One should never underestimate the power words can hold. For some, words may represent nothing more than grunts that allow us to communicate a little more efficiently than in the olden days. But the truth is that words have the power to alter consciousness and perception and, with them, the ensuing realities too.
Of course, not all of are bestowed with the gift of the gab but those who are can and do use their talent towards achieving persuasion among the rest. This is crucial since, in a world full of noise, getting your message through is a great asset. Political parties in the current day and age rely on their representatives to get themselves heard over the deafening din of the mundane and get their ranks to swell through the influx of more voters.
However, in the process, parties can sometimes forego the logical and rational just to get audiences to get to listen to them. This has been quite apparent in the campaigns of various candidates for the Republican Party nomination for next year’s election in the US. The general sense of insecurity that works so well for attracting attention and votes has been working to the party’s advantage, and in efforts to outdo each other in sheer absurdities the Republican hopefuls have been uttering policy proposals ranging from the impossible to the ununderstandable. This was apparent in both intra-party debates that have been organised so far, which despite being massively entertaining paint a worrisome picture nonetheless.
In that context, getting to witness the first Democratic debate last week was a breath of fresh air. So stark were the differences from the Republican platform that viewers could be forgiven for thinking that the candidates were talking about a different US altogether. So pronounced were the dissimilarities among the two party platforms that it was as if the viewers had been hoodwinked into believing in a perpetual dusk, whereas the real dawn was only just beginning to make itself apparent.
On the Republican front, insecurity reigns supreme where the hate-mongers would have the immigrants evicted and their guns cocked at each other all the time. Over on the Democratic side, a compassionate view of the hard work put in by immigrants ever since the early days is preached as the foundation of what makes the US great in the first place, and there is a real debate over introducing more stringent laws regarding the sale and ownership of firearms.
And it is not just the party outlooks that paint a starkly different picture. The candidates themselves, in their numbers as well as demeanours, are distinct like night and day too. Instead of Donald Trump and Ben Carson — the two Republican candidates vying for the next big lunatic comment on their campaign trails — we have the two prominent Democratic hopefuls in the shape of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
Mrs Clinton is a thorough politician. She has been part of the establishment ever since the 1990s in one form or another, and her stature has only grown over the years. But her background and work history, despite being illustrious, is also her kryptonite. In times when the voters are desperately looking for something and someone fresh, Hillary is too much of an establishment candidate.
There is, of course, a much more gendered reading some have done into her campaign as well but, for all intents and purposes, Hillary has so far shied away from using the gender card to her advantage. Perhaps the omission is conscious but her perceived inability to relate to the average American, along with her tough luck in the form of recent controversies over her private e-mail server, has so far meant that she has had to work extra hard for a nomination that at another time might already have been hers.
In the quest for the Democratic nomination, her competitor, the anti-candidate candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders, is giving Clinton a tough time as well. He has taken quite progressive stances on issues related to race and gun control, forcing the other candidates to shift their respective agendas noticeably leftwards on the political spectrum.
Trying to preach common sense socialism to a capitalist US so far has been a trying ordeal for Sanders but he has nonetheless succeeded in shifting the focus towards economic issues such as increasing income inequality in the US. In many previous elections, the focus on the economy has carried the day for a litany of candidates and a dedicated focus on the economy could work to Sanders’ advantage. But his lack of attention towards the US’s role in a global context, combined with the overtly idealist policies he supports, which oftentimes ignore the complexities of how government works in the US, leaves many to question if he can be considered as a genuinely electable candidate.
Martin O’ Mally, the former Baltimore mayor gunning for nomination from the Democratic platform, also deserves a mention here. Before the debate, he was not a renowned name for much of the US audience but his spirited performance last Tuesday must have forced many to take notice. He will quite likely fail in his bid to secure the nomination this time round but he is setting himself up for future success a couple of electoral cycles down the line because of his progressive attitude.
In a rational world, voters flock towards the Democratic Party en masse but we do not live in a rational world. The Republican Party machine knows its chops well and the sense of hysteria it has been preaching has permeated deeply into US society. The polarisation over issues like immigration, paid maternity and family leaves, minimum wage, gun control, and the influence of big donors and mega corporations on Capitol Hill is slowly reaching critical levels and it is getting more and more difficult for the average American voter to make sense of all the noise. One hopes that rational voices will manage to get their message through this cacophony because, otherwise, the devastating outcomes could last for a long time to come.
The author is a freelance columnist with degrees in political science and international relations