Is our candidate learning?
A while back, the Happy Tutor suggested we need to replace our pundits with art critics.
I thought, yes. And if only English majors ruled the world. But that’s beside the point.
The point is, we live in media space, and it’s far different from what we might term reality. Reality is intransigent, the school of hard knocks, cause and effect, aging, death – you might not like it, but you give your life meaning by dealing with it. By contrast, the media environment can be manipulated, and our once modern, fixed reality is now a post-modern media creation. Meaning and values barely register.
If it’s true that you best deal with reality or reality will deal with you, it’s also true that you best deal with the media as post-modern, or the post-modern media will deal with you.
Nobody knows this better than the Happy Tutor, or for that matter, Karl Rove. Rove would appreciate the following from the Tutor:
We might also ask, do they work? Do they mesh with the media and our myths? And they do – on the surface, but the surface is all we’re dealing with. They aren’t tasteful or intelligent, but as surface phenomena they are well-made, compelling and believable.
I don’t think you can fight them by simply calling them wrong, pointing to the lies and corruption, because media debate doesn’t work that way. It’s too fluid for that. Facts are always changing, and in any case recognition of the importance of undisputed facts is missing. You need refutation of the other side’s myths, but you’d better have a strong presentation of your own, which should take for granted that the opposition is wrong.
So in the Swift Boat case, it’s fine to say the vets are tied to Bush and they are engaged in egregious lies and dirty politics, as the Kerry campaign did, but your most high profile and potent response would be to hammer your counter narrative. Let campaign operatives make noises about dirty politics, but have Kerry embody the counter narrative by saying things like, “I served honorably in Vietnam and I’m proud of that. My experience with the difficulties of war make me the candidate in this race who understands when to go to war, and once the decision is made, how to conduct it. My actions would enhance America’s reputation, not tarnish it.”
Compare that to “Bush is wrong about the war.” The audience is left with the idea he or she should be against Bush and Iraq, but for….what? Kerry doesn’t make a case on what they should be for.
Kerry has to give the public a counter narrative, which is all about that hot concept right now -- framing.
So far, Kerry seems to want to concentrate on Bush, to break down Bush’s narrative. But that’s a fool’s errand, because after four years, the Bush story is too well established. Your trying to sell a new product. If the new one looks so good, the old one is automatically going to suffer. Besides, there are enough liberal newspaper columnists, reports from Iraq, economic reports, etc. to chip away at the Bush facade.
The Republican team seems to intuitively understand this need to always move forward, to disregard facts and forcefully put forth your image, your narrative.
When they were under attack for Swift boat lies, they performed the necessary damage control, but they mostly ignored the charges and kept to their “strong, decisive war leader in the present” theme. And they offered a competing and self-serving story: “Bush calls for halt of 527s.”
When it was time for Bush’s Vietnam-era service to come under attack, they offered a competing narrative – a forgery scandal. Right now, liberals should be ignoring the forgery charges while hammering Kerry’s main themes dealing with the present. Kerry should say, “I showed courage and conviction during Vietnam (as opposed the TANG story that casts doubt on Bush’s character), and I will bring my experiences to bear while leading America through challenging and troubled times today.”
People seem to be waiting for Kerry to be bold and declarative. All but the right wing brand loyalists know that Bush has screwed the pooch. We look to Kerry, but he is running as not-Bush, and it’s hard to buy a negative.
It’s no wonder so many lefties on the Web are practically screaming for the Kerry campaign to establish a theme and drive it home. Suggestions abound. You can almost feel the collective will urging Kerry on, because so many of the aware and the discerning – the art critics – can see beyond the Bush public image, and the reality it masks is truly a sad spectacle.
--
UPDATE: The Kerry campaign needs to get a clue. Look at the stories coming out of Kerry’s appearance before the National Guard. They are terrible for Kerry. They emphasize Kerry accusing Bush of living in a fantasy world of spin. He says we deserve a president who can face the truth and tell the truth. Not sure who that is, because Kerry is incapable of making a strong, declarative statement. He doesn't say,“As president, I will face the truth and I will tell the truth to the American people. We can do better.” No, that would be something an undecided voter could identify with. You can’t just try to shoot down the fantasy world of spin, which is backed by the media, you have to offer a better fantasy world.
Look at how well Cheney deflected Kerry’s charge: while Mr. Kerry said "leadership starts with telling the truth," Americans "also know that true leadership requires the ability to make a decision." Simple to understand. We offer true, decisive leadership. Fits their theme. Assumes that the charge against them is bullshit. Slides the focus from truth telling to “true leadership," from Kerry's story to theirs. Kerry is getting his ass kicked.
A while back, the Happy Tutor suggested we need to replace our pundits with art critics.
I thought, yes. And if only English majors ruled the world. But that’s beside the point.
The point is, we live in media space, and it’s far different from what we might term reality. Reality is intransigent, the school of hard knocks, cause and effect, aging, death – you might not like it, but you give your life meaning by dealing with it. By contrast, the media environment can be manipulated, and our once modern, fixed reality is now a post-modern media creation. Meaning and values barely register.
If it’s true that you best deal with reality or reality will deal with you, it’s also true that you best deal with the media as post-modern, or the post-modern media will deal with you.
Nobody knows this better than the Happy Tutor, or for that matter, Karl Rove. Rove would appreciate the following from the Tutor:
Operation Iraqi Freedom, The Patriot Act, The Clean Air Act, Shock and Awe, Operation Infinite Justice, the Armies of Compassion - what are these but fictions in miniature, script ideas to be pitched? Rubes might ask if they are true, but let us ask if they are tasteful, intelligent, well-made, compelling, believable.
We might also ask, do they work? Do they mesh with the media and our myths? And they do – on the surface, but the surface is all we’re dealing with. They aren’t tasteful or intelligent, but as surface phenomena they are well-made, compelling and believable.
I don’t think you can fight them by simply calling them wrong, pointing to the lies and corruption, because media debate doesn’t work that way. It’s too fluid for that. Facts are always changing, and in any case recognition of the importance of undisputed facts is missing. You need refutation of the other side’s myths, but you’d better have a strong presentation of your own, which should take for granted that the opposition is wrong.
So in the Swift Boat case, it’s fine to say the vets are tied to Bush and they are engaged in egregious lies and dirty politics, as the Kerry campaign did, but your most high profile and potent response would be to hammer your counter narrative. Let campaign operatives make noises about dirty politics, but have Kerry embody the counter narrative by saying things like, “I served honorably in Vietnam and I’m proud of that. My experience with the difficulties of war make me the candidate in this race who understands when to go to war, and once the decision is made, how to conduct it. My actions would enhance America’s reputation, not tarnish it.”
Compare that to “Bush is wrong about the war.” The audience is left with the idea he or she should be against Bush and Iraq, but for….what? Kerry doesn’t make a case on what they should be for.
Kerry has to give the public a counter narrative, which is all about that hot concept right now -- framing.
So far, Kerry seems to want to concentrate on Bush, to break down Bush’s narrative. But that’s a fool’s errand, because after four years, the Bush story is too well established. Your trying to sell a new product. If the new one looks so good, the old one is automatically going to suffer. Besides, there are enough liberal newspaper columnists, reports from Iraq, economic reports, etc. to chip away at the Bush facade.
The Republican team seems to intuitively understand this need to always move forward, to disregard facts and forcefully put forth your image, your narrative.
When they were under attack for Swift boat lies, they performed the necessary damage control, but they mostly ignored the charges and kept to their “strong, decisive war leader in the present” theme. And they offered a competing and self-serving story: “Bush calls for halt of 527s.”
When it was time for Bush’s Vietnam-era service to come under attack, they offered a competing narrative – a forgery scandal. Right now, liberals should be ignoring the forgery charges while hammering Kerry’s main themes dealing with the present. Kerry should say, “I showed courage and conviction during Vietnam (as opposed the TANG story that casts doubt on Bush’s character), and I will bring my experiences to bear while leading America through challenging and troubled times today.”
People seem to be waiting for Kerry to be bold and declarative. All but the right wing brand loyalists know that Bush has screwed the pooch. We look to Kerry, but he is running as not-Bush, and it’s hard to buy a negative.
It’s no wonder so many lefties on the Web are practically screaming for the Kerry campaign to establish a theme and drive it home. Suggestions abound. You can almost feel the collective will urging Kerry on, because so many of the aware and the discerning – the art critics – can see beyond the Bush public image, and the reality it masks is truly a sad spectacle.
--
UPDATE: The Kerry campaign needs to get a clue. Look at the stories coming out of Kerry’s appearance before the National Guard. They are terrible for Kerry. They emphasize Kerry accusing Bush of living in a fantasy world of spin. He says we deserve a president who can face the truth and tell the truth. Not sure who that is, because Kerry is incapable of making a strong, declarative statement. He doesn't say,“As president, I will face the truth and I will tell the truth to the American people. We can do better.” No, that would be something an undecided voter could identify with. You can’t just try to shoot down the fantasy world of spin, which is backed by the media, you have to offer a better fantasy world.
Look at how well Cheney deflected Kerry’s charge: while Mr. Kerry said "leadership starts with telling the truth," Americans "also know that true leadership requires the ability to make a decision." Simple to understand. We offer true, decisive leadership. Fits their theme. Assumes that the charge against them is bullshit. Slides the focus from truth telling to “true leadership," from Kerry's story to theirs. Kerry is getting his ass kicked.
