Plagiarism You Can Xerox
February 22, 2008
I agree with commentators like Kevin Drum that the issue of Obama's plagiarism is silly.. and should disappear. But given our past interest in the constructedness of Obama as a candidate (see here and here), this story about Hillary Clinton's charge of plagiarism is just too good to pass up.
Plagiarism is a strange word to throw into a political battle. The moral bite of plagiarism must take many people back to their days in high school and college, when the demand was that they produce for a class something that was specifically their own work. In such a contest a student is not allowed to hire the best thinkers on a subject and crib from their suggestions. But that is exactly what politicians do on a regular basis: they talk to experts and adopt what seems like the best plan of action. This plan politicians then present to the public in speeches and debates.. rarely adding footnote about who gave them this idea. But we are fine with this arrangement, and policy wonks have a way of getting insider credit as the "architect" of this or that successful policy. So we should recognize once and for all that in the political world we are really and truly "out of school".. and plagiarism is a word with practically no meaning in this context.
Presidential speeches these days are committee projects. Recently I saw a picture of George W. Bush sitting with Michael Gerson and Karen Hughes going over drafts for one of his State of the Union addresses. Every word that comes out of a president's mouth in a formal setting must be assumed to have been conjured up by some paid writer lurking in a small or not so small room in the White House. Every candidate that has any real prospects hired a team of writers a long time ago (with the possible exception of Mike Huckabee whose material nobody else could make up). I find this layering of an individual voice behind the words of paid writers a frustrating aspect of modern politics. In essence every candidate should not be thought of as an individual, but as a representative of a deep body of people. Obama stands out to us as a uniquely refreshing candidate, but that should not blind us to the fact that his responses and messages are intensely coached and thought out.
I wonder if a politician could not be profitably compared to a folk singer. The folk singer borrows melodies and words to construct a performance that appeals to a broad audience. When this works right a performer seems to channel the past. Now consider a politician. The goal is to grasp onto the memes that will form the broadest possible coalition of supporters. Words like "change" get picked up (after Obama's success we saw almost everyone in both parties scramble to incorporate that word). Phrases like "no new taxes" or "universal health care" get used. Around these policies a whole mess of arguments and attack lines arrange themselves. This all begins to take on a life of its own.. but at no point is "uniqueness" the key point. These words, phrases, and arguments are lying out there ready for politicians to pick up and use. Thus congressmen, Democrats and Republican, will be furnished by their party with a list of talking points that have tested well on specific issues. Our image of the candidate in the midst of this should not be of a solitary individual meditating at night on the best position, but rather as a relentless purveyor of commonly owned verbal arguments. Lining up these arguments with specific constituencies is the challenge of the politician.
