Robert Bellah argues that as the middle class developed, a more specific discourse, field particular jargon, developed as well. This new language was predicated not on positionality, but on a set of abstract principles or guides, e.g. happiness, love, hate, etc. Middle class rhetoric, in turn, shifted from "because you are my son" to "this would make me happy."
The shrinking middle class, as well all know, was perhaps the most contested demographic in this election cycle. According to the CNN exit polls, among those making 50,000 to 75,000 49% swung to McCain and 48% swung toward Obama. That income bracket was also the largest demographic to vote holding a 21% share of total voters.
If you listen to the speeches of the last three days of the campaign, McCain ceases associative argumentation, as one expect in a race for the middle class, following this logic. McCain does not associate Obama with Ayers or Wright. He does not associate him with Terrorists, or Blacks, or Socialist (Palin continues, but let's deal with McCain for now). He appeals to abstract principles. Experience vs. Inexperience. Change vs. Risk.
Obama though stuck with associative rhetoric, seemingly contrary to this logic. 90%. 90%. 90%. Bush = McCain.
The truth though is that this hard and fast distinction of rhetoric fails to account for non-exclusivity of rhetoric in general. But perhaps more important, is that positional rhetoric was a key piece of Obama's campaign. And if you look at how he performed among the poor, uneducated, and the very well educated and very rich, Bellah's pattern holds. Obama won those who make less than 50,000 a year 60% to 38%. And although Obama and McCain split those who make over 50,000 per year 49% to 49%. Those who make more than 200,000 dollars a year went to Obama 52% to 46%.
McCain, who's campaign was running two major narratives (experience and risk) as opposed to Obama's one (change), won on the abstract principled one of "experience," albeit not by much. And soundly lost on positional rhetoric of association, which Obama's one narrative dominated.
Interestingly, when McCain was polling slightly ahead of Obama right after the RNC bump, his speeches were all about his service and his experience. He had, in effect, widen the middle class with guided rhetoric. But once Rick Davis decided to go after Obama with associative rhetoric, around October 7th, the campaign basically ended, because they had moved the social moorings of the conversation onto a battlefield that Obama had already been entrenched in.
As an aside, ironically, Obama, the self proclaimed champion of the middle class, narrowed the demographic with his positional rhetoric. Funny, huh?
Migrated to Tumblr
13 years ago
7 comments:
I find the most interesting fact in there is that those making above 200,000 dollars went to Obama, isn't he going to (gasp) redistribute their wealth?!
This is more than a little interesting, but I'm not quite sure I know what to make of it. For example: You write: "McCain, who's campaign was running two major narratives (experience and risk) as opposed to Obama's one (change), won on the abstract principled one of "experience," albeit not by much. And soundly lost on positional rhetoric of association, which Obama's one narrative dominated." Let's assume, just for the moment, that this is true. Answer this: WHY?
1) Abstract guided arguments appeal more to the middle class, which McCain won. Positional based arguments appeal more to the lower classes and higher classes, both of which Obama won.
2) Two arguments, one positional based and the other abstract based, dilute the overarching message of a single campaign. Obama could throw all of his resources behind one argument. McCain, with significantly less resources, had to fund two.
I'm still not exactly sure what you're getting at though.
Gotcha. Even more more than a little interesting now. But, to pick up on a thread taking place elsewhere, how might you trace out a case for causation here?
I'm not sure a very good case can been made here. One way to do it would be to find some data about the stump speeches. When this stump speech was used and how this particular audience received it, etc. That would give us a link between the demographics I've cited, and the actual text.
But, truth be told. I'm not sure if even that is solid enough evidence. I guess the must important thing about my argument is that is sounds plausible. The common sense element to it could require less actual evidence than a more out there sort of argument.
I'm open to ideas
To clarify, this was my point of an interesting fact, not MCWs; and MCW is plausibility strong enough to support your argument?
Nope. Not one bit. But it's a place to start from at least.
Post a Comment