AUGUST 27 ― President John Kennedy created inter-administration bodies to better inform him of perspectives of any particular issue and often sent his own emissaries to assess situations as he did with Vietnam. The most applauded of his decisions are the ones made during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
He decided that to resolve the crisis, it was required of him to be tough against Russia's Nikita Khrushchev; he imposed a “quarantine” against Cuba and issued an ultimatum. “We were eyeball to eyeball, and I think the other fellow just blinked” the then Secretary of State Dean Rusk whispered to National Security Adviser of the time, McGeorge Bundy. He was giving his take on how intense the moments were during the Cuban Missile Crisis, how the victory felt to the Kennedy Administration.
The handling of the crisis elevated Kennedy to a near divine status in American politics. But only of late has it come to light that much of his decision was based on more simplistic calculations. A number of his decisions relied on the need for him to match the rhetoric that he set during his election. Kennedy had faced stiff allegations that he was too young to lead and that impression often plagued his calculations.
Macro-political tendencies considered, his dilemma represents a much larger development in American politics. By the 1960s, American politics had very much pioneered a unique form of democracy, consumerist democracy.
Political choice in America had very much changed within a small period of time. With the introduction of television, with it, televised debates, image became a much more pronounced factor in decisions. A candidate was now expected to embody a set of values from the way he/she dresses and speaks. Campaign managers would even go further by incorporating techniques learnt from corporate America by packaging the politicians they work for into glitzy products for the consumption of the American public.
This form of consumerist democracy would continue to haunt Kennedy, as he saw himself having to balance the image of a “hawk” with the many opportunities for warmer relations that presented themselves. Overtures from the Soviets came with a catch, concessions were required, something his election image could not tolerate. Something became obvious to Kennedy and to the historians of today. Kennedy’s circumstances never allowed him the capacity for leadership. This was the Kennedy Dilemma.
You’d be forgiven for thinking that this was a particularly “American” thing. It still is. But the introduction of Facebook and Twitter is having a noticeable effect on Malaysian society, it has paved the way for a more consumerist political culture.
Consumerist political culture has a necessary condition to thrive, a medium to perpetually bombard a person with advertisements. With social media, lives are now much more vulnerable to the hundreds of bits of information that their friends share. Essentially, the process is democratic, but popular content doesn’t necessitate quality content. And most often that not, these information feed biases rather than provide perspective.
Ultimately, Malaysians succumb to image politics, which, if looked closely enough already has shown signs of taking root in Malaysian society. In a review of the 10th Malaysia Plan by CPPS (Centre for Public Policy Studies), it was found that the fear of becoming a victim of crime rose despite the crime rate falling. Then there is the Selangor Menteri Besar crisis, where the battle is more focused on rhetoric rather than purposeful developments. It all encapsulates a common trend that is on the rise, image, perception and narrative hold a larger sway on the way we decide politically than they once did.
The consumerist political culture has a discerning trait that we should be aware of. In it, we are necessarily bombarded by influences. We are invaded by it at every turn of the (metaphorical) road. Every turn brings us to an advertisement that sends subtle messages to us. It enforces a certain image onto us that might prove hard to get rid of without meaningful time spent on issues.
Proponents for this liberalisation and expansion of information argue that this phenomenon will bring a new maturity and scepticism into political choice, to which, is founded in truth. But this impression represents a failure to see it contextually. Large packets of information available does bring better decisions but there is a sense of an overestimation as to how much time is spent attaining and contextualising information.
If Levi’s offered more jeans, I should be happy for the larger range of choice, but if I had to choose the best within an hour, I might not be, I might choose the first one that fits my look and body.
This is exactly how image politics can turn for the worse. More information available leads to better choices but this is to ignore time constraints we have in our lives, a factor that should affect how we see this development. Too much information could possibly work against us.
The idea that it holds a lot of potential has little doubt but it’s worth pointing out the ramifications of its introduction. The emphasis on narratives and perception creates a fleeting political landscape, mirroring the abject nature of perception, leaving political actors vulnerable and risk-averse.
Politicians would prefer to act on serving popular sensibilities and opting for short-term gratification. Not to say that this is not the case now, but rather that its instances will be much more pronounced.
The culture extends further than just the mechanics of choice. Changing landscapes tend to mean changing incentives. Seeing that consumers are flooded with information, this creates marked competition for information and media outlets that are incentivised to either sensationalise content or report selectively, which it has.
Case example: baby dumping. Baby dumping in Malaysia is a social issue that has been a problem for a while and still plagues Malaysia today but discoveries of abandoned babies no longer make news as it did when it became a media frenzy topic in 2010.
Reporting now happens so hypocritically, with hyperbolic claims to gain attention but lose interest within three or four weeks at best. Little blame can be attributed to media outlets, considering our culture of information is set up in a way that ultimately forces them to serve popular content than to propagate more meaningful ones.
These developments are not specific to Malaysia, other countries also see their political landscape changing. But it has not been to everyone’s dismay. Sweden embraced the culture really quick and it did not fall victim to the stated problems. Its politics did see an increased importance of image but sensationalised media, risk-averse politicians seem to not increasingly dominate as we see it happen in Malaysia.
For this reason, this article does not allocate blame towards Twitter and Facebook for this development. What should come to the realization of Malaysians is that the Internet age has come to empower the views within democracy. It revealed that Malaysians have yet to have learnt the ways of mature democracies.
In some respect, this should be a cause for some concern, because if Malaysians are serious about key issues of national reconciliation and democratic freedoms, it needs time for some introspection and a degree of acceptance that a greater sense of maturity must exist for Malaysia to “get on” and not just “get by.”
*This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
