So far, there has been much talk between both campaigns about the desire to increase candidate to voter and the voter to voter dialogue. McCain originally advocated for 10 town hall style debates and Obama has rallied a sizable army of volunteers to talk face to face with undecided voters. But, as Davis would point out, as presidential candidate’s cry for increased dialogue they are simultaneously improving their brand image.

            Before Election Day comes only a very small fraction of American voters will have physically interacted with any of the Presidential candidates. While Debord would argue that the spectacle would have a played a role in such meetings, it is with the other 99% of voters who have not met the candidates that the spectacle will play its largest role. Debord writes in his book, The Society of the Spectacle, that a consumer’s decision is made for him or her in the “sphere of production” and it is the spectacle that later gives justification to that choice. Consumers for Debord are incapable of making an unadulterated decision because the spectacle is the only source from which society will listen.  Thus, it is important for campaigns to use talking points, repetition, and many other tactics to make the spectacle work in their candidates favor. McCain wants the spectacle to portray Obama as risky and socialist. Obama needs the spectacle to paint McCain in line with Bush and images of an old insider.

            I would say that the campaigns not only get help from the spectacle, but they have a hand in dictating its direction and keeping it going. When listening to a political robo call, computer operated telemarketing, or watching a political add with strong subliminal imagery it is hard seems that the spectacle is really a “negation of life.” These forms of the spectacle show blunt arguments against the opposing candidate that rarely involve any kind of truth, but instead try to produce a gut instinct in voters. Such tactics have been used on Obama, saying that he supported late term abortions, and on McCain, saying that he supported reducing troop funding. The final goal is for the spectacle to communicate a favorable outcome for their candidate when production ends on Election Day. For my part I hope that the American electorate is not so malleable, but I recognize that this is probably not the case.