The Emerging '08 Caricatures
As anyone who pays any attention to politics knows, a key component of the Republican electoral strategy in every presidential election is creating a disparaging caricature of the Democratic candidate and mocking that person relentlessly. GOP strategists have long appreciated the fact that many voters, particularly in presidential elections, are influenced more by their perceptions of the candidates' characters than by the positions the candidates hold on any particular issue.
In particular, voters are looking for someone who appears serious, competent, and likable, someone they can picture as president.
From the GOP's perspective, therefore, the goal is to turn the Democratic candidate into an object of ridicule and scorn, to make him (or her) seem thoroughly unpresidential.
In 2000, Republicans (with a big assist from people like Maureen Dowd, Ceci Connolly, and Kit Seelye) were able to portray Al Gore as a serial liar and exaggerator, someone who was willing to do and say anything to be elected president. Gore was also caricatured as a rich elitist and child of privilege who, unlike George W. Bush (???!), was stuck up and out of touch with the concerns of everyday folk.
In 2004, Republicans were able to portray a decorated war hero as an effete, elitist flip-flopper who stood for nothing and lacked the experience and resolve necessary to protect us from terrorists.
The caricatures are slightly different each time, but as sure as the sun rises, the Democratic nominee in 2008 will be subjected to the same kind of relentless assault on his (or her) character. And though it is incredibly early in '08 cycle, it's not hard to predict what form these attacks will take.
Hillary Clinton:
The attacks on Clinton are the easiest to anticipate because she has been subjected to this kind of character assassination for the last decade and a half. She will be portrayed as an overly-ambitious, calculating opportunist, much like Al Gore was in 2000. But there will also undoubtedly be a strong misogynist undercurrent to the attacks. Republican strategists will attempt to exploit--sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly--uneasiness among voters with the idea of having a female president. They'll attempt to play up characteristics that people find more off-putting in women than men; Hillary will be caricatured as shrill, ambitious, and vindictive. They'll also play into existing female stereotypes, portraying Hillary as jealous, unstable, and weak.
John Edwards:
If John Edwards manages to win the nomination, Republicans will go after his most obvious political asset, his good looks and charm. They'll attempt to feminize him, to caricature him as a pretty boy and prima donna. In fact, they're already doing this. Rush Limbaugh literally cannot mention John Edwards' name without referring to him as "the Breck girl," an insult that has quickly caught on among right-wing bloggers. Limbaugh recently joked that Edwards may become our "first woman president." Ann Coulter's now infamous use of the word "faggot" to describe Edwards was just a variation on this theme. The goal will be to portray Edwards as some sort of girly-man poser, not a man's man like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain or whoever the GOP nominee happens to be.
Barack Obama:
It's a little harder to predict how the GOP will choose to caricature Obama. Because he is relatively new to the scene, his negative framing is still in flux. On top of that, Obama's most obvious characteristic--his race--has to be approached delicately by his opponents. While the GOP may be able to get away with attacks that reek of misogyny or homophobia, anything that smells racist is likely to create a major media backlash.
I suspect, therefore, that the GOP will focus primarily on Obama's inexperience and supposed lack of substance. They'll attempt to portray Obama as an overly-ambitious neophyte, a man who's all style and no substance. They'll play the race card, but very subtly. They'll use Obama's liberalness as a proxy for race, alleging that he's "out of the mainstream" and that he represents the "Jesse Jackson wing" of the Democratic party. Some will even try to make an issue of the supposed militancy of Obama's church and will throw around terms like "black power" in an effort to scare white voters.
Whoever wins the nomination, this is the kind of thing they'll have to look forward to, so I hope the various campaigns are doing what they can now to prepare for it. I also hope that the Democratic candidates can avoid feeding into these particular caricatures as they campaign against each other. As for the rest of us, it's important to spot these caricatures as they're forming and to call out mainstream journalists and fellow liberals when they mindlessly play into them. And that's true whether or not the candidate in question is your preferred candidate.
In particular, voters are looking for someone who appears serious, competent, and likable, someone they can picture as president.
From the GOP's perspective, therefore, the goal is to turn the Democratic candidate into an object of ridicule and scorn, to make him (or her) seem thoroughly unpresidential.
In 2000, Republicans (with a big assist from people like Maureen Dowd, Ceci Connolly, and Kit Seelye) were able to portray Al Gore as a serial liar and exaggerator, someone who was willing to do and say anything to be elected president. Gore was also caricatured as a rich elitist and child of privilege who, unlike George W. Bush (???!), was stuck up and out of touch with the concerns of everyday folk.
In 2004, Republicans were able to portray a decorated war hero as an effete, elitist flip-flopper who stood for nothing and lacked the experience and resolve necessary to protect us from terrorists.
The caricatures are slightly different each time, but as sure as the sun rises, the Democratic nominee in 2008 will be subjected to the same kind of relentless assault on his (or her) character. And though it is incredibly early in '08 cycle, it's not hard to predict what form these attacks will take.
Hillary Clinton:
The attacks on Clinton are the easiest to anticipate because she has been subjected to this kind of character assassination for the last decade and a half. She will be portrayed as an overly-ambitious, calculating opportunist, much like Al Gore was in 2000. But there will also undoubtedly be a strong misogynist undercurrent to the attacks. Republican strategists will attempt to exploit--sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly--uneasiness among voters with the idea of having a female president. They'll attempt to play up characteristics that people find more off-putting in women than men; Hillary will be caricatured as shrill, ambitious, and vindictive. They'll also play into existing female stereotypes, portraying Hillary as jealous, unstable, and weak.
John Edwards:
If John Edwards manages to win the nomination, Republicans will go after his most obvious political asset, his good looks and charm. They'll attempt to feminize him, to caricature him as a pretty boy and prima donna. In fact, they're already doing this. Rush Limbaugh literally cannot mention John Edwards' name without referring to him as "the Breck girl," an insult that has quickly caught on among right-wing bloggers. Limbaugh recently joked that Edwards may become our "first woman president." Ann Coulter's now infamous use of the word "faggot" to describe Edwards was just a variation on this theme. The goal will be to portray Edwards as some sort of girly-man poser, not a man's man like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain or whoever the GOP nominee happens to be.
Barack Obama:
It's a little harder to predict how the GOP will choose to caricature Obama. Because he is relatively new to the scene, his negative framing is still in flux. On top of that, Obama's most obvious characteristic--his race--has to be approached delicately by his opponents. While the GOP may be able to get away with attacks that reek of misogyny or homophobia, anything that smells racist is likely to create a major media backlash.
I suspect, therefore, that the GOP will focus primarily on Obama's inexperience and supposed lack of substance. They'll attempt to portray Obama as an overly-ambitious neophyte, a man who's all style and no substance. They'll play the race card, but very subtly. They'll use Obama's liberalness as a proxy for race, alleging that he's "out of the mainstream" and that he represents the "Jesse Jackson wing" of the Democratic party. Some will even try to make an issue of the supposed militancy of Obama's church and will throw around terms like "black power" in an effort to scare white voters.
Whoever wins the nomination, this is the kind of thing they'll have to look forward to, so I hope the various campaigns are doing what they can now to prepare for it. I also hope that the Democratic candidates can avoid feeding into these particular caricatures as they campaign against each other. As for the rest of us, it's important to spot these caricatures as they're forming and to call out mainstream journalists and fellow liberals when they mindlessly play into them. And that's true whether or not the candidate in question is your preferred candidate.
posted by A.L. at 4:16 PM
7 Comments:
While excellent, valid points - you seem to have given the real culprit a "free pass" - this is only possible because of the full participation and cooperation of the mainstream media - you know, the lying lairs that "catapult the propaganda."
No - the republicans do not somehow have a magical ability to herd the press to repeat the lies. It is all part of how the corporate media operates.
Now that most of the MSM and entertainment industry is owned by a handful of corporations - they can use those assets to promote a larger agenda. The profits they do or do not make with their media investments do not matter because they can make so much more in other areas if they can manipulate politics.
To say this is just the result of republican strategy is misses the real problem here all together.
Come on, A.L., surely you cannot be ignorant of how the structure of our economic system has enabled the likes of the AWOL chimperor to be fraudulently hoisted on the American people as a "war president".
His candidacy was a sham when he entered the race in 1999 - the "beer factor" was always a lie - Americans did not want to have a beer with an abnoxious alcoholic/cocaine addict.
Politics is manipulated on a much larger scale than your post acknowledges and the folks behind that manipulation are not the leaders of the republican party.
Get real, A.L. - follow the money trail.
Anonymous,
I just don't see the vast manipulation of politics for nefarious ends you allude to. That corporate money on a large scale is flowing into campaigns isn't arguable. But corporations typically give to the party in power or to both sides. They're typically not trying to influence the outcome of elections except in the sense that, no matter which side wins, they want to be able to get their lobbyists in on writing legislation.
Understand, now: this is NOT good, and I'm not saying it is, but it's just not the huge, corporate conspiracy you seem so see. It's just the "business-ification" of politics. Just like we've had the same process in the news, entertainment, food production, internet, medicine, and education areas, to mention a few.
We've seen Scaife and others floating the Swift Boat group, and no doubt, now that they've been shown to be successful, we'll have people of lesser wealth giving money to people like this -- success breeds success, after all. However, there are signs that this method has already reached its pinnacle and is now receding in effectiveness.
We've seen Rupert Murdoch try to capitalize on the authoritarian segment of the populace with Fox News, but it would appear that Fox is declining in viewership. It's certainly not gaining.
Now, if you've got some inside information about some particular bad companies or citizens, aside from those I've mentioned, please share it with us. Supply specifics, please.
"""To say this is just the result of republican strategy is misses the real problem here all together."""
I don't think so nor do I think all that stuff you put up there representative of an enlightened position. The money trail?
A.I.'s point concerned predictable Republican strategy. A strategy to deny the American people the ability to make a real choice.The media will certainly pick up on it but it will originate in the guts of the GOP machine.
charles - what I am saying is that the MSM exists to see crap to consumers - people that are not smart enough to realize that the same crap is being sold under different brand names at different price points - most having nothing to do with utility or quality.
The MSM does not exist to inform - it does not operate within a "free marketplace", objective journalism is a lie - never existed, and the press is not the "watchdog."
The essential monopoly power that a few corporations hold over the news and entertainment business (a line that is increasingly blurred) means that the MSM is more profitable "catapulting the propaganda" than doing any analysis of events or investigative journalism.
What I take issue is the implication that the MSM just ignorently follows the republican part - the opposite is true. The economic powers that own the MSM set the agenda, use the chimperor and the repugs to implement that agenda, and then use their media assets to "catapult the propaganda."
The chimp did not steal 2 elections and lie this country into Iraq without direction from and the the full compliance of the MSM.
To say the media blindly follows the repugs is putting cause and effect upside down.
The media will certainly pick up on it but it will originate in the guts of the GOP machine.
GET REAL - the "guts" of the GOP machine also own the MSM - you also have "cause and effect" upside down. The repug party is taking marching orders from someone - it is not "liberal" or "enlightened" to refuse to look at that reality.
There was a time when "LIBERALS" actually placed a great deal of importance on the economic forces that drive politics - anyone that denies this is not "liberal."
This line floored me, "Obama's most obvious characteristic--his race." Wow. Most obvious characteristic maybe to the affirmative action-believing, viewing -the-electorate as racial/ethnic interest groups to be courted liberal mindset.
This line floored me, "Obama's most obvious characteristic--his race." Wow. Most obvious characteristic maybe to the affirmative action-believing, viewing -the-electorate as racial/ethnic interest groups to be courted liberal mindset.
Oh please. I'm sure you're so post-post-modern that you didn't even notice that Obama was black. Spare me.
Obama's race doesn't define him (nor does anyone's), but it is certainly the first thing any normal person notices and it will be a major factor in the way Obama is discussed in the media and attacked by his opponents.
And the suggestion that only liberals pay any attention to characteristics like race is just ludicrous.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home