More Asshattery?
Dean
So, apparently a lot of people are up in arms over an ad showing a Republican congresswoman pickpocketing soldiers in combat. Even our friend Andrew Quinn, no Republican, is offended.
Hrmph. This ad doesn't offend me. It really doesn't. A few days ago Joe Gandelman was incensed over a Republican ad which showed Kerry's face and also showed the face of some terrorists, with an ad message basically saying that we would be at greater danger from terrorism if Kerry won. Which infuriated some, but didn't infuriate me either.
I am slowly coming to the reluctant conclusion that what offends me in campaign advertising is not what offends other people. I just can't seem to explain precisely what that difference is. But I guess I'll try.
Take the ad with the Republican congresswoman picking soldiers' pockets: okay, its' harsh. But no one literally thinks she's doing that (at least no sane person with an IQ above room temperature thinks that). Similarly, okay, here's Kerry's photos quoting things he's said, here's some terrorists. Does any sane person think that means Kerry's a terrorist? Or do they get the message that Kerry's got the wrong attitude and will enact the wrong policies? I just don't see how anyone would conclude that the congresswoman really picks pockets, or that Kerry really is a terrorist.
Ads that infuriate me are ads that outright lie. Or ads which outright suggest that America's leaders are flat-out evil (i.e. calling them Communists or comparing them to Hitler, saying they brought us into war just to make themselves rich, etc.). Ads that say someone's a racist or a murderer or endorses murder are truly revolting. Those are the kinds of message that inflame me.
Saying "Kerry's soft on terrorism," verbally or visually, may be a harsh statement but it's fair game. Saying "Republicans are short-changing our soldiers and not giving them the pay they were promised," well again it's harsh but it's fair game. They strike me as legitimate arguments, and I don't mind using strong visual imagery to get those arguments across. Especially since most people process data visually and not verbally anyway (I'm less visual than most people, but I recognize that I'm in the minority and that effective political ads must use effective visuals).
So here's my advice guys: chill out. Ultimately I think we all have to remember something I've said a thousand times before, but will say again: there is an elitist tendency we all have to assume that everyday voters are stupid and easily brainwashed. They aren't. Just because they don't follow politics obsessively doesn't mean that when election day comes around, their ability to sift out the message from the medium is crippled. No one's going to think this woman is really running around picking pockets. No one is going to think Kerry's a terrorist sympathizer, or whatever. They're going to glean a message from ads like this, couple it with the news coverage, the speeches they hear, the literature they receive, ponder it all, and make a choice.
The system's really not as broken as we sometimes think. We have a watershed political year here, where a lot of issues that have been debated the last two years will finally settle out one way or the other. Let's hope so anyway.
Oddly enough, this reminded me of the flap over Bush, Iraq, and 9/11. The President mentions them in the same paragraph, and as if by magic, the world comes to the conclusion that he is accusing Sadam Hussein of masterminding the whole event.
I don't mean to imply that the world is full of morons. I do believe, though, that there is a massive shortage of attention span. Two words stand out in a paragraph, and they are immediately linked by the strongest means possible. How much more so with two pictures? Notice that it isn't exclusive to any particular ideology, unless you want to call the American mindset an ideology.
And Mr E Poet, I agree on the way connectivity is actually applied. Watching a full speech, then watching the talking heads _deconstruct_ the speech -> every possible connection that could be implied is read into any prepared speech. Once the connection is made, people won't let go of it.
Frankly, I'd prefer "And today, Bush gave a speech, here's 27 minutes of it." instead of "Today Bush said, and I quote, blah blah blah, and that means blah blah blah, and what do you think Zachary?" for 27 minutes.
I'm with you on this one - its fair game, even if entirely over the top and likely to backfire on the Democrats...I'd be first out the gate trying to stop any GOP organization from doing this (and even the SBVT have cut it close on several occasions, in my view...though by quintessntial "undecided voter" fiance has thoroughly enjoyed each of them, so I just may be too much of a political junkie to see them clearly).
...
Dean, I think the difference is that you can recognize the candidates' right to free speech in campaign ads -- and air anything that isn't slander or outright false -- without taking sides.
A trend I see forming is the double standard of bemoaning vicious ads against their chosen candidate, while cheering on said candidate's own attacks.
Well in some cases they are, in some they're not. Surely, political junkies are better informed, and that's troublesome, for uninformed voters can be snookered--but it's harder than you might think, at least involving bread-and-butter issues at home (in foreign policy or war, thousands of miles away, it's a different story).
Besides, I've also met political junkies who are horribly shallow and blinkered. It doesn't seem like how much you read on politics really indicates how thoughtful or sincere you are.
Americans, when they vote for President, will look at a handful of issues that are important to them, look to the candidate with the message who they can compromise with the least, and who they most trust. Common sense can do that as well as no end of poring over the papers.
Not that educating yourself and arguing with people is a complete waste of time. But we don't need everyone to spend most of their free time that way for our politicians to craft agendas that people can live with and vote on in good conscience.
Tonight as I live-blog on the debates, it'll be the first time that I watch a political event live this year...I don't trust myself to get the full impact of live political events because I'm too involved in politics on too many levels...I trust the reaction of non-political people who have watched them - after getting some of their reactions, then I read the transcripts and then I make my decision on the overall effect. The dumbest thing any political observer can do is to think his judgement of the effect of something is automatically better than the average Joe's...politics is pitched to the average Joe who hasn't spent hours each day studying the political tea leaves...political junkies have to see how the average Joe reacts in order to know what is going on...and as for me, I prefer to see the reaction before I even see the speech.
What you are suggesting is that it is not wrong to say give the following message:
I accuse this Republican congresswoman of using political power to deny soldiers their rightful pay. That makes her little better than a pickpocket. We all know that pickpockets deny people their rightful property.
Is there a bright line which then makes it wrong to say:
I accuse this Republican president of using political power to deny citizens their right to free speech via McCain/Feingold. That makes him little better Hitler. We all know that Hitler denied citizens their right to free speech.
Would the second argument be any different if one substituted any of the following for Hitler: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Guevarra, Mugabe, George III, Oliver Cromwell, Louis XIV, New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, or John Adams? Or is this just a matter of judgement?
This is a hard question. Perhaps you are trying to say that it isn't right to associate a candidate with a typical shibboleth of ultimate evil. Is that a bright enough line?
Yours,
Wince
Anyway....
Who are these so-easily-offended people?, and what kind of political advertizing or propaganda does not offend them? The answer to that is all too clear to me. They want to see and hear nothing but promises of government-guaranteed jobs and "free" health, education, and welfare, to be provided by the federal government. That is their definition of "the issues", and anything else is "negative" and "name-calling". They do not want to be reminded that we are at War for the very survival of our country and our Western civilization.
Bah! Back to the sheep pasture with them, I say. If Kerry is elected, it will be because there are too many of these people. Better four more years of Bush.
I also do think there's a certain over-the-top level of evil-ascribing I can't handle. A start on that would probably be "He's a child molester." Comparisons to Nazis, to Communists, to murderers... that also is so outrageously over the top. I also recall one commercial in 2002 where some ads were run against a Republican saying he was basically a queer hairdresser, which also struck me as much too much.
So I guess what I'm saying is that, to me, the real bright line is now what you say, but whether or not a sensible person could really look at the hyperbole and think it's literally true. I find it inconceivable that anyone with more than tapioca for brains would think the congresswoman in question is really sneaking onto battlefields and picking pockets. The imagery may be crass but only that, but if it sticks in voters' minds and makes them look more closely at her record well then fine.
It is tempting I suppose to say that if you cannot lay out in excruciating detail exactly all the "thou shalt nots" in a way that no one would ever be confused, that means there are no limits. But there are limits. Comparing the sitting President to a fascist dictator, especially in a time of war, is all-out hate-speech in my view, especially in a time of war. That's not even borderline, it's either insanity or it's flat out evil.
At the lowest end I suppose would be the whispering campaign, "Hey, he's a little light in the loafers, ya know?"
For all that I think that you can't draw a bright line because so many things are borderline, I do think that if you sit down an average group of 20 people or so, and you get a bell curve reaction of a couple who are grievously offended, a couple who cackle in glee, and the rest who shift uncomfortably a little but say, "Hmmm," you've probably got an okay ad.
Which is why, for all the snotty comments people make about them, focus groups are actually a good thing as a rule when it comes to political ads.
But don't call the President a dictator unless you're prepared to back that up with a lot. Don't say he lied about the most important thing a President can do--order troops to their deaths--simply because he wants to make his buddies richbunless you've got a hell of a lot of evidence for that, because that sort of shit just tears the country apart. Ditto, don't lie and say the President's opponent is a Communist unless you can prove it. Some charges are just too heinous without a hell of a lot of evidence. Even now with all I've seen I can't support people who call a traitor. A jerk? An opportunist? A weasel who refuses to be forthright and can't seem to apologize for something he should apologize for? Okay that I can live with.
I don't know. I'm not the ultimate determinor I guess but some things seem very obvious to me, some seem gray area, some seem fine. Mostly it seems like common sense to me. Common sense and a matter of conscience.
No one thinks this Republican congresswoman is actually stealing onto battlefields and picking pockets, do they?
But the average citizen also reckonizes that almost every over-the-top ad contains a kernel of truth which has been taken out of context. What the politician has to worry about is when the imagery is unrefutable as evidence of a controversial "nuanced" policy ala "Willie Horton" in 1988 and the unmistakeably Liberal policy of Gov Dukakis which allowed dangerous and violent convicts unsupervised furloughs from prison.
Once again I am merely repeating my refrain: voters ain't dumb. Some partisans will automatically believe or disbelieve the message, the rest of voters will look at the gestalt of all information they receive and make up their own minds. Sometimes based on their gut, sometimes rationally, but in the final analysis I believe voters usually make the right choices--even if as individuals we don't always agree with the voters.
I find it remarkable to find myself saying this since 10, 20 years ago I was infinitely more cynical about the intelligence of voters. Something's shifted in me, and 9/11 was a part of it. I believe in our people and our system more than I ever have. When you average out everything, voters usually make a sensible decision.
(Although we could have a long discussion about the problems caused by gerrymandering, which makes partisanship too sharply slanted in most districts. But that's another topic entirely.)