Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Televised Candidates

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-07-08 11:49 AM
Original message
The Televised Candidates
"Comedians have often suggested that Ronald Reagan’s immense popularity might have been helped by television-induced confusion. But I would like to make the case that this was concretely true, and that it’s not so funny.

"Ronald Reagan spent his adult life being an image, sometimes fictional – as when performing in films – and sometimes in that odd semi-reality that performers obtain in commercials. For his career combined film acting and, perhaps more important, spokesperson roles for General Electric Company advertising.

"Because of his background, Reagan handled television as president with astonishing skill and power. He understood, as no one did before, that on television, style supercedes content: The way you behave and look is more important than what you say or do. He knew that complexity and historical perspective do not come across on TV as well as simplicity, bald assertions, the heavy use of symbolic content, and the appeal to formulaic values, deeply imbedded in Americans by previous decades of television and film: Good vs. Evil, America vs. The Enemy, Revere the Flag. ( Reagan’s protégé, George Bush, also learned these lessons; he was elected in 1988 because of his embrace of TV symbolism – the flag, the pledge of allegiance, black rapists – mixed with spots about Dukakis and pollution, which turned out to be lies.)

"Reagan’s most remarkable achievement was to incorporate in his own persona an amazing set of archetypes from the popular movies of the 1940s and 1950s. In the real role of president, Ronald Reagan re-created a set of images that had been reinforced by standard story lines since World War II; he was making real what was previously just imagery held in the minds of the population.

"Ronald Reagan became the World War II hero, standing tall. He became the admiral on the bridge of the ships, taking on the hated Nazis and Japanese, though it became the Commies and Iranians. He was the western hero, slow to anger, but push him too far and he became fierce in his response. He was not a Rambo, a contemporary unfeeling slaughterer. He had morals. He was John Wayne. He was Gary Cooper in High Noon."
--In the Absence of the Sacred; Jerry Mander; Sierra Club Books; 1991; pages 90-91.

Presidential campaigns, including the primary season, are often decided by the public’s perceptions of each candidate’s communication skills. In 1960, the televised Kennedy vs. Nixon debate was a classic example: those who watched it on TV believed JFK won, while those listening to radio favored Nixon.

The republican party recognized that the public could be manipulated by the use of TV imagery, which is what Mander described so accurately in the sub-chapter "The Televison President." They had Reagan front for outrageous lies: the attack on Grenada became a "rescue," and the MX missiles were "peacekeepers." Mander notes that Reagan and Bush1 learned from Orwell to have a frequent "Two Minutes Hate" of shifting Goldsteins: Khomeni, Khadafy, Ortega, Willie Horton, Noriega, and Saddam Hussein.

There could be no more bizarre example of manipulating the screen than in the 2004 campaign: George W. Bush was presented as a patriotic military leader, while John Kerry was portrayed as a shady figure who betrayed the uniform.

Still, it would be an error to assume that because the republican party has stolen something from the democrats, that the stolen good is irreparably contaminated. Like the lead-in to Helter Skelter on U2’s "Rattle & Hum" says, "This is a song that Charles Manson stole from the Beatles … we’re stealing it back."

It is a good thing for the democrats to promote Barack Obama as being in the image of JFK; of John Edwards as this generation’s RFK; and Hillary Clinton as our Eleanor Roosevelt. Are the comparisons exact? Of course not. But one similarity is that the same negative things the nay-sayers respond with are much like the negative things people said about JFK, RFK, and Eleanor Roosevelt.

It is interesting to note that there is greater difficulty in projecting the Eleanor image, because she is not embedded in the collective TV consciousness. People who have learned about her in modern times are those who read, and reading creates a different type of mental activity than watching TV. When we look at how image played in modern times, Reagan convinced those who preferred to watch the movie rather than read that book, while Carter appealed to literate people.

Today we have the computer/ internet. This form of communication combines many of the best qualities of both the book and the TV screen. During the 2008 elections, we can be sure that the republican party will make every attempt to use it against the democratic party. We need to use every tool available to us in the contest for image.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-07-08 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. K & R
God I hope we have learned the message of the past 8 years regarding imaging and push back. The Clinton campaign may be suffering from the paradigm of yesterday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-07-08 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Early in the
republican primaries, we saw their candidates attempted to run against an image of Hillary Clinton from her days as First Lady. They wanted to focus exclusively on parts of her role during her husband's administration, while ignoring her Senate career.

In the democratic primary, the other candidates do almost the opposite: the other campaigns downplay her experience as First Lady, and focus instead on a few votes (which were certainly important) on Iraq and Iran, and to create an image of a power-hungry politician.

It is important for her to promote image, much in the manner of Eleanor Roosevelt. Here's a quote from ER from the May 11, 1934 Washington Conference on Negro Education:

"I think the day of selfishness is over; the day of really working together has come, and we must learn to work together, all of us, regardless of race or creed or color ... We go ahead together or we go down together ..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-07-08 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. That Would Be A Start
She also needs to dump her DC insider advisers. Hasn't she seen how their bad advice has hampered other campaign in the past? Mark Penn? I read that she has given him veto power over all other staffers who have long begged for a change in strategy. That does not bode well for a Clinton presidency. It's what we've had for the past 8 and is not the change the country needs. For her sake, I hope she does a u-turn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-07-08 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. The media keeps
reporting that her campaign is undergoing great difficulties. I'm not sure how accurate that is. I assume that she was hoping for early wins, but counting on some of the bigger ones that follow.

Either way, any person who wants to be the chief executive has to step up and be the active head of their campaign. There were times when I was not sure that some of the candidates in the primaries were doing that to the extent necessary. More, both Gore and Kerry could have done better by relying upon their own superior political instincts, rather than those of their advisers.

The one Rove-like fellow who was on Hardball did the Clinton campaign harm. Perhaps after Tuesday, she will make some changes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-07-08 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I'm Sure Her Campaign Is Having Problems
Bad decisions make those problems. I had to laugh...I read an article where Penn was assuring her right up to the last minute that she was going to pull out a victory in Iowa. It seems that he, just like Rove in 2006, had the numbers.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-08-08 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
6. The triple analogy
has some remarkable strategic parallel, notably their rise or fall seems to match political realities today. each one is different than the past three, but nothing so pessimistic as in the capacity to get screwed like their precedents. Eleanor, a more fiery liberal by far would never have had a prayer getting elected back then. Hillary has succeeded in painfully branding herself with both ends of the iron, a liberal demon to the GOp, as usual, and a corporatist to the left with roadkill blandness in between.
Obama is eagerly trying to give a new less liberal, version of JFK weaknesses before he even steps in.
Edwards is running against the establishment in a foredoomed kind of way with fewer of the inner factions(if fewer enemies) and less public sympathy. The numbers of the game inside and out are stacked and when RFK began to appear ready to TRY and surmount them, game over. So we never learned really how it turned out.

I guess that's a less than complimentary take on the parallel trios. What hasn't changed is that they have a lot of nasty opposition to hinder their best hopes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC