Hey, that's an excellent post Ghengis. Or perhaps more fitting, that's my perception of your post.

As I see it, McCain isn't capable of creating a sustainable perception in this election. Instead, he dances between existing perceptions hoping to find traction.

Thoughtful post and a lot to chew on. One of the questions that comes to mind is how the youtube/web 2.0 effect will alter traditional political perception setting.

Without going too far over the top, I'd say this election is a watershed, if only for the view we've gotten of competing (sometimes complimentary) claims to credibility... among candidates, traditional media, bloggers, online networks, viral campaigns and word of mouth.

Nietzsche's Hopelessly Reductive Theory

James Blight, Professor of International Relations at Brown U., shows in his books and articles on the Cuban Missile Crisis that what looks like a will to power is more deeply understood as defensiveness against feeling helpless, guilty beyond belief and other dystonic feelings. The will to domination is an appearance, not a fundamental motivation. Bush's parents took his beloved sister from him when he was a child, took her to a far away clinic, and on the day she died, they didn't tell George. They went golfing. George's grandfather beat the hell out of George's father routinely. Hitler's stepfather whipped him up to a hundred blows almost every night for four years because he believed that Hitler had Jewish blood in him. The tales of severe abuse are legion. Hillary's father was a cruel person; he always degraded her unmercifully.

These abuses turn people into compulsive actors, helpless in the face of their unexamined traumas. Notice that this in an empathic and sympathetic view, which many of us believe is our only hope for creating unity and progressive change.

Fortunately, Obama was loved and empathized with. That's what makes him unusually empathic and constructive.

There's so much more to say about leaders' motivations that would help make the case that the a conclusion opposite to N's makes better sense out of all the facts of leaders' lives.

Genghis -

Great post as always. I think that as examined in comments above, the 'new media' has forever altered the game.

It means that in a mouse click the masses have infinite sources of information at their fingertips that can be cross-referenced to death and original material can be analyzed directly by the user before having been blenderized by the talking heads.

What is simply mind-blowing is that Obama and those whom he hired have perfectly sensed the national mood, the changed demographics and the technology in ways that utilized the confluence of it all for a 'perfect storm', if you will. Upheaval was the only legitimate message.

That's not luck as someone tried to dismiss above, but a gift we've yet to fully appreciate. It will be much written about in the campaign's post-mortem - b/c everyone will consider the playbook re-written definitively. I'm not sure that this can be replicated sans the most important element, him. I'll try to come back w/ link - but in the last couple of days, the NYT had a wonderful piece about the dawn of his campaign in Silicon Valley and all that that has meant. The gist is akin to that old standby quote of McLuhan, "...the medium is the message."

Your message analysis is a good one. B/c what has been especially painful to watch is the Clinton campaign's total misread of EVERYTHING - they just appeared to be completely blindsided by it all. Like they've been in a bubble since he left office. As a NY'er, it makes me question how she's been running her Senate office in the dark ages and all.

The 'lucky' commenter above is missing a fundamental point - that b/c his message is actually who he is - he was going to carry it forward regardless and live or die w/ it. We've all been in life's arenas where we've either witnessed or experienced someone at peace w/ who they are vs. someone in uncomfortable flux. And it's always excruciating to behold.

Clinton's message changed w/ the wind b/c somewhere along the way she got lost and decided to go w/ what she thought would 'work'. It's hard to believe that they didn't see the pitfalls after what happened to our last two nominees. It's not just fighting for fighting's sake that people want to see - it's the authenticity that people sense when you're fighting for something you TRULY believe in. If you've surrendered your center, it's really hard to remain upright.

IMHO, your most poignant point was about the visible vs. invisible mechanisms of manipulation. I think what became apparent to the electorate is that w/ Obama, when confronted w/ a crisis or addressing an issue, people perceived (rightly or wrongly) that he was always making the mighty effort to square decisions w/ who he IS as a person. Contrast that w/ the perception of the Clinton camp's constantly picking what they perceived to be the vote-getting side and then conforming her persona accordingly. For someone coming to this w/ all the baggage (fairly or not) of 'untrustworthiness', this simply fed that perception.

And, if you could pinpoint a single moment where things could have evolved differently - I think had she been forthrightly apologetic for the War Vote - rather than ducking and diving - things may have unfolded a lot differently. She would have started w/ a smashing of the preconceived notions of her - a willingness to plain-spokenly say her mea culpa and move on. Probably would have felt liberating too.

Sorry for long comment - but you always provide such inspiration. Thanks!

Genghis, this is an outstanding post. Thoughtful, well written and reasoned, and insightful. The moral of your story is one that everyone here should be especially aware of: "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."

My quibble is that I am not certain that you have challenged yourself as rigorously as you have implored your readers. You spend considerable time exposing the Clinton campaign's efforts to shape the narrative of the election and explaining where and how those narratives have succeeded or broken down. Yet when it comes to the Obama campaign, you see "less aggressive or at least less obvious" efforts to shape the truth, offering only a few, somewhat mild examples. Perhaps you might consider the possibility that you have not applied the same vigilance to examining the political candidate you prefer? Perhaps you have not given proper consideration to the possibility that your own examples of the Clintons' manipulations have been influenced by the Obama campaign's own efforts to shape the truth to conform to his preferred narrative. Certainly, I would agree that Obama's reputation for candor and lack of spin has made his effort to shape opinion/fact more difficult to discern. At least it's something to think about. If I had more time I'd delve into it further. For now, I'm just raising the issue and hoping someone else can carry my water.

Nice work G. This is a long way from the dance party.

You're going to be giving FlyOnTneWall some competition.

In this analogy, Genghis, are you the Wagnerian?

I like association of abstract thought with concrete examples. And I agree with your message.

To add a bit more to the point about Obama's manipulation -- I think the nature of his "spin" has simply been more foward-thinking, compared with Clinton's. Put another way, Obama's been using effective foreshadowing, while Clinton plotters seem to rely on a deus ex machina.

Perhaps that's just a function of a the "luck" Allsburg refers to: but was Obama's selection of campaign theme and persona particularly prescient, or did he just pick a motif that is inherently more adaptable?

CaliforniaPaige --

"So there's a greater quantity of internal consistency, which translates to integrity. To a large degree, I think that it's irrelevant how much of that perception is plotted carefully and how much of it is Obama's personal truth; consistency in mode of perception leads to at least the appearance of authenticity."

First, I don't normally 'substitute perception for truth' as Genghis proposed we try in these considerations. I don't really believe one can 'plot' (even carefully) any real 'personal truth.'

I suppose it may be argued that in politics these values are actually interchangeable in practice (truth and perception), because of how the system works, given human nature, or any other 'reason.'

But even so, I can't buy that either. I'm more convinced of the differences between truth and perception. I don't know anybody who can actually 'shape truth,' while some might be quite expert at shaping perceptions.

And, I believe, people can perceive these differences, even if only unconsciously at times. That essential true integrity has real force and can be felt by others, I'm sure. It cannot be contrived, plotted, or 'spun' into reality. It's deep and absolutely affecting.

that's it for now ...

Spin is always present in politics, it's in us before the information even reaches us. We wait to hear that which will corroborate our expectations, our o-spin-ions. We then discuss our own particular take (spin) on the facts at hand and in our discussions might change the force or direction of someone else's spin. In that sense all of it bears the manipulation of a supporter or candidate.

By Nietzsche's assessment were all power hungry. Those who can't accept their power position in the conversation then resort to the name calling and profanity. It's a sign of that power slipping away.

BTW who's the blogosphere's biggest bogeyman?

Good read, except that Nietzsche was not a nihilist.

Cynics all, as was N.

There's no empathy in this will to power theory, no feeling for the candidates as people, as flawed, distorted, driven to other things besides power. You're seeing them through this very narrow slit, and they just don't fit. (Jesse Jackson) Obama is genuine, as genuine as anyone in memory. I get that from analyzing his history, his quoted private statements, a compilation I did of quotes people who knew him personally and worked with him for more than ten years. I get that from years of experience working with stuff on the journal of psychohistory. As to making too much of historical snippets, that's an assumption I can challenge well at a later time. Try Bush On the Couch, the Journal of Psychohistory, Alice Miller's For Your Own Good to begin with. If you don't see them as rich, complicated, very human people, if you just see them as power driven and spun and not spun, you're falling under N's spell. Put differently, you've got to and always do see them psychologically as well as in terms of their professional productions; you can't completely separate the two ways of thinking about candidates without, as I initially said, reducing them to caricatures whose motivations are inexplicable except in terms of something like the will to power, which, again, doesn't explain enough. All politics truly is personal, but we're phobic about being personal, because, well, personal stuff truly is foreign to most people--it's ruled out by prevailing morality that reduces people to good and bad impulses and completely leaves out their vulnerability to maltreatment.

Ghengis: Your comment brings up one obvious question. Why are you posting after 3 am?

After leaving the thread last night at the reasonable hour of 1 am, I tried to think of examples from teh Obama side and came up empty. The best I can offer is the idea that many of our expectations and perceptions of HRC are shaped by Obama spin. Of course, his campaign has had plenty of help. The right wing has been at it for over a decade as well as the dreaded MSM, whose loathing for, but fascination with, all things Clinton has been apparent for some time. HRC did herself no favors this time around with her ham-handed efforts to enter the fray herself, rather than leaving the message to her supporters, exposing herself in a way that was really unnecessary - particularly since her statements fit easily into all the prevailing narratives about her. Obama himself has done a brilliant job of staying above the fray (only a few exceptions: "You're nice enough"... "Annie Oakley"... etc.)

So I am left quibbling with my own quibble, an endless cycle of meta. You appear to have applied your scrutiny as evenhanded as one could hope for.

I posted this up-thread, but I doubt anyone is looking up there now. So, please forgive this re-post...

This has been a fascinating thread. I was reminded of a PBS series called "Evolution" (bear with me, there is a slient point ot this).

In one segment they demonstrated the human capacity to place themselves in another person's point of view. This was demonstrated by a scientist who uses a simple test. He plays a out a simple scenario in front of a Chimp, then a three year old child, then a five year old child. Here's the plot: Doll one, call her Sally, places her toy in a box and then goes outside to play. Then doll two, call her Beth, comes along and moves Sally's toy into another box and leaves. When Sally returns, the scientist ask each observer--the chimp, the three year old and the five year old (separate tests, not at the same time)--to where they think Sally would look for her toy. The chimp and the three year old were not able to think from Sally's point of view and always pointed to the current location of the toy. But the five year old, was able to make the leap into another person's point of view and understood that Sally would look in the place where she left the toy. Apparently something happens in our mental development between our toddler years and five-six years of age that allows us to empathize with others.

The point of all this is that by five years old nearly all of us have the ability to think beyond our own personal experience and empathize with another human. This is a critical survival skill for a social species. It allows us to understand how other people might react to certain things. This same ability can be exploited--positively or negatively--by those seeking power.

At this point I've lost where I was going with this, but it has something to do with Genghis' original post...I'm sure of it...er...maybe...oh hell, you all decide ;-)

Geez, G., N. really does beguile you.

So we're all subject to manipulation and can't with certainty know anybody. I'll confess that it's extremely difficult to get to know someone with whom I live. Granted. But we're stuck with that difficulty, and have to use everything we can get our hands on. When I say, "the personal," I mean the deep, the intimate. Why give up on that information, especially when Hillary or Bush are telling it publicly and being quoted and it's being corroberated by others? We don't have to view everything that comes out of their mouths in the narrow way N. would have us do. Their obvious distortions, or spin, are one aspect of who they are and what they're communicating. We have to use all of the information and all of the lens we can, not just or primarily N's. The psychological lens is powerful, and just because the data is thin, you can still, as hermeneutics shows, make informed judgements, no less than you do within N's paradigm.

McCain is grasping, blindly, for the respect and love of every Republican voter he meets. This kind of approach can only lead to pandering and his losing his sense of self in the months to come. As I said in another post, I find it rather sad.

i think you're making the same mistake about Bombin' John that folks make about aWol, the Chimp. You keep seeing--wantiing to see?--some kind of tragic figure compelled by the fates to betray his better nature, doing vile deeds in interests not of his choosing. It's an iteration of the (was it Tweetie's man-crush of his) hidden nobility?

Somehow, you've bought into the myth that aWol, the Chimp and Bombin' John were 'good men,' at some time in the past. Yet there is absolutely NOTHING in the biography of either one to suggest that is true...They are both now, and have always been, consumate assholes of the worst kind.

Genghis, great post, but I would object to your characterization of Nietzsche as a "nihilist." His self-ascribed purpose was to combat nihilism, but our understanding of what that word means is largely obscured by our own moralization of it.

In any case, while Nietzsche's thoughts on power may be disturbing to liberal sensibilities, they actually lend themselves quite well to a radically democratic conception of politics. For instance, Nietzsche's understanding of "justice" was that it represented a provisional accord between parties of equal power. But the claim of justice is always self-defeating if it attempts to close off, once and for all, the struggle between competing powers. Rather, an honest claim to justice has to ensure that the power struggle within a community, which need not be violent, but could take the form of democratic negotiation, continues.

Thus, "A system of law conceived as sovereign and general, not as a means for use in the fight between units of power, but as a means against fighting in general [...] this would be a principle hostile to life, an attempt to assassinate the future of man, a sign of fatigue and a secret path to nothingness [i.e. nihilism]" (Genealogy of Morality, 2:11).

For an interesting introduction to Nietzsche's understanding of politics, read his early essay Homer's Contest, which deals with the politics of Athenian democracy.

Briefly, in response to Preach, if you read Nietzsche closely, you would see that the "defensiveness" you describe is understood by Nietzsche as the result of a will to power stifled by the domination of greater powers. This leads to a main concept in Nietzsche's thought, ressentiment, which is the defining characteristic of all Judeo-Christian and post-Christian (i.e. our own) moralities.

Stick to analyzing McCain, Dr. Genghis.

Yeah, it's interesting that while Nietzsche's influence on Freud is undoubted (Freud spoke of it in his correspondence), the good doctor hardly referred to Nietzsche in his work.

Anyway, thanks again for the great post - I for one hope to see more philosophical debate 'round these parts (I'm probably in a very small minority on that one).

Nice post.

I don't have anything insightful to add beyond that.

Excellent post, Genghis. I'm sorry I didn't get around to reading and commenting sooner--there are already so many good comments on this thread, I feel silly posting yet another.

But in case you're interested, here's my feeling about perception and power: I hate being manipulated. That's why I have generally hated politics and avoided paying attention to it for most of my adult life. Spin is nauseating and I have very little patience for sitting through it on the off chance that I might glean a little useful information. Spin is insulting and a collossal waste of my time.

Politicians fail to realize how much voters value authenticity and honesty. That's why I feel respected by Obama--it's his political style. He presents his positions and I'm free to agree or disagree with them. And I do disagree with him on a few things, actually. But I know where he stands, and that's what makes me feel confident about him. I don't mind disagreeing with a politician--that doesn't necessarily determine whether or not I'll support him/her. Here's my attitude: if you want to persuade me, fine. Appeal to me with reasoned positions. Appeal to me with sincere emotions. But if you attempt to manipulate (or deceive) me, you try to take away my ability to reason and judge for myself. And I resent it.

It's been fascinating to watch the Bush/Rove Administration these last 7+ years. I think they started to believe they could actually control reality. That's crazy. One of my favorite lyrics from the band Rush is the line, "You can twist perceptions, but reality won't budge." It eventually became much too obvious to everyone that the Bush Administration's "version of reality" didn't match reality. That's why the public's approval level of Bush has steadily declined for the last 3 years. It has become impossible for the Bush Administration to continue to twist the public's perception of reality.

Genghis

Ach, Nietzche, such fancy schmancy stuff. :-) Flipping through my favorite dictionary of quotations (which I still prefer to the internet versions)
some pre-postmodernist brain teasers for you:

And whether you're an honest man, or whether you're a thief, depends on whose solicitor has given me my brief.
-Benjamin Franklin

Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing the matter with this, except that it ain't so.
~Mark Twain, Notebook

Often the surest way to convey misinformation is to tell the strict truth.
~Mark Twain, Following the Equator

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde

Always be sincere, even if you don't mean it.
-Harry S. Truman, attributed