In his classical work, The Art Of Controversy, Arthur Schopenhauer teaches us that argumentation ad personam, attacking directly the opponent instead of his or hers views on the matter discussed, is the lowest and least sophisticated mean of resolving disputes; that’s why it’s presented as the final stratagem, to be used only If everything else fails. However, because it doesn’t require any special intellectual skills, it’s one of the most popular tricks in discussion: everyone can just bash one’s opponent carelessly without listening what he or she has to say.
It’s no wonder ad personam argumentation took root in politics. Even at the highest degree of public affairs, when fate of the country is at stake, it pops out surprisingly frequently. For instance, Mike Dukakis’ agenda could have been as good as George H. Bush’s, but voters thought only about how stupid he looked in that tank.
Therefore, it should come as no surprise that current campaign is also bountiful in delivering blows below the belt. And with the rapid spread of Web 2.0 the privilege of smearing disliked politician is no longer restricted to the opposite party. Now ordinary people also have a possibility to launch an attack. And they’re doing it. The recent criticism of Obama canceling his visit with wounded soldiers in Germany is nothing compared to other recent revelations.
Barack Obama is a tough candidate to slander because of his skin color. Any argument ad personam which would touch his blackness would be easily discredited as an example of racism and, by ruining the reputation of the accuser, proved to be counter-effective. Still, there are other factors, very close to racial issues, that were and still can be used to discredit the Illinois senator. The most utilized was Obama’s ethnic and religious background. Facts that his father comes from Kenya and that his middle name is Hussein are sufficient to fuel the hypothesis about his connections with Islam. We still don’t know if America is ready for the black president but a Muslim one in the post-9/11 U.S. is certainly out of question.
The Islam-related hysteria on the Web started with an e-mail sent by the couple of American missionaries working in Kenya to their friend back in the States which somehow resurfaced in April and started a chain reaction. According to the authors, who based their claims on rumors said to be very popular in Kenya in those days, Obama is a Muslim, his additional middle name is Mohammed, and is a cousin of Raila Odinga, leader of the left-wing opposition (who in turn is said to be socialist agent trained in East Germany) whom he supported financially. The story started to have its own life: Obama allegedly attended a Wahabi school in Indonesia and, while being sworn into the Senate, used the Koran instead of the Bible. These claims have their root’s in Obama’s biography, but conclusions derived are far from being infallible.
Yes, it’s true both Obama’s father and stepfather (coming from Indonesia, the biggest Islamic country) were raised in the Muslim faith, but, judging from their behavior (e.g. overusing alcohol)both apparently abandoned it in the adulthood. Obama did attended a school in Indonesia (he lived there as a child, with his mother and stepfather), but it was a public, secular one, with very limited amount of religious education. The Koran was actually used in the latest history of the Congress, but to swear Keith Ellison, Representative from Minnesota and a Muslim, who is open about his faith. Odinga did suggested publicly the U.S. presidential candidate is his cousin, but probably he meant only that Obama’s father belonged to the same tribe. And the Kenyan politician really used to live in East Germanybut as a student, not a future spy.
To disprove the developingconspiracy theory Obama’s staff disclosed the candidate’s birth certificate and other relevant documents. Not a word was found about Obama’s hidden name or faith. Some die-hard supporters of the claim believed, however, that the documents were forged. The case appears to be resolved but rumors still circle in the Internet and because of the ultra-democratic nature of this medium are likely to find new believers.
Obama is also charged with lack of respect toward national symbols. A popular photo circulating in the cyberspace presents Obama with Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton visiting the Democratic Party event in Iowa, allegedly during the Pledge of Allegiance.
Richardson and Clinton hold their right hands on their hearts; Obama does not. In reality, the picture was taken before the Pledge, during the national anthem being played, when such a posture was not compulsory. Another chain e-mail asserted Obama was against The Star-Spangled Banner, criticizing it for being too parochial and militaristic, and suggested changing it to I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing, song from the old Coke commercial.Once again, research proved words attributed to Obama come from satirical commentary printed in The Arizona Conservative and have nothing to do with the senator’s real feelings concerning patriotism.
Also in English:
Komentarze
Pokaż komentarze