I would like readers' opinions and thoughts about something I listened to last month on "Studio 360," the NPR program produced in New York City and hosted by Kurt Anderson. I wrote a lengthy piece after listening to the conversation between Mr. Anderson and his guest, author Steven Heller, in which they discussed Mr. Heller's newest book, Iron Fists: Branding the 2oth Century Totalitarian State. But I did not like what I wrote, so I deleted it into oblivion.
Readers can listen to the entire 10-minute conversation below. I encourage each of you to ask yourself as you eavesdrop on this discussion what one thing is NEVER mentioned: What incredible phenomenon occurring right before our very eyes do these two men completely ignore? (Note the anemic reference to American flag lapel pins).
Please listen to "Propaganda R Us." It's important, I think. At the very least, you will learn something. (Click on arrow below.)
(Are there any rather recent examples that pop into your mind of political branding, of badges, posters, banners, uniforms, songs, and the like?)
Showing posts with label Campaign 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Campaign 2008. Show all posts
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Friday, February 01, 2008
In Loco Parentis: America's Two Crazy Parents (DNC & GOP)
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
In The Breakdown Lane: Seeing Red...And Feeling Blue
The beauty of being idealistic is that the idealist has not yet fallen into cynicism. Youth may be wasted on the young, but that is not the fault of those who happen to enjoy youth. And idealism may be youth’s beauty mark born of simple purity, but surely the ugly loss of ideals is rarely caused by the misdeeds of children. No, it is the adults who destroy innocence, who shatter ideals and scar beauty with subtle abuse. Cynicism is often handed down like a legacy, the last will and testament of what it means to be a ‘grown up.’
My sense as a middle-aged man observing the conflict between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is that millions of Mr. Obama’s supporters are about to have their ideals smashed by the Clinton campaign. At best, at the end of all this, youth’s enthusiastic naïveté (which is not idealism’s sibling) will be chased with a bitter draught of gall.
How can the Clinton campaign, which has clearly misrepresented Mr. Obama -- the ever-gentle man -- expect to inspire that generation of voters who are just beginning to pay attention to politics? Do Mr. and Mrs. Clinton really believe they can ignore the damage they are inflicting on the youngest members of the electorate, that set who overwhelmingly support Mr. Obama in his bid to be the Democratic Party nominee? Or do they believe that, after winning the White House, they can heal the damage that is done? Maybe their forced remedy will come before the White House: perhaps they will offer Mr. Obama a job around the White House, like the vice-presidency or some high profile cabinet post. (He’d be a fool to take it.)
Or perhaps, like so many power-grabbing “me-first” go-getters, the Clintons just don’t care. Maybe this explains Mrs. Clinton’s very first campaign slogan: “I am in this to win.” Her transparency could not be more disgusting: she’s not in “this” to lead or serve America. She is in “to win.” Unfortunately, too few of us have the courage to remind ourselves -- and our neighbors -- of the ghastly truth that people who are “in to win” are generally the worst people in the neighborhood -- and the world.
I am no partisan in this fight, nor am I a supporter of any candidate. I am merely a witness to history, and the history I am witnessing makes me sick. Yesterday, while tuned to the Rush Limbaugh show on the car radio, I nearly cried as I listened to a clip of Mrs. Clinton’s grotesque misrepresentations of Mr. Obama’s statements; I felt like screaming as I heard her commit the fallacy of equivocation (among other things). If I was not a law-abiding citizen, I might have even stopped and exited my car so I could search for something to vandalize.
Largely, my sorrow was directed at the young voters I know who believe in a world that Mr. Obama also believes in, a world of decency and civility and even elegance. Mr. Obama’s vision is, in an ideal sense, a trans-partisan world where the ideals of civility and prudence and tolerance and understanding abound. But I was also angry for Mr. Obama, angry enough to shout to the world that he would be far better treated if he were a Republican; that he’d win his party’s nomination and even the presidency if he were a member of the Grand Old Party.
What do readers think would be the outcome of the GOP race for the nomination had Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell run for the nation’s highest office? I am sorry...call me a fool; I think either one of them would have been a shoe-in. No other candidates could have stood a chance against them.
I know: I am a fool.
Of course, I admit my native idealism is showing through here, as is my cynicism: both are in a battle, and I’d like to believe my idealism might finally win. But today I am stubbornly prone to aver that if Mr. Obama was indeed a Republican, he’d be president tomorrow if the election were held today. And I further admit that even this very essay may fuel cynicism in the young, and even the old. But my aim is for something higher than merely venting my irascibility or distemper...I do not want to suppress the human spirit. My aim is this audacious hope: I hope that idealism will finally have victory over the deeply cynical, mean-spirited and dire campaign that is being run by the Clintons.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Why Hillary?
Pundits and pollsters are perplexed. So am I. But I am neither pundit nor pollster. Politics is more a visceral rather than cerebral sport for me: I go with hunches and feelings and intuitions. And my hunches were wrong, dead wrong. I had Barack Obama easily winning New Hampshire, with John Edwards coming in second and Hillary Clinton stumbling in at third. All I can do is laugh at myself.
________________________
Why Hillary?
Since I am not a pundit of any professional stature, I will not bore you with lengthy expositions on theory. Instead, I will quickly offer several reasons I think Mrs. Clinton won.
1. The Vanity Vote (aka The Snob Factor)
New Hampshire voters are vain and they guard that vanity well: There is no way that New Hampshire voters will often permit themselves to like those folks from Iowa. Barack Obama's success in Iowa was his doom here. New Hampshire voters believe they are more perceptive, informed, discerning than other voters; they pride themselves in being deeply involved. In 1984, Iowans chose Walter Mondale, but NH chose Gary Hart. In 1988, Dick Gephardt took Iowa while Mike Dukakis took NH. In 1992, Iowa went with Tom Harkin as NH took Paul Tsongas. And though Al Gore and John Kerry won both states' early elections in 2000 and 2004, respectively, this year marks a return to the old trend. New Hampshire not only wants to preserve the image that its primary is truly unique, the state wants to maintain its image of fierce independence.
2. The 'Minority' Vote (aka The Nostalgic Feminist Vote)
On the 2008 Democratic ticket voters are asked to choose between two minorities, a black man and a woman. Since exit polls show that New Hampshire's gray-haired females voted for Mrs. Clinton, we can safely conclude that such voters believe it is 'Hillary's time.' New Hampshire voters apparently believe that the first minority to walk into the Oval Office as president should be a woman, and not a black man. No doubt Mr. Obama's youth worked against him here, as voters probably believe that his chance for the White House will come later; he cometh too soon. Now is the time for a woman.
Undeniably, voters believe Hillary hasn't a future chance at the White House: This time truly IS her time. And with a dearth of viable women candidates (who else?) coming up through the Democratic Party, Hillary's need trumps the African American dream, but only for a season.
Related to this almost nostalgic view of feminist aspirations, the Bill Clinton factor looms large in its own nostalgic way. When I reported yesterday that an amazing number of folks who attended a local Bill Clinton event on Monday exited with this on their lips -- "I wish I could vote for him again!" -- I failed to report that the vast majority of those who uttered those words were OLDER women. I, dope as I am, misunderstood their words: I was certain they realized that a vote for Hill was actually an impossibly nostalgic vote for Bill. No one who felt that way for him would vote for his wife, I assured myself; the swooning electorate had to realize that she and he are NOT identical.
No surprise. I was wrong.
3. The War Vote (aka The Commander-in-Chief in a Dress Vote)
Irrespective of how downplayed in the media the Iraq War has become, shrewd voters know that it remains the country's largest issue, at least its largest foreign policy issue. Voters also know that John McCain, who has a real shot at winning the Republican nomination, is a true hawk and is, in many ways, responsible for the "success" of the Iraq "surge" led by General David Petraeus. Hence, New Hampshire voters descried that any viable Democratic candidate could not be a flight-or-flight dove.
Hillary Clinton's win here is nothing short of a massive blow to the anti-war left. After all, it was the Clinton administration -- even after leaving office -- that issued dire warnings about Saddam Hussein's renegade ways and the threat he posed to national security. Mrs. Clinton was remarkably hawkish throughout the "run up" to war; she was not a protester but one of the principal supporters of the Iraq invasion. Her defenses of the Bush Doctrine even mollified the anxieties of many in the middle left of her party.
Of course, analytical Democrats have ALWAYS known that the invasion of Iraq was not merely cooked up by the Republican Bush; in 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act that called for regime change in Iraq, which became part-and-parcel integral to the Bush Doctrine. Analytical Democrats know that Iraq is a central foothold for American self-preservation in a hostile Middle East; and they know that ANY Republican success there will leave someone like John McCain in a very pretty and patriotic light; someone like Barack Obama -- who boasts of opposing the war even when he was a mere state senator in Illinois -- will be left in the worst possible light (the worst thing that can happen to Barack Obama's ambitions is for Iraq to go well). Voters know that Mrs. Clinton has maintained a conveniently ambiguous and politically expedient position that allows her to take credit for positive gains in the War on Terror.
In other words, Hillary Clinton's success in New Hampshire has everything to do with ensuring that the Democrats' nominee for president can defend American military involvement in the Middle East, particularly in the face of John McCain's strong military background and political successes. The only viable candidate on the Democratic ticket who can address the war issue in a responsible manner is -- without question -- Hillary Clinton. Unless Iraq turns into a glaringly obvious mess, which is quite possible, Hillary Clinton takes the nomination.
_______________________
I should add that there was also the "Pity Vote" based on Mrs. Clinton's apparent struggle as a woman to get a fair hearing; and the "Blame the Media" vote (the Pity Vote's little sister) managed by Bill Clinton, which included the suggestion that Barack Obama has been given a pass by the media -- enamored as they are with Obama's alleged "fairy tale" life narrative -- partly because he is black.
Again, just some hasty post-primary thoughts.
Peace.
Bill Gnade
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
________________________
Why Hillary?
Since I am not a pundit of any professional stature, I will not bore you with lengthy expositions on theory. Instead, I will quickly offer several reasons I think Mrs. Clinton won.
1. The Vanity Vote (aka The Snob Factor)
New Hampshire voters are vain and they guard that vanity well: There is no way that New Hampshire voters will often permit themselves to like those folks from Iowa. Barack Obama's success in Iowa was his doom here. New Hampshire voters believe they are more perceptive, informed, discerning than other voters; they pride themselves in being deeply involved. In 1984, Iowans chose Walter Mondale, but NH chose Gary Hart. In 1988, Dick Gephardt took Iowa while Mike Dukakis took NH. In 1992, Iowa went with Tom Harkin as NH took Paul Tsongas. And though Al Gore and John Kerry won both states' early elections in 2000 and 2004, respectively, this year marks a return to the old trend. New Hampshire not only wants to preserve the image that its primary is truly unique, the state wants to maintain its image of fierce independence.
2. The 'Minority' Vote (aka The Nostalgic Feminist Vote)
On the 2008 Democratic ticket voters are asked to choose between two minorities, a black man and a woman. Since exit polls show that New Hampshire's gray-haired females voted for Mrs. Clinton, we can safely conclude that such voters believe it is 'Hillary's time.' New Hampshire voters apparently believe that the first minority to walk into the Oval Office as president should be a woman, and not a black man. No doubt Mr. Obama's youth worked against him here, as voters probably believe that his chance for the White House will come later; he cometh too soon. Now is the time for a woman.
Undeniably, voters believe Hillary hasn't a future chance at the White House: This time truly IS her time. And with a dearth of viable women candidates (who else?) coming up through the Democratic Party, Hillary's need trumps the African American dream, but only for a season.
Related to this almost nostalgic view of feminist aspirations, the Bill Clinton factor looms large in its own nostalgic way. When I reported yesterday that an amazing number of folks who attended a local Bill Clinton event on Monday exited with this on their lips -- "I wish I could vote for him again!" -- I failed to report that the vast majority of those who uttered those words were OLDER women. I, dope as I am, misunderstood their words: I was certain they realized that a vote for Hill was actually an impossibly nostalgic vote for Bill. No one who felt that way for him would vote for his wife, I assured myself; the swooning electorate had to realize that she and he are NOT identical.
No surprise. I was wrong.
3. The War Vote (aka The Commander-in-Chief in a Dress Vote)
Irrespective of how downplayed in the media the Iraq War has become, shrewd voters know that it remains the country's largest issue, at least its largest foreign policy issue. Voters also know that John McCain, who has a real shot at winning the Republican nomination, is a true hawk and is, in many ways, responsible for the "success" of the Iraq "surge" led by General David Petraeus. Hence, New Hampshire voters descried that any viable Democratic candidate could not be a flight-or-flight dove.
Hillary Clinton's win here is nothing short of a massive blow to the anti-war left. After all, it was the Clinton administration -- even after leaving office -- that issued dire warnings about Saddam Hussein's renegade ways and the threat he posed to national security. Mrs. Clinton was remarkably hawkish throughout the "run up" to war; she was not a protester but one of the principal supporters of the Iraq invasion. Her defenses of the Bush Doctrine even mollified the anxieties of many in the middle left of her party.
Of course, analytical Democrats have ALWAYS known that the invasion of Iraq was not merely cooked up by the Republican Bush; in 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act that called for regime change in Iraq, which became part-and-parcel integral to the Bush Doctrine. Analytical Democrats know that Iraq is a central foothold for American self-preservation in a hostile Middle East; and they know that ANY Republican success there will leave someone like John McCain in a very pretty and patriotic light; someone like Barack Obama -- who boasts of opposing the war even when he was a mere state senator in Illinois -- will be left in the worst possible light (the worst thing that can happen to Barack Obama's ambitions is for Iraq to go well). Voters know that Mrs. Clinton has maintained a conveniently ambiguous and politically expedient position that allows her to take credit for positive gains in the War on Terror.
In other words, Hillary Clinton's success in New Hampshire has everything to do with ensuring that the Democrats' nominee for president can defend American military involvement in the Middle East, particularly in the face of John McCain's strong military background and political successes. The only viable candidate on the Democratic ticket who can address the war issue in a responsible manner is -- without question -- Hillary Clinton. Unless Iraq turns into a glaringly obvious mess, which is quite possible, Hillary Clinton takes the nomination.
_______________________
I should add that there was also the "Pity Vote" based on Mrs. Clinton's apparent struggle as a woman to get a fair hearing; and the "Blame the Media" vote (the Pity Vote's little sister) managed by Bill Clinton, which included the suggestion that Barack Obama has been given a pass by the media -- enamored as they are with Obama's alleged "fairy tale" life narrative -- partly because he is black.
Again, just some hasty post-primary thoughts.
Peace.
Bill Gnade
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
The Day Of Evacuation
Happy New Year!
Despite the belatedness of that salutation, I sincerely pray as I begin today a new year of blogging, that this new year will truly be a blessed one for all my readers and friends. God speed!
________________________
In just a few short hours, THEY will all just leave. They will leave New Hampshire faster than autumn foliage flies off trees in an October hurricane; they will leave faster than leaf-peepers empty their rooms at sundry inns at the first sign of heavy snow, or as fast as skiers leave the slopes in a downpour.
But in their rush to get out of here, jetting off to South Carolina or Michigan, THEY will leave behind thousands of campaign signs buried in December's record-breaking snows. It should be an ugly spring, as receding snowbanks reveal evidence of some strange temporary civilization, like creeping sand dunes reveal the detritus of a forsaken temple and court. Huckabee and Obama signs will appear in March; and Henry Hewes' name will stick out of the April mud, prompting not a few to ask, "Who the hell is Henry Hewes?"
Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Guiliani, Paul, Hunter -- these are just a few of the names that peer over snowbanks, that shout from telephone poles, that litter the New Hampshire landscape. Yes, tomorrow morning staffers will try -- in theory, at least -- to ride the roads and byways to retrieve the refuse of the democratic process; to collect signs of their favorite names. But they will not completely succeed to rid our land of this blight; there will be more than enough forensic evidence left behind to prove that some sort of crime has been committed.
Outsiders cannot know what it is like to be in this state, especially in those particularly gorgeous or photogenic or quirky areas of the Granite State that attract candidates for photo ops. Satellite trucks and news crews and photographers and placard-carrying supporters -- many supporters from every state but this one -- choke our streets, our sidewalks: a parking spot Saturday in Peterborough, NH was won with a prayer and toss of the dice, as was a seat in any restaurant, as McCain, Kucinich and Clinton campaign workers (these three were the most evident this day) brought their message everywhere. Such would be the routine the next day, and then the day after that, and then the day after that. And then? Well, tonight, everyone disappears.
________________________
Yesterday I saw Bill Clinton. While his presence in my hometown was not huge, it was -- to some -- hugely disruptive.
Here's something for you to consider. As I stood outside the Peterborough Town House after Mr. Clinton's town hall-type meeting, dozens of folks walked by me as they exited that fine event. Not everyone exiting that impressive red-brick hall passed my way, but many did. And the most common statement I overheard was this, always uttered with a mix of dreamy nostalgia and wistfulness: "I wish I could vote for him again!" One must assume that such comments are not good news for Mrs. Clinton: voters LIKE her because they LOVE her husband. Such comments prove that this might very well be all about Bill: a vote for Hillary is really a vote for some vague, shadowy even mythological past. Indeed, as I stood in a gaggle of gawkers hoping to ogle the former president, everyone to a person commented with all due conviction just how "good he is" at communicating; that Bill Clinton just loves to work a crowd. But there were no similar comments in this nearly all-blue Democratic town directed at Mrs. Clinton. She was just "nothing special."
________________________
Barack Obama comes out of New Hampshire the winner, or so I (easily!) predict (McCain will win the Republican vote, but it will not be the big news, nor will it last). But it must be remembered that New Hampshire has become something of a very quirky state: This is a state obsessed with politics (in a sense, it is probably our biggest industry). In fact, I would say politics are far more a religion in this state -- especially for those on the left -- than in many other parts of the United States. This ardor and zeal -- entirely overwrought, in my opinion -- is the direct result of New Hampshire's grip on the first in the nation primary. Should a national lottery be instituted that breaks that grip, the power base in this state -- also overwrought and misplaced and even a bit unnatural -- would be weakened considerably. In fact, a case could be made that the primary in New Hampshire is a stranglehold: diversity of opinion and opportunity are suppressed by a machinery that prepares constantly to mold a new leader every four years. Money pours in here by the train load; shakers and movers keep shaking but they don't really move, staying put to prepare the ground for the next election cycle.
For me, I am all for sharing the first primary with other states. I think a different state should start the process every cycle, and that a state should learn whether it will host a primary no more than 9 months in advance. I think we would get a better sense of the democratic process if candidates were unsure where they should begin their bids. Just think of how fun it would be to see candidates hastily stake out turf in a state that -- unlike New Hampshire -- has not been preparing for them for 3 or 4 years.
But I did start this section by pointing out that New Hampshire is a quirky state. In 1992, Republican Pat Buchanan nearly won the primary over George Bush I. But this was simply a protest vote: it was meant to push the elder Bush further to the right (Buchanan would win in 1996 over Bob Dole in a similar protest). The Buchanan protest tactic was to send a message: don't forget your values. The Obama victory may -- I emphasize MAY -- be in part a message to other Democratic front-runners, particularly Mrs. Clinton: We want you to be more like HIM.
Just primary thoughts.
Peace to you,
Gnade
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)