The fictive nature of American presidential electoral
campaigns never ceases to amaze.
“Fictive,” of course, does not mean simply “false.” It’s not
a word that describes some internal flaw of a discourse, but that describes a
specific relation between a discourse and its audience. The difference between non-fiction and fiction
is not exactly that the former is true and the latter false, but that the
audience is expected to fault the former, but not the latter, for describing a
world in which werewolves roam London and Russian nationalists nuke Baltimore,
when they don’t. (Everybody knows it’s vampires, and they’re in Louisiana. Or is it Seattle?)
During this presidential campaign, liberals and progressives
have, rightly, been busy excoriating Romney, Ryan, and the Republicans for
their blatant falsity, their
proclivity to make assertions and accusations that, it is easy to demonstrate,
are contrary to fact. Romney is also,
correctly, charged with constantly taking positions that are contrary to his
own previous statements and actions.
These charges can, and should, persuade those citizens whose capacity
for intellectually-honest critical thought is not overwhelmed by other,
captivating, non-rational identifications to reject Romney-Ryan-Republicanism
as false and dishonest.
