The Art of Propaganda

[Final revisions to this POW were completed on the 22 of October. The opinion analyzed can be found here. Below is the POW as it was turned in. The "Works Consulted" page can be found at The Monastery Archives.]

Novelists and poets generally receive kudos for concrete imagery over abstract descriptions and specific words over broad, generic terms. Propagandists would prefer to use such language coupled with facts not established, words taken out of context, and several other maligned methods to propagate truths or sentiments that are false or unsupported by the methods employed. In these modern times, when the art of propaganda is called upon frequently in politics, it is the duty of the independent media to separate facts from fiction, and columnists, as agents of the independent media, share the responsibility of this public service. When does a columnist pass from the realm of analysis into the depths of propaganda? Is Charles Krauthammer, a columnist for the reputable and renowned Washington Post, teetering into those depths? How are his language and his ideas indicative of such a charge?

Krauthammer is defending against the rumbling of racism in John McCain’s actions. This claim of fallacy on the charges of racism is then the central component of Krauthammer’s assertion that Barrack Obama has played the “race card” against McCain illegitimately. This race card, according to Krauthammer, renders McCain’s actions and accusations racially tinged, leaving Obama invulnerable.

The column opens up defending McCain. He refers to the comments of supporters at recent McCain and Sarah Palin rallies as “offensive” and ”incendiary” rather than simply reprinting what they said: “kill him,” “terrorist,” and “I can't trust Obama. He's an Arab.” By skirting around the verbatim, Krauthammer leaves some doubt as to the nature, the severity of these comments. As for the supporters who shouted such things, they are but “agitated yahoos” (a yahoo, mind you, is a savage beast of Swift’s creation). Joe Klein of Time, on the other hand, preferred to refer to these supporters individually in terms like “man” and “woman.” Krauthammer defines the supporters through his choice of diction, but his definition is not supported by any objective he gives—this is not to say that he is wrong, but rather that he fails to explain such a powerful and meaningful statement. He could have defined them through their actions and words, which would have been considerably more substantial. Regardless, Krauthammer downplays the significance of these supporters by omission of the vile details and his narrow, absolute characterization of them as the undesirable fringe.

Many accusations and allusions Krauthammer makes are properly attributed to sources that can be obtained and analyzed. Interestingly enough, when the sources referred to by Krauthammer are consulted, they do not always appear to be wholly consistent with their representation in Krauthammer’s piece. Consider the first such reference. ”John McCain and Sarah Palin are not just guilty by association…but worse: guilty according to the New York Times of ‘race biting and xenophobia,’” (Krauthammer). One’s response to this phrase of the Times can depend of one’s interpretation of statements made by McCain. The Times does make this statement and it is not taken out of context, yet Krauthammer neither mentions nor addresses the argument presented in the Times, that certain base attacks imply a distinction veering into the zones of race and xenophobia. The quote illustrates what kind of criticism is being leveled against McCain, but by quoting the strong words, Krauthammer lends to the impression that The New York Times, the favorite target of conservative attacks on the media, is bullying McCain and Palin. The Times could be wrong, but nonetheless it makes a reasonable argument and it defends it well—in that way, the paper is respectful to the candidates.

One of the fundamental tenants of propaganda is deception. Deception is everywhere—in creative diction, cleaver omission, and distortions of fact. Krauthammer does not appear to make any single statement that is completely and irrefutably bogus; rather his deception—or, alternately, his error—is in the broader, unstated implication of his arguments, which then, even though it is never mentioned, acts as the support for his conclusion. Krauthammer is eager to point out anyone who has accused McCain and Palin of racist undertones: aside from the Times, he names the venerated civil rights hero John Lewis; Rachel Maddow, a television news host; Jonathan Alter of Newsweek; and, in a case he relished, the columnist Bob Herbert of The New York Times. Whether or not these individuals were correct in their accusations is immaterial; whether or not these individuals are related to the Obama campaign is central. Certainly Krauthammer would have seized upon the opportunity if these individuals were in fact sanctioned agents of the Obama campaign, but he did not, and thus they are in all likelihood nothing more than glorified supporters of Obama. If these individuals are not members of the Obama campaign, then how can Obama be held responsible for what they say? Perhaps Obama can be held responsible, but that would seemingly contradict Krauthammer’s earlier assertion, key assertion, that McCain could not be held responsible for what his supporters had said. If the candidates are responsible for their supporters, then they are both guilty of invoking race in the campaign, and no one is “Playing the Race Card.”

In the toolbox of the propagandist, fear is one of his best for efficacy, second only hatred. Krauthammer makes a curious statement towards the end of his column:
In the name of racial rectitude, McCain has denied himself the use of that perfectly legitimate issue. It is simply Orwellian for him to be now so widely vilified as a stoker of racism. What makes it doubly Orwellian is that these charges are being made on behalf of the one presidential candidate who has repeatedly, and indeed quite brilliantly, deployed the race card. (Krauthammer)

What does “Orwellian” mean? Geoffery Nunberg, a Stanford University linguist, wrote in a June 2003 article-opinion piece in The New York Times on the use of the word “Orwellian” that “It brings to mind only sordid regimes of surveillance and thought control and the distortions of language that make them possible” (Nunberg) Nunberg emphasizes that word’s relevance in describing euphemistic language. It is a brilliantly demonical use of language. “Orwellian” is incorrectly used; there seems to be no rational way in which this allegedly false accusation, this instance of irony, can be construed to relate in any way to a totalitarian state or related euphemisms. Yet, “Orwellian” is a word seemingly not in popular usage, and thus its precise meaning and usage would not be widely known. However, “Orwellian,” as a term, can easily be seen as a reference to George Orwell, who best known for his dystopian novel 1984, which in turn is known for the totalitarian state depicted in it. Thus, Krauthammer’s audience might picture a totalitarian state, and if he is fortunate, they will become fearful. Whom will they fear? They will fear McCain’s accusers, which Krauthammer has already construed to be Obama and his campaign.

To a critical, skeptical, aware, and conscious reader, written propaganda will never be moving. The words, the arguments, they shall be so poignant and strong, yet there will be nothing beneath them. The facts will be sensational, too sensational to be true. The fear will be unfounded. Yet, even after a society learns the lessons of one deception, they fall to another, failing to apply what they have learned. In those that have the most confidence in their judgment is the greatest potential to be deceived. Deceived they shall be. Krauthammer is up to the task, a master of his unhallowed art. He has produced a fine work of rhetoric, but at what cost to truth?