2008 1 1 02 | Category: Talking about Politics-USA ("Details of Democracy" Series) Du Nan Weekly

-

At 65438+1October 18, Obama stood in St. Louis Square, Missouri, facing an audience of 65438+10,000 people and said into the microphone: Such a spectacular picture, all I can think of now is one word-wow!

"Wow" is indeed the most accurate word to describe Obama's current state. In this era when western people are increasingly cynical about democracy, it is really spectacular that100000 people get together to see the beauty of a politician. However, this man was little known two years ago. He was just elected as a senator four years ago and really left the campus in 9 1 year. He is a black man.

However, Obama may be used to such a huge pursuit. After more than a year's election campaign, from the east to the west, from the internet to reality, from Europe to the United States, this political star has aroused screams and cheers from all over the world. In a speech in New Hampshire, thousands of people in the audience waved their arms rhythmically every few minutes and shouted: Obama! Obama! Obama! The fanaticism at the scene needs a little red book.

People who don't know may ask: what great achievements has this person made?

Perhaps strangely, the reason why Obama is so sought after may be precisely because he is nobody and has done nothing. Because he is a nobody and has done nothing, he can easily draw a line with the current power groups in Washington, get rid of the current economic storm and diplomatic quagmire in the United States, appear as a fresh face, and attack everywhere in the United States with the big sign of "change."

Of course, it can't be said that he "did nothing". Obama said a lot, and he said it beautifully. Speaking is an important part of doing for politicians. He said that he would cut taxes for 95% of Americans and increase taxes for only 5% of the rich. He said he would promote the universal health care system; He said that he would develop clean energy and stop "borrowing money from China and then sending it to Saudi Arabia"; He said that he would withdraw his troops from Iraq and negotiate with Iran to persuade them to give up their nuclear program ... In short, Obama's world is beautiful. Moreover, Obama's speech skills are superb, his emotions are full, and his rhythm is perfectly adjusted. The first sentence said "the great American dream ..." The next sentence said emotionally, "I was born in a poor family when I was a child ..." Speaking of this, I said sympathetically, "I know that you watched your pension be swept away by the financial storm ..." While angrily condemning "those greedy people", Obama refuted the accusation that he was "all talk and no action": "Who? "I have a dream", isn't it words? "We have nothing to fear except fear itself", isn't that the sentence? "Yes, an important function of politicians is to enhance social cohesion and arouse citizens' confidence in the future, so it is the first duty of politicians to be eloquent.

By contrast, McCain is a terrible speaker. In several presidential debates, he appeared long-winded, lifeless and even incoherent. The answer to most questions is "I know I can do it-". When the host asked him why he chose Palin as his partner, he hesitated for a long time, only around the argument that "Palin is very concerned about families with special needs". Well, people who "care about families with special needs" may become good social worker volunteers, but there is still a certain gap with the president. Finally, McKay rambled and said, "Her husband is also a very capable person." Even if her husband is a very capable person, what does this have to do with the presidential election?

In fact, compared with Obama, McCain can be said to have rich political achievements. One of the words that Obama often talks about is: "If McCain is elected, then we will have to endure the third Bush administration." In fact, McCain is very different from the Bush administration in many key issues-he is a reformist within the party, not a conservative. It was he who promoted the reform of election fund-raising that restricted "soft money". It was he who tried to eliminate the influence of special lobbying groups in Washington. It was he who promoted the anti-torture bill and advocated the closure of the notorious Guantanamo prison ... On many issues, he was able to jump out of the fortress of vested interests and maintain a maverick posture. This is why not only Democrats but also many Republicans can't agree with him.

Obama's triumph can't help but make people think about the relationship between modern democracy and sensational speech. On the one hand, in the face of the huge bureaucratic system in modern society, people are eager for attractive leaders to give the state machine a humanized "interface", so politicians who are good at sensationalism and stimulation are often a key to activate public life. But on the other hand, it is also easy to drown people's rational and just thinking about the problem. Weber once said: "Lack of distance from the people is one of the most deadly sins of politicians"-yes, he said "lack of distance" rather than "keeping distance" because a certain distance provides a space for calm thinking. When a politician stands on the podium, he is faced with a group of dark "masses", not people who can negotiate and debate. The mood of the crowd is not only contagious, but also self-reinforcing. When Obama throws out a series of "Yes, we can change …", he uses a gradual tone. He is not theorizing, but hypnotizing. I'm afraid the passionate people in the audience have already melted into Wang Yang's collective ocean, and have no intention to analyze his promises and study the devil.

For example, one of the core words of Obama is his "hate for the rich". In his speeches and debates, we have heard him mention many times that "Bush-McCain only cuts taxes for the CEOs of the richest Fortune 500 companies", while his own plan is to "cut taxes for 95% of Americans and increase taxes for the richest 5%." Of course, this statement is sensational enough, but later many commentators pointed out that how could Obama reduce the income tax of 95% Americans? Due to various tax refund policies, the bottom 40% people in the United States don't pay federal income tax at all. Obama will not point out to the public the fact that 5% of the high-income earners in the United States are already paying about 60% of the US federal income tax (their income ratio is 37%), and further tax increase is likely to hurt the entrepreneurial environment, thus affecting the employment opportunities at the bottom. In addition, there is a widely circulated saying that "Bush only gives tax cuts to the CEO of Wall Street". In fact, Bush's tax cuts are aimed at all social strata, and in terms of tax cuts, the tax cuts for the middle and lower classes are even greater than those for the upper classes. However, most people in the Obama camp do not calculate the relative amount of tax cuts, but publish their absolute amount, thus concluding that most of the tax cuts in the United States flow to the top rich. If you only pay 2 yuan tax, I pay 10 yuan tax, you reduce 50% 1 yuan, and I reduce 30% 3 yuan. Such a happy thing will become "75% of the benefits of Bush's tax cuts go to the elite" in the Obama camp. The problem is that you only paid 2 yuan's tax, how can I subtract 3 yuan from it?

In fact, Obama also knows that even if taxes are raised on the 5% elite, it will not increase much-although he has promised to spend the money on education, energy, environment, old-age care and medical care. It seems that this cash cow is inexhaustible. This practice of setting 95% of Americans against 5% of Americans is actually not to improve the government's fiscal deficit, but to mobilize voters' sensational rhetoric: look, those rich people! They can't be cheap

Of course, it can't be said that the winning or losing of the two candidates depends only on their sensational ability. As Obama said: He led not only a campaign, but a movement. Mccain lags behind Obama by six percentage points, which can be attributed to their sensational ability, demeanor and demeanor, but in the final analysis, it lies in their policy orientation and the social ideological trend behind them. Under the Bush administration, economic turmoil, diplomatic defeat, rising public grievances, people began to get tired of everything related to * * * and the party. John McCain, who represents * * * and the reform forces within the party, will also be thrown away like a child in a bathtub. More and more people realize that the conservative trend of thought that arose in the Reagan era has been gradually exhausted by the Bush administration, and the new left-wing era in the United States is coming. In this sense, the election strategies of Obama and McCain may not be important. What matters is which ship they are on and in which direction the long river of history under their ship flows.