The 2012 presidential campaign has been the dirtiest campaign in modern American history. Both Republicans and Democrats are willing to do whatever it takes to win, as so much is at stake in this year's election - the size of government, Obamacare, out-of-control spending, tax policies - the list goes on and on. The course of the future of America for decades will likely be determined by this election, and Mitt Romney and Barack Obama's plans of action could not be more different. Both of the candidates are trying to make their differences very clear to the American public. This "nasty and brutish" presidential campaign puts us in a political version of the Hobbesian state of nature.
In the
Leviathan, Hobbes details his idea of the state of nature. Every person is in his natural self-interest and is willing to do whatever it takes to preserve this self-interest. Sound familiar? Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have been using whatever tactics render necessary in order to win the election. Both candidates consider it to be in each of their self-interests to win the election.
Negative attack ads, often with little to no truth to them, have been a large part of the campaigns' strategies. Each campaign tries to distort and take out of context the other candidate's words in order to use them against his opponent. A candidate may say something in a certain context, and then their same words may appear in a political ad in an entirely new context, totally distorting their original intent. Because so much is at stake in this election, and it is in each campaign's self-interest for their candidate to win, each campaign has been doing whatever it takes to win, creating a nasty and brutish Hobbesian-esque election season.
Money and other resources have been a huge story of the campaign. Because they want so desperately to win, the candidates have been
fundraising and spending money like mad in an attempt to get their message out and earn support. Hobbes says that in the state of nature every person is equal in terms of the powers of their body and mind. Even the weak have the power and resources available to defeat the strong. With my personal political views aside, is inevitable that there is one candidate, either Romney or Obama, who would lead the country to greater prosperity, making that person the stronger candidate. The opposing and weaker candidate, however, can still win the election, as both candidates are equal in terms of the powers of their bodies and minds. Resources such as money, falsely negatively portraying their opponent, and media bias are all available for the candidates to use. The weak may still triumph the strong.
 |
| http://gop.wdgdc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/missingjobscouncil.jpg |
The candidates have been pushing the limit so far in this brutal campaign because they fear one thing - losing. Hobbes writes that people continuously pursue their natural self-interest because they fear death. Harsh though it may be, losing the election would essentially be death in the political sense for the losing candidate. Both candidates feel that it is essential that they win and "avoid death" as each believes that their plan, their values, and their leadership would be best.
And so all of us remain witnesses to the political Hobbesian state of nature, which will climax on Election Day. So far, there has been no common authority to guarantee peace and bring us out of the political state of nature. Both Republicans and Democrats, as well as Independents, have been campaigning, arguing, and amassing resources, leaving no one left to judge and promote peace. The true authoritative judge will be the results of the election. Whether or not we remain in the political Hobbesian state of nature will be up to the next president, be it Obama or Romney. Will they be able to reach across the aisle and compromise? Or will the distinct partisanship and Hobbesian state of nature of the campaign season prevail? Only time will tell, and the future of our country may depend on it.
You made quite an interesting connection between Hobbes and the 2012 election. I would definitely agree that characteristics of a Hobbesian State of Nature fit into politics, but I don’t think the campaign itself actually mirrors a legitimate state of nature.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, even though both candidates display some brutish characteristics, there are rules and regulations surrounding the election. Party officials may have not signed a contract, but they’re making political decisions around specific rules and regulations. Take, for instance, your example of political funding. The candidates may be acting in an act of desperation, but they’re also following the guidelines for public funding. They’re not going out and stealing money because it’s for their own good; they’re working and funding under guidelines set for the presidential election.
I also think that there’s a general sense of peace that exists within this election. The campaign may demonstrate brutish characteristics, but people are also acting reasonably civilized. When there’s a presidential debate, although the candidates may exchange some harsh words, there’s a sense of decency. There’s no type of physical violence. Obama isn’t running across the stage and punching Romney in the face for making a rude comment. The candidates are acting with a general sense of peace.
I also don’t think that there’s a sense of equality in politics. Every election, both parties go in having unwavering supporters. Some Democrats will never vote Republican, and some Republicans will never vote Democrat. Although the goal in an election is to convince as many people to vote for you as possible, neither side has a fair shot at convincing certain people. Because of this, some candidates go in with more supporters than the other side, giving one side a distinctive advantage over the other.
While it's true that both parties have unwavering supporters, both parties are equal in their potential abilities to attract as many voters as possible. Once voters head to the polls one candidate will have more supporters than the other, but leading up to the election both candidates have equal opportunity to accumulate as many supporters as possible. They have the equal access to "the powers of body and mind," meaning their resources to attract voters.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth,
ReplyDeleteGreat job connecting Hobbes to the election. It was an extremely interesting read and was unique that you connected politics to the state of nature, as it is a huge part of society. I agree with you that a cutthroat election represents a Hobbesian state of nature, as it is a fight between candidates creating a constant state of war throughout the entire election. I also agree with you on your idea that both candidates are equal in the sense that they have the same opportunity in terms of body and mind power, but I would have to disagree that the candidates are on completely level ground in gaining support of voters. Doesn’t Obama have the advantage due to the fact that he is the incumbent? He has had four years to gain support of voters and help run the country where as Romney has not. Also, I support the first comment made that there is some peace within the election. There are understood rules that the candidates running against each other must still treat each other with respect as running mates. This is the social contract that establishes some peace, because failure to comply to this also reflects poorly on the candidate. A constantly rude and disrespectful candidate can give the impression that the candidate does not have a strong campaign, and is instead directly attacking the other in desperation. The possibility of earning a bad reputation because of this is the fear that causes both Romney and Obama and their vice president picks to follow the contract. Especially in debates this is most evident. Ultimately this does grant some peace before the final results. Overall, I really enjoyed reading your post. It is a good connection to modern politics and the state of nature.
I think you found a very interesting way to link Hobbes state of nature and the 2012 Elections. I think this election proves that we live by Hobbes state of nature.
ReplyDeleteHobbes says people are self-interested. Hobbes says that we are naturally fearful. We want to naturally avoid death. We do not want to die young. People will take steps to prevent and ensure their own safety. Hobbes believes anything that we do things naturally for ourselves and that we are selfish.
This is made clear in the 2012 elections. The candidates Obama and Romney will do anything to make themselves look better than the other. The commercials, the debate, and many other things go to show that we are naturally for ourselves and we will take steps (commercials) to ensure that they look better then the other. I think this also ties in with having dirty hands. They say false things about one another to put themselves ahead. To me that is selfish. I agree with you when you say “dying” would be losing the election. I feel that both candidates will do whatever they can to avoid this!
Hobbes says the state of nature is going to be violent; the rational thing that you want in a state of nature is to seek peace, and follow it. State of Nature ends when people come up with a contract, which leads to a commonwealth. This reminds me of the debates. At times I feel like the candidates are about to break into a fight. They are calling each other out and making themselves seem right and the other candidate wrong. This to me is a violent state of nature. Hobbes says that the rational thing we want to do is seek peace and follow it. However that peace wont come until the president is chosen.
I can definitely see the connection between Hobbes and the 2012 election. It's nice to see this connected to something so relevant and modern I feel like I have an even better understanding of it now. If we think back to the most recent debate last night this is a good example of fulfilling self interest. Each candidate had to get the last word in during the debate, even if it meant cutting of the commentator or exchanging rude comments. Many of the things both candidates stated in the debate last night contradicted what they had said before. For example, Romney and his views on contraception. They will do and say anything to "win" the debate.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are a few things in this post that I disagree with. In politics there is no sense of equality. It is in a sense with a hierarchy with the POTUS at the top. We have a democracy in our country so it's not completely hierarchal. But there is the idea of the POTUS being essentially at the top of the world, one of the most powerful people. I don't see Romney or Obama as equal candidates either. They are not equal in mind because they have clearly different views on how to run the country. The way I see it is that Obama is higher up than Romney right now because he is already President, he already has what Romney wants and that right there makes them unequal. This contradicts Hobbes's idea of equality in his state of nature.
I do see them being equal in body though because their body could be considered their campaign, and both campaigns can equally fight against each other. If Romney's campaign bashes Obama, Obama's campaign can do the same back.
Another thing that shouldn't be overlooked from Hobbes is his statement of "nasty, brutish, AND short". The third is very important. Hobbes states that the life of man is short, and the term short from Hobbes is missing in your analysis of the 2012 campaign and his state of nature. Politics is never ending. The 2012 election process is a long one as well. It is without a doubt nasty and brutish but this process is in no way short. The campaigning process for the election basically started when Obama won the 2008 election because they have to prepare for the next one. This contradicts Hobbes's idea of short, and is missing in your blog post.
Overall I enjoyed your post, I found it had a lot of good detail and I could clearly see the connection. It was a bit of a stretch at some points but it still worked minus the few things I have mentioned.
I agree with Sloane in the sense that Obama has had more time and resources in his campaign to prepare for the upcoming election. Being the current President, in addition to running the country to the best of his ability, Obama has been attempting to prove himself since day one in office that he is fit for the job. This, I believe, contributes to the sense of inequality in politics that was discussed above. While Obama has been trying to prove himself for the past few years, Romney is now attempting to use the past few years as evidence that he would be a better candidate. This, I think, leads to many of the negative political advertisements: both candidates are trying not only to prove that they are good candidates, but that the other is bad. They are intentionally shutting each other down and trying to prove the others' inferiority.
ReplyDeleteWonderful read. You were able to connect the election and Hobbes in a very unique way, essentially proving Hobbes correct. It goes to show that ages after Hobbes theory was created, we still see humans today embodying it pretty clearly.
ReplyDeleteSelf-interest is such a big aspect of each presidential candidate, and it becomes more apparent with each debate. During last night's final debate, each candidate could be cutting each other off at various points throughout. The last word was the trophy here, and both Governor Romney and President Obama were willing to do anything to get it. Your point about twisting words was also spot on, and I think nearly everyone who has somewhat paid attention to the 2012 presidential campaign would agree with you. Negative ads have never really seemed to stand out to me as factors I should take into consideration in voting, strongly due to the fact that they are commonly words taken out of context and/or not true.
It seems as if a lot of things related to politics or government in general portray a Hobbesian state of nature. When power comes into play, individuals become ruthless and willing to step on whoever, however in order to accomplish their goal.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting comments all the way around- doesn’t the Hobbesian state of nature make the world go round? Hobbesian state of nature occurs everyday, all the time. The 2012 elections are more publically advertised which makes it easier for people to identify what is happening. We live to compete; humans will naturally do anything in their willpower to win. I don’t see why it would be wrong for candidates to go to all lengths to get to the gold. We see competitiveness happening all the time, but as soon as a powerful person portrays “dirty hands” it becomes a problem. Presidential campaigns have always been dirty, what makes this one that much different?
ReplyDeleteElizabeth- you said, “The candidates have been pushing the limit so far” I found that to be very interesting. Who makes the rules for limits? Are there even limits? With all previous events that have occurred, is it surprising to see the extremities people will go to achieve what they want?
Maybe the problem isn’t dirty hands.