Entries Tagged 'campaign iconography' ↓

Like the rest of you, I’ve read a lot of stuff about Sarah Palin in the last couple of weeks (annoyingly positive and grotesquely negative), as well as a lot of stuff that tries to account for the reaction she has unleashed (in the commentariat and in Liberal Elite Land—you should see my email!).

Bradley Burston, writing in Ha-aretz,comes closest, I think, to explaining why Palin resonated immediately (as I noted here, a day after she burst onto the scene) [e.a.]:

I get it. I get that millions of Americans have a crying need for someone to stand up and say the things that Sarah Palin has been telling them.

I get that many, many Americans are fed up with big government and shame in patriotism and energy dependence and media condescension. I recognize that there are many on the right who are galvanized by a woman addressing the nation in condemnation of gun control and abortions. It’s clear that many in the heartland and even on the Blue State coasts have been waiting years to hear someone take a take-no-prisoners verbal lash to Beltway waste and liberal political correctness and, by implication, to cultural pluralism and tree hugging and the very mention of the word Washington.

That Palin had struck a nerve with certain Americans who were fed up and couldn’t take it anymore was clear from the reaction at the RNC, where one woman was quoted by the New York Times [e.a.]:

Delegates said they were enthralled by Ms. Palin. “I think she’s great; she’s giving it back to the Democrats for all the sorry things they’ve said about her and about America,” said Anita Bargas, a delegate from Angleton, Tex. “She’s a conservative, and she has a great sense of humor.”

So there was that. But there’s something else in the Amazing Mrs. Palin (other than shades of The Amazing Mrs. Pritchard, a delectable British TV film that I suggest you rent and watch***), and a piece in the Rocky Mountain News nails it:

It’s class as much as gender. When you hear women say she’s just like them, they’re talking about someone who’s gone through what they’ve gone through - and made it. They don’t think Palin is average. They think she’s talented - and talented enough to start where they did and make it to the top, even if she had to go to five colleges to get there. [e.a.]

Yep—just like Mrs. Pritchard—and she had problems at home, too:

———–
*** Here’s what I wrote in October 2007 about The Amazing Mrs. Pritchard:

The other day, I was watching a silly but diverting British series, The Amazing Mrs. Pritchard, which puts a sensible woman who’s fed up with politicians’ incompetence into 10 Downing Street to succeed Tony Blair. (Yes. I did say it was silly, didn’t I?)

The screenwriter is not at all sympathetic to Blair or to the war in Iraq, but she is sensible. She shows, for example, just how many decisions, large and small, a political leader must make every day. It occurred to me that if only more people would watch this show, they would have a glimmer of understanding beyond their pet theories about BushHitler and the Vulcans.

But when people want to judge, to condemn, to castigate, and to punish, no amount of understanding will stop them. Their fury has a life of its own.

So it goes.

It’s fun to be a detached observer of the Incredible Campaign of 2008, which has galvanized a nation. Our “mass of niches” culture seems to have coalesced in these past two weeks into a genuine mass audience. It’s probably temporary and of course there’s no guarantee that getting our attention will lead to our doing something (or even voting), but we are riveted to the political soap opera unfolding before our eyes.

The viewership for various segments of the Democratic and Republican National Conventions was huge.

As a television draw, John McCain was every bit the equal of Barack Obama.

The GOP presidential candidate attracted roughly the same number of viewers to his convention acceptance speech Thursday as Obama did before the Democrats last week, according to Nielsen Media Research.

It marked the end of an astonishing run where more than 40 million people watched political speeches on three nights by Obama, McCain and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The Republican convention was the most-watched convention on television ever, beating a standard set by the Democrats a week earlier.

Three times in two weeks, political speeches were watched by more people than the “American Idol” finale, the Academy Awards and the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics this year.

“It clearly suggests that a great number of Americans think that who will be the next president is important and worthy of their time,” said Tom Rosenstiel, a former political reporter and director of the Project for Excellence in journalism.

One day, this will be seen as a watershed—the moment that the world of politics, borrowing from the world of showbiz, inspired the Couch Potatoes of Amercia to take a good, hard (though, possibly, brief) look at their country, their neighbors, and, most of all, themselves and to see if maybe we all couldn’t do a little bit more to get along, goddamnit, and while we’re at it, to do more for ourselves—individually and collectively.

But I must be dreaming, because that would be true progress.

However, I do have some hope that something better will result from the election of 2008, regardless of whether the Republicans or the Democrats win the White House this time around, because all of the candidates are dedicated—and inspiring—public servants (even if they are politicians and thus by nature suspect. Every one of the current crop has sacrificed something and done good things for others. Along the way, we unruly American, with our crude democratic system, shoved aside some folks who had already had their turn and we got rid of at least one rotten apple and we rejected alarmism as a way of daily life).

Well, goddamn!

Ain’t that America somethin’ to see, baby!

Love ‘em or hate ‘em, agree with ‘em or disagree with ‘em, we’ve finally got some great role models (new heroes and villains, as JFK memorably referred to them in 1959,***) that people are paying attention to.

And so we sail into uncharted waters.

————–

*** Admirably, JFK warned the people not to believe in the false idols launched by the new TV era. Then he proceeded to become one of them. He succeeded beyond his wildest imagination, because politicians are still emulating his style, and Democratic politicians all covet the imprimatur of the Kennedys and … but that’s a story for another day. Let’s just say for now that the imprimatur will long outlive the Kennedys.

Politicians cannot possibly accomplish everything they promise the people. They are ambitious above all else. John McCain knows this and is torn up about it, as the NYT reported the other day; nevertheless, he’s running for president for a second time. And he is using war strategies (such as surprise) in his political campaign. He means to win—with honor and within the rules of the arena.

Longtime readers know how cynical I am, so it won’t come as any surprise to them to read that I’m impressed by the immediate, visible impact Sarah Palin has had on the McCain campaign. Jonathan Martin reports:

The Palin effect: crowd size

17,000+ today for the McCain-Palin rally outside of St. Louis, according to a Secret Service magnetometer count provided by the campaign.

As one veteran of Missouri politics said, that’s the sort of crowd usually seen in October for a president — not in August for a candidate.

Call me a simpleton, but that looks like evidence of a bounce.

I am not a fan of John McCain for president (though I am a big John McCain fan). In fact, I find myself leaning toward Obama now. But I do admire McCain’s moxie and his mental toughness, and, purely from a political point of view, his decision to pick Palin.

Noemi Emery laid out the items in the plus column of the decision three days ago (impressive!), and it looks like many of her predictions are coming true—against all odds, since she didn’t take Gustav into account, and even that is figuring to put the GOP at a (relative) advantage: Bush and Cheney won’t be speaking at the convention due to the weather, and yet the worst of the storm happens to be bypassing New Orleans. [Who is stage-managing this show? This dude or dudette is even better than the guys who handled the Beijing Olympics and Obama's acceptance speech performance! ---ed.]

1. Steps on the story of Obama’s speech (and convention), and possibly the bounce coming from them, and wipes them off the news cycle. [ see today's NYT ***---ed.] The Sunday news shows will be all-Palin, all of the time.

2. Sends Republicans into their convention on a huge head of steam. [ Not really, but you can blame Gustav, and/or the media, whichever one is more politically convenient ---ed.]

3. Wipes out the image of McCain as the crotchety elder and brings back that of the fly-boy and gambler, which is much more appealing, and the genuine person. [true dat; see the first paragraph of this post ---ed.]

4. Revs up the base AND excites independents, which no one else in the party, or perhaps in the world, could have accomplished.

5. Puts youth, change, and history on both of the tickets. [yep. I think that's why Obama's fans are so incredibly upset. Palin is, undeniably, an agent of change---both in her actions and her image. She makes Obama less special. Plus: she's fresh meat. We're tired of him. He has used up all his material. She gives us a new character to root for or to deride---or, if you're Andrew Sullivan, to try to ruin. Sorry if you're offended, but that's the way it is in our democracy. It has always been like this. The only difference now is that we're attuned to it. The curtain has been pulled back to reveal fully the behind-the-stage machinations on both sides of the aisle and in the newsrooms of the MSM. The means to report---and to reveal formerly closely held secrets---has been spread to anyone with an internet connection. Likewise, the means to make up lies and spread them instantly across the globe.

And that's as true for Daily Kos diarists as it is for the Russian prime minister, Dmitri Medvedev, who is taking advantage of the three-ring circus that is our election cycle to declare a new era, in which Russia has a sphere of influence to compete with America, which isn't so exceptional. Take that! ---ed.]

6. May detach some young people, especially women. [Meghan McCain gave Palin a big endorsement as a "cool role model." ---ed.]

7. May attach some women pissed off about Hillary. [Hmmm. That's complicated. ---ed.]

8. As a pro-life super-achiever, puts feminists in a tizzy.

etc.

Read the whole thing.

Obama built a very impressive organization from the ground up, and created the impression of a pro-Obama movement, which in turn has sparked an interest in politics the likes of which this country (and Europe) hasn’t seen in decades (if the interest of the under-30 crowd around me is any indication … but I have to say that the jury is still out on that, because I live in an unrepresentative bubble in downtown Manhattan and cannot extrapolate much from my immediate surroundings).

McCain, however, seems to have ignited a movement. If indeed he has been mulling over this choice for a long time, you have to tip your hat to his boldness (or recklessness … take your pick). The Republican Party needs a shake-up not only for McCain to have a shot at the White House but in order for the Republicans to have a shot at staying relevant in our fast-moving society.

John Podhoretz hinted at this immediately after McCain picked Palin last Friday:

For the first time this year, there will be some pop-cultural interest in a Republican. Her family story — a conservative Republican with a blue-collar worker of a husband who takes primary responsibility for childrearing with a special-needs baby — is like a dream People Magazine cover.

And indeed, here is People’s immediate coverage.

Podhoretz continued:

Even though her pro-life views will make her anathema to New York City women’s-magazine editors, the possibility of huge newsstand sales in Red State Wal-Marts is just going to be too tempting for them to ignore her or belittle her.

It won’t swing an election, but it’s the kind of thing that can help change the narrative of the election.

It can do more than change the narrative of the election. McCain is confronting the culture war head-on. Suddenly, it’s a little hard to picture rural folk as bitter gun-and religion-clingers now, isn’t it?

Crazy!

A rejuvenation of both brands—Democratic and Republican—would be really healthy for our Republic. Long live the founders!

———–

*** The Democrats’ best-laid plans for a post-convention honeymoon have been derailed, Jeff Zeleny writes:

The Obama-Biden tour, officially branded “On the Road to Change,” drew far less attention than the campaign had envisioned. Before their plane took off Friday from the Democratic convention in Denver, Senator John McCain dropped the bombshell news that he had chosen Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate. Then, as Hurricane Gustav churned toward the Gulf Coast, Mr. McCain turned up in Mississippi on Sunday.

I swear that I haven’t been looking for this evidence—which happens to support my thesis that infotainment rules—but all of my casual reading in the last ten days has led to the same conclusion: culture is a far more influential force than politics in campaign ‘08.

[[You'll have to bear with me, though, if you want to get my argument. I'm not in Sound Bite Territory here. This blog is my playground for the ideas I've been thinking about for more than a decade. So if you're with me, read on. If not, skip to the next post.]]

Let’s back up a minute and think about culture and how it influences many domains in our lives and in our society. Here’s Peter Wood, writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, about “How Culture Keeps Students out of Science”:

The precipitous drop in American science students has been visible for years. In 1998 the House released a national science-policy report, “Unlocking Our Future,” that fussily described “a serious incongruity between the perceived utility of a degree in science and engineering by potential students and the present and future need for those with training.”

Let me offer a different explanation. Students respond more profoundly to cultural imperatives than to market forces. In the United States, students are insulated from the commercial market’s demand for their knowledge and skills. That market lies a long way off — often too far to see. But they are not insulated one bit from the worldview promoted by their teachers, textbooks, and entertainment. From those sources, students pick up attitudes, motivations, and a lively sense of what life is about. School has always been as much about learning the ropes as it is about learning the rotes. We do, however, have some new ropes, and they aren’t very science-friendly. Rather, they lead students who look upon the difficulties of pursuing science to ask, “Why bother?”

Success in the sciences unquestionably takes a lot of hard work, sustained over many years. Students usually have to catch the science bug in grade school and stick with it to develop the competencies in math and the mastery of complex theories they need to progress up the ladder. Those who succeed at the level where they can eventually pursue graduate degrees must have not only abundant intellectual talent but also a powerful interest in sticking to a long course of cumulative study. A century ago, Max Weber wrote of “Science as a Vocation,” and, indeed, students need to feel something like a calling for science to surmount the numerous obstacles on the way to an advanced degree.

At least on the emotional level, contemporary American education sides with the obstacles. It begins by treating children as psychologically fragile beings who will fail to learn — and worse, fail to develop as “whole persons” — if not constantly praised. The self-esteem movement may have its merits, but preparing students for arduous intellectual ascents aren’t among them. What the movement most commonly yields is a surfeit of college freshmen who “feel good” about themselves for no discernible reason and who grossly overrate their meager attainments.

One of the things that I really like about Barack Obama is that he addresses these kinds of cultural issues head-on:

ABC News’ Sunlen Miller Reports: Barack Obama took a “tough love” message to African American youth, telling that finishing high school is a better route to success in life than an unlikely trip to the NBA or the top of the rap industry.

“You are probably not that good a rapper. Maybe you are the next Lil’ Wayne, but probably not, in which case you need to stay in school,” Obama, D-Ill., told a cheering crowd, brought to a standing ovation at a town hall meeting in Powder Springs, Georgia.

The presumptive Democratic nominee was speaking about high school drop out rates and the need for people to be committed to working hard in school so they can get a job after school.

Obama said he knows some young men think they can’t find a job unless they are a really good basketball player.

“Which most of you brothas are not,” Obama, who played basketball in high school, a sport he continues to play to this day, said jokingly. “I know you think you are, but you’re not. You are over-rated in your own mind. You will not play in the NBA.”

Obama’s number-one Internet fan has often claimed that he loves his idol precisely because Obama will put the culture war to rest.

What a crock!

Baby, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

In case you haven’t noticed, this election is about the quintessential “Jacksonian” *** versus the quintessential post-Jacksonian (excuse me: I mean post-partisan) American.

———-

*** It would be paranoid to note [Kaus's "paranoia" continues here ---ed.] that Walter Russell Mead’s article is no longer available at the CFR’s site.

Not to worry! It’s available here. And here’s a link to the book where he lays things out in detail.

Would it be paranoid to wonder why conservative ideas don’t get a lot of traction in our culture?

Adam Bellow doesn’t sound too paranoid [e.a.]:

[N]o matter what happens to those [failing conservative] imprints, conservative publishing will certainly survive—and thrive. If liberals continue to ignore the power of conservative books, moreover, the losers will not be conservatives—who cannot help but be endlessly exposed to left-wing views through the networks and leading newspapers—but liberals themselves, complacent in their ignorance of the other side. “There’s always another side, that’s a classically liberal argument,” observes Bellow with a laugh. “The problem for contemporary liberals is that they really don’t understand it applies to them.”

Onward, and may the best ideas win!

And may some strong, righteous characters with a strong moral compass continue to press on fighting the good fight even when the odds and the currents are strongly against them:

Approached at a park in Moscow, Taisiya Gunicheva, 17, a college student, said she had heard of Mr. Solzhenitsyn, but could not name any of his books.

She said his work was largely absent from her school curriculum. “Can you imagine, there is nothing about it at all,” she said. “It is sad, but unfortunately, it’s true.”

Nearby was Anton Zimin, 26, an advertising copywriter, who said he was quite familiar with Mr. Solzhenitsyn but doubted that others in his generation were. He said people his age had lost touch with the struggles of their parents and grandparents.

“The problem is that now, it’s all about consumption — this spirit that has engulfed everybody,” Mr. Zimin said. “People prefer to consume everything, the simplest things, and the faster, the better. Books are something that force you to think, reading books requires some effort. But they prefer entertainment.”

Andrei V. Vasilevsky is accustomed to such sentiments. Mr. Vasilevsky, 52, is editor in chief of Novy Mir, the magazine that published Mr. Solzhenitsyn’s first major work, “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,” in 1962.

Mr. Vasilevsky said on Monday that young people considered figures like Mr. Solzhenitsyn to be artifacts, and that Russian society in general was no longer interested in towering cultural or social figures.

“There is no demand for great people,” he said. “I can’t say why, but this fact is simply obvious to me. Famous, notable, popular — yes. But not great, in the fullest sense of the word.”

And that, dear readers, is what McCain’s ad campaign of the last week was about: fame versus character. And it will stick, because people get that argument.

Richard Byrne recently reread The Selling of the President (which I happen to have mentioned just the other day) and took away some lessons [e.a.]:

Forty years on, McGinniss and the prominent Nixon staffers of his generation are in their late 60s. But The Selling of the President 1968 holds valuable lessons for the present generation of presidential campaign staffers, who are already trying to define Barack Obama and John McCain.

The fact that these lessons continue to be so relevant also hints at an uncomfortable fact: There is little true innovation in American political discourse, and its purveyors recycle key language and concepts to a disturbing degree.

In a campaign where Obama’s mastery of political oratory has been applauded, it may be difficult to remember that words can clutter or bog down the total impact of a televised campaign message. Nixon’s 1968 campaign ads are notable for their willingness to set a simple and forthright proposition and then let music and images do the heavy lifting to evoke a host of conflicting moods. That tempest of sound and image is then resolved succinctly with a carefully modulated statement from the candidate — tough, but not mean.

For John McCain, a similar approach might be the most effective against Obama in the fall. In fact, his first TV ads are already doing it: Obama as celebrity. Obama as cheap politician using troops as campaign fodder. Particularly on Iraq, look for McCain to set forth simple propositions like “the surge worked” — and pluck heartstrings with patriotic pictures and music.

Don’t say you weren’t warned!

Obama announces a major pseudo-event in Denver starring himself and 75,000 swooning extras, and the networks say, “Dream on, buddy”:

Major television networks are considering curtailing coverage of the Democratic National Convention after Monday’s announcement that Barack Obama will accept his party’s nomination in a Denver stadium. …

Network executives expect Obama’s relatively late-breaking decision to speak at Invesco Field at Mile High, a 76,000-seat football stadium, could add hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to already cash-strapped news divisions.

Is it just me, or is the MSM over Barack Obama?

The word “Islamophobia” doesn’t appear anywhere in this item from The Politico, but that’s the implicit accusation being leveled against—are you ready?—Mr. Barack “All the World Loves Him” Obama:

Two Muslim women at Barack Obama’s rally in Detroit Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women’s headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.

The Obama campaign has apologized to the women. But The Politico notes the problem that I’ve been writing about for a while—Obama’s image as Mr. New Politics is compromised every time someone reveals the machinations behind the creation of that image [e.a.]:

Building a human backdrop to a political candidate, a set of faces to appear on television and in photographs, is always a delicate exercise in demographics and political correctness. … But for Obama, the old-fashioned image-making contrasts with his promise to transcend identity politics, and to embrace all elements of America.

There’s also another little matter [e.a.]:

The incidents in Michigan, which has one of the largest Arab and Muslim populations in the country, also raise an aspect of his campaign that sometimes rubs Muslims the wrong way: The candidate has vigorously denied a false, viral rumor that he himself is Muslim. But the denials seem to some at times to imply that there is something wrong with the faith, though Obama occasionally adds that he means no disrespect to Islam.

If I weren’t so irritated by the selling of the candidate as the Messiah, I’d actually be irritated on his behalf by these … distractions.

update: In a surprising show of liberal piety, Ann Althouse asks [e.a.]:

[I] know, it’s a sensitive question: What sort of people in the background send the wrong subliminal message?

Answer: the gentlemen in this picture, for starters.