This world is the will to power -- and nothing besides.
-- Nietzsche, The Will to Power

Nietzsche has argued that the will to power, the will to not only survive but to dominate, is the fundamental driving force of all life. The will to truth, by contrast, is subsidiary. We seek truth in order to increase our power. But Nietzsche regards truth as an artificial construct. The powerful are capable of creating truth as an exercise of power and as a means of extending their dominance.

One need not subscribe to Nietzsche's nihilism in order to apply his doctrine. Substitute "perception" for "truth" to get an apt representation of modern American political discourse.  Political candidates and elected officials vie for power. Their spokespeople, surrogates, press secretaries, talking points, and war rooms are tools for shaping public perceptions in order to exercise power and achieve their objectives. We often call such exercises "spin".

A politician's ability to control perception is proportional to his or her power. A totalitarian regime which controls the media can shape the perceptions of its citizens to a considerable degree. American politicians must rely on less direct mechanisms--subtly manipulating the press, exploiting access to privileged information, pressuring officials and politicians, and taking advantage of the authority of public office.

The Bush Administration's selling of the Iraq War offers a prime example of the will to power in American politics. By presenting sensational allegations of WMD's and Al Qaeda connections to the press, by referencing classified data, by enlisting the support of Republican legislators and pressuring Democratic legislators, and by using the offices of the President and Vice-President to persistently represent Saddam Hussein a grave threat to the country's security, the Administration created the perception that an invasion of Iraq was necessary. The creation of this perception was both an exercise of power and a means of augmenting authority via the Iraq War Authorization and Patriot Act.

Another recent example of the will to power in American politics has been the spin strategy of the Clinton campaign. Throughout the primary season, the campaign has aggressively worked to shape public perception so as to benefit Clinton's bid for power. Since January, she and her spokespeople and surrogates have regularly denigrated Obama's successes (small states, caucuses, red states, black voters, young voters, elite voters, etc.) and promoted her own successes (big states, swing states, working-class voters, Michigan and Florida) in an attempt to create the perception that she deserves the Democratic nomination. These efforts have been somewhat successful in that Clinton was widely perceived to be a viable candidate long after her statistical odds had plummeted.

But the Clinton campaign also undermined its efforts through its aggressiveness. To shape perception, the hand of the politician must remain essentially hidden. The representation must be seen as arising from the "facts" rather than from manipulation. Once the manipulation has been exposed as "spin", the manipulator loses credibility, and his or her powers of manipulation decline. Manipulation may be exposed directly, as in exposes about the Bush Administration's selling of the Iraq War. It may also be exposed indirectly by simply contradicting the perception. For instance, George Bush's credibility was diminished when no WMD's were found in Iraq. This example exposes the limits of political power to shape perception in American politics. If the government directly controlled the media, it could easily have fabricated the existence Iraqi WMD's. But while the American media can be manipulated, it resists such attempts to an extent. Journalists may have dutifully publicized the Administration's suspicious satellite photographs, but when tangible evidence could not be found, the Administration lacked the power to continue to sell the myth.

Thus, it's important for politicians intent on manipulating public perception to choose their battles carefully, as it were. If a politician obviously attempts to shape perception and fails, the effort will be exposed as "spin", and the politician will lose credibility, which is what has happened to the Clinton campaign. Clinton and her surrogates have pressed the myth of her electoral superiority so often and in the face of so much evidence that journalists no longer take them seriously. The articles at TPM have grown increasingly disparaging of Clinton spin tactics to the point that Josh Marshall has now posted a video which ridicules the continued efforts of Terry McAuliffe to represent the Clinton campaign as competitive. Clinton also overreached in her attempt to create the perception that she had gained considerable foreign and military policy as First Lady. When a CBS video contradicted her Bosnia narrative, her credibility plummeted, and her effort to shape perceptions about her experience was undermined.

Efforts by Barack Obama's campaign to shape perception have been less aggressive or at least less obvious. Examples include campaign advisers' attempts to lower expectations before primaries, Obama's disparagement of the importance of experience, and his contrasts between himself and "Washington". But at least with respect to the state of the race, the campaign seems content to let public perception develop without its influence; campaign representatives tend to answer the Clinton campaign's efforts to shape perception about the race with figurative shrugs. This willingness to refrain from trying to shape perception may itself be seen as a passive exercise of power; the campaign is confident enough that it does not deem such efforts necessary. It is also important to note that since Obama does not have a reputation for spin, he may be able to shape perception more effectively than Clinton.

John McCain's effectiveness at shaping public opinion seems, so far, to be mixed. On one hand, by occasionally working with Democratic legislators and taking positions that contradict Republican doctrine, he has created the perception that he is a "courageous", "honorable" "straight-talker", which offers him considerable credibility and the ability to shape perception without being accused of "spin". On the other hand, he has a history of ill-considered comments and confusions which undermine his credibility, including his proclamation of a secure Baghdad after his tour of a market there, his admitted ignorance on economic issues, and his confusion between Sunnis and Shiites and between Al Qaeda and other terrorists. It is important to note that the latter examples, while undermining his intellectual authority, do not expose deliberate attempts to manipulate public perception. If he is judicious in his efforts to shape perception going forward, he may be able to maintain credibility through the election, which means that like Obama, he will be able to spin more effectively.

In order for us voters to satisfy our own wills to power and, more importantly, to avoid disastrous consequences from the reckless pursuit of power by our leaders, we should resist their attempts to shape our perceptions. That means that we should be ever conscious of manipulation, both of the blogosphere's biggest bogeyman, mainstream media, and of the blogosphere itself. When a blogger posts an ill-sourced smear of a candidate which MSM won't touch, that too is manipulation and an example of the author's will to power. We should take a hard look at all news articles, even by our beloved Josh Marshall, and question whether they bear the fingerprints of manipulation by candidates or their supporters, when, for example, such articles simply repeat lines that politicians have pushed. Insofar as we have voices ourselves, we should also be mindful of our own credibility. When we curse, engage in name-calling, or constantly accuse those with whom we disagree with of bias and stupidity, we expose ourselves as manipulators and undermine our own credibility and our own power. Finally, we must be ever vigilant of our political candidates, especially those we love, for these are the ones who have the most power over us.