After the U.S. elections: Do we live in the same country?

“Democracy in a nation of 300 million can be noisy and messy and complicated. We have our own opinions. Each of us has deeply held beliefs. And when we go through tough times, when we make big decisions as a country, it necessarily stirs passions, stirs up controversy.” – President Obama in his victory speech in Chicago, November 7, 2012

In the wee hours of this morning, following the results of the 2012 election in which 130 million U.S. citizens voted, President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney participated in a time-honored tradition of U.S. presidential politics: the deliverance of concession and the proclamation of victory.

In their respective speeches, both men spoke about bipartisanship and articulated their imaginings of a nation their particular notions of the nation—not the nation-state—of America.

Each man put forward his definition of the United States as a nation—his vision of America, American values, and what it means to be an American.

In his concession address in Boston after midnight on Wednesday morning, Governor Romney spoke about what motivates, renews, and compels this nation, expounding the indispensable role of social leaders and the stability of home life:

“We look to our teachers and professors. We count on you not just to teach, but to inspire our children with a passion for learning and discovery. We look to our pastors and priests and rabbis and counselors of all kinds to testify of the enduring principles upon which our society is built: Honesty, charity, integrity, and family. We look to our parents. From the final analysis, everything depends on the success of our homes.”

Governor Romney describes America as a majestic country built on the values of honesty, charity, integrity, and family. However, his belief that America is great nation where “everything depends on the success of our homes” is seemingly rooted in a local mindset. 

In contrast, President Obama is not limited to the local example of the nuclear family unit. He says “we believe in a generous America, in a compassionate America, in a tolerant America, open to the dreams of an immigrant’s daughter who studies in our schools and pledges to our flag. To the young boy on the south side of Chicago who sees a life beyond the nearest street corner. To the furniture worker’s child in North Carolina who wants to become a doctor or a scientist, an engineer or an entrepreneur, a diplomat or even a president.” These are American dreams. These make up a sense of shared destiny.

Moreover, Governor Romney’s articulation of the America is utterly different compared to President Obama’s imagined nation and his belief that a shared destiny is what sets America apart from all other nations:

“What makes America exceptional are the bonds that hold together the most diverse nation on earth. The belief that our destiny is shared; that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations. The freedom which so many Americans have fought for and died for come with responsibilities as well as rights. And among those are love and charity and duty and patriotism. That’s what

makes America great.”

President Obama uses the word ‘share’ in three instances throughout his speech. The word ‘share’ does not make an appearance in the governor’s language.

President Obama chooses instead to emphasize the idea that America is united by a deeply felt sense of shared destiny.  In his rhetoric, he indicates that he is one of us by saying “we” more than 50 times in his speech (Governor Romney says “we” 11 times and his address is considerably shorter).

While Governor Romney does speak out against “partisan bickering and political posturing” and underscores how “our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people's work,” he remains partisan to the very end despite his best efforts—underlining the role of “Democrats and Republicans in government at all levels.”

President Obama’s address culminates with the following assertion, which omits any mention of political party and affiliation: “I believe we can seize this future together because we are not as divided as our politics suggests. We’re not as cynical as the pundits believe. We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions, and we remain more than a collection of red states and blue states. We are and forever will be the United States of America.”

I share the President’s belief in our collective sense of destiny and his vision of our nation; who we are as a people.  The difference in their language and tone during the campaign and after raises the following question, however: Do they live in the same nation—the same imagined community? From a communication standpoint, is bipartisanship possible going forward? Is there a language for bipartisanship? Do we live in the same nation or do we circle in our own national orbits? How do we communicate across the aisle? Is there just an aisle or other entire countries within our domestic politics?

--

Transcripts: Governor Romney - http://www.netnebraska.org/node/824669

President Obama - http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/07/transcript-obamas-victory-speech/

Communicating American Exceptionalism: An Interruption to Progress?

More often than not, U.S. citizens are likely to carry the notion that the United States "excels at everything," as a recent op-ed by Scott Shane in the New York Times points out. (Click here to read the piece.) Why is this the case? Broadly speaking, perhaps mainstream belief in American exceptionalism is a mixed result that stems from the writing of history (especially after World War II) and the predominance of mass-media, agenda-setting, and the hunger for revenue in the business of communication. 

Illustration by Ji Lee, photograph: Zhang Jun/Xinhua/ZUMAPRESS

Some new facts is sure to sell over others. Shane highlights the U.S. presidential campaign as a key example of how both candidates seem to neglect mentioning certain news facts. He writes:

"IMAGINE a presidential candidate who spoke with blunt honesty about American problems, dwelling on measures by which the United States lags its economic peers.

What might this mythical candidate talk about on the stump? He might vow to turn around the dismal statistics on child poverty, declaring it an outrage that of the 35 most economically advanced countries, the United States ranks 34th, edging out only Romania. He might take on educational achievement, noting that this country comes in only 28th in the percentage of 4-year-olds enrolled in preschool, and at the other end of the scale, 14th in the percentage of 25-to-34-year-olds with a higher education. He might hammer on infant mortality, where the United States ranks worse than 48 other countries and territories, or point out that, contrary to fervent popular belief, the United States trails most of Europe, Australia and Canada in social mobility."

All this truth-telling, Shane concludes, wouldn't get any U.S. presidential candidate far--regardless of their party affiliation. Such a truth-telling candidate "is, in fact, all but unimaginable in our political culture." He explains this is saying, "Americans demand constant reassurance that their country, their achievements and their values are extraordinary." In short, American culture demands to have its greatness validated over and over again.

But what happens when there is room for improvement? As Shane highlights, there is, actually, much room for improvement. If politicians play a significant role in Michael Billig's theory of banal nationalism--and their presence, impassioned speeches, and actions reinforce some national sense of value, community, and cohesive identity--how would their behavior and rhetoric motivate the public to do something about the high incidence of child poverty in the United States? 

Communication is intrinsic to political awareness. If political leaders continue to primarily focus their rhetoric on America's greatness, how are they to motivate or jolt the American public into action to improve the country's national standing in preschool education and infant mortality?