May 8, 2009
‘Change’ and the International Obama
Copycats
Who cares about substance when you have a
great marketing slogan? That seems to be the
mentality of politicians trying to latch
onto the Obamamessiah’s halo. What do they
have in common? Less than appealing agendas.
Who are they appealing to? People who will
pretty much buy any piece of garbage they
see in an advertisement – especially if the
neighbor has one, too.
Barack Obama came to power on a simple
slogan of “Yes, we can”, and the fact that
John McCain left zero daylight between
himself and Obama on the one issue that
really appeared to matter to voters – the
taxpayer-funded economic bailouts. If voters
were going to elect someone for a spending
spree, apparently they preferred that he be
upbeat about it, and be unencumbered by
friends who may guilt him into buyer’s
remorse or make him pay attention to the
price tags. Voters knew Obama was at least
going to spend their money with contagious
enthusiasm and verve! “Yes we can . . . blow
out the treasury!”
Did anyone really know what “Yes, we can!”
meant? No, not really. And who really cared
anyway? We now live in a culture where words
don’t mean much to a great many people. Even
as a business professional, I receive “xoxo’s”,
“love” and “kisses” in business
correspondence from people I barely know.
Text messages are accompanied by symbols
that take a millisecond to produce, and
require about as much thought.
This is why, unlike ancient Egyptian
hieroglyphics, none of this e-trash is going
to end up in museums, or analyzed for any
sort of deep meaning 3,000 years from now.
It represents more of a fleeing urge, an
emotional belch devoid of substance. Humans
have always had these, they just never felt
compelled to share them – partly because it
took some effort to produce. We can no
longer assume that when someone uses a word,
it has any sort of true emotion or substance
behind it. So when someone asks, “What
exactly does it mean when he says, ‘Yes, We
Can?’” the onus isn’t on them – or Obama –
to explain it, but rather on you for
explaining why you’re being such a killjoy
in asking that words actually be defined and
assigned some sort of substance.
But if you’re a shallow sort with
unappealing ideas, then “Yes, we can!” is
the perfect catch-all. This linguistic
muumuu will hide all your political flaws,
and make you look appealing to any fools who
can’t be bothered peeking underneath. That
is until they wake up beside you someday
after a wild night at the polls and get an
up-close look.
According to the UK Guardian, Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, up for
re-election in mid-June, is putting out
videos featuring the slogan “We Can” in
Farsi. Why not use a line from the speech he
gave this week in Syria? How about this one:
“The Zionist occupiers are destructive
microbes.” Certainly it would be more
indicative of his values and agenda. Or how
about this statement directed at President
Obama, which, in a nutshell, captures his
great love-hate emotional range: “The
gentleman’s support of the massacre of
Gazans in support for the criminals who were
responsible for that atrocity was a major
mistake. I think that if Mr. Obama wants to
help with the Palestinian issue, he has to
move in accordance with justice, fair play.”
Or he could just be shown ripping up United
Nations sanction letters while uranium
centrifuges spin in the background. That
would do.
Next up: The man who wants Conservative
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s
job. Michael Ignatieff was just elected
Liberal Party leader over the weekend, to
the tune of a speech that had audience
members wildly repeating, “WE CAN!” He spoke
of a “message of hope”, and a “longing
change sweeping across the land”.
Wrong land, Iggy. Ignatieff’s biggest
problem is that Canada, under the leadership
of Prime Minister Harper, has been singled
out at various international meetings as
being in the best shape to weather current
economic difficulties. Harper has kept
bailouts and stimuli to a minimum, despite
Liberal pleas to do otherwise – and no one
is paying anyone else’s mortgage.
So where’s the substance behind Obama’s
borrowed rhetoric? Right here: He claimed at
a business leaders’ meeting that he might
want to raise taxes to deal with the
national debt. It gives new meaning to his
“unity” rhetoric in his convention
acceptance speech. Apparently Canadians can
count on the Ignatieff Liberals to unite
their hard earned dollars with their
neighbors’ wallets.
Late last year, UK Tory leader David Cameron
ripped off Obama’s “change” theme to promote
his convention. His opponent, current Labour
PM Gordon Brown, is nearly 20 points behind
in the polls and imploding. Why adopt
positions that risk being unpopular when
hollow rhetoric will suffice?
The next time you hear a politician utter
the marketing slogan, “Yes, we can!” – or
some variation thereof – just replace it
with “Tastes great, less filling!” and
you’ll have a much better idea of what
they’re really about.