Satire versus Political Polarization

In late February, I joined two of my Political Science colleagues (Jason Gainous and Jasmine Farrier) to speak at the annual "REDTalks Forum." This year the REDTalks focused on political polarization and I spoke about "U.S. Foreign Policy and Political Partisanship."

I've long been keeping an eye out for interesting stories and poll results about partisanship -- and how to address it. Over the years, I've frequently retweeted or bookmarked some of those findings.

In the current political atmosphere, Americans have partisan opinions about almost everything -- it's not just values-laden questions like gun control or abortion. Opinion about climate change science and policy is highly partisan. The links in the last paragraph point to partisan results from surveys about public opinion on trade and NATO, which reflect an interesting result noted in the literature. People follow cues from elites and take partisan stands, especially AGAINST the views of leaders and people from the other major political party. Democratic party member support for free trade and NATO has increased, in part, because President Donald Trump has attacked free trade and NATO.

This works both ways. David Frum notes a couple of weird Republican changes in the age of Trump:

The share of Republicans with a positive opinion of the FBI tumbled from 65 percent in early 2017 to 49 percent this past July. In the past three years, Vladimir Putin’s approval rating among Republicans has almost tripled, to 32 percent.

When Trump started criticizing the NFL for tolerating kneeling during the national anthem, Republicans started telling pollsters they did not like the NFL. At the time, I asked my students what they thought would happen in the south if a bunch of Southeast Conference (SEC) football players at schools like Alabama, Florida, and Georgia started kneeling during the national anthem -- especially if Trump continued to criticize the behavior.

Speculation aside, I'm writing today about something that ties my "comedy project" to political partisanship. The following paragraphs originally appeared in an Atlantic Monthly article by Pulitizer Prize winning NYT reporter Charles Duhigg. He noted in the January/February issue that some scholars in Israel conducted an interesting experiment:

A group of Israeli social scientists wanted to conduct an experiment disguised as an advertising campaign. The ads would run in a small, conservative Tel Aviv suburb, where many people were religious and supported right-wing politicians. The goal was to persuade the residents to abandon their anger toward Palestinians and agree that Israel should freeze construction of Jewish settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, among other concessions. 

The suburb they were hoping to convert, Giv’at Shmuel, was known for being strenuously opposed to anything associated with peaceniks, liberals, or anyone who said anything good about peaceniks or liberals. 

The scholars rejected standard suggestions to try to promote tolerance in the community. Instead, they decided to use a satirical campaign playing up the community's anger and outrage:

the researchers came up with a clever idea. Don’t tell everyone in Giv’at Shmuel that they’re wrong. Tell them that they’re right: A perpetual war with Israel’s neighbors made a lot of sense. If anything, the people of Giv’at Shmuel ought to be angrier. 

With the help of an advertising agency, the social scientists created online ads celebrating the tension between Israelis and Palestinians, and extolling the virtues of fighting for fighting’s sake. One ad showed iconic photos of Israeli war heroes and proclaimed, “Without [war] we wouldn’t have had heroes. For the heroes, we probably need the conflict.” The ad was scored with Wagner’s “Flight of the Valkyries.” Another ad featured footage of a soldier with a machine gun petting a kitten and an infantryman helping an old man cross the street. “What a Wonderful World” played in the background. Its tagline read, “Without [war] we would never be moral. For morality, we probably need the conflict.” The ads, along with brochures and billboards, began appearing in Giv’at Shmuel in 2015. Over a six-week period, according to polling, nearly all of its 25,000 residents saw them.

The results were impressive:

when the researchers conducted polls in the suburb at the end of the advertising campaign, the residents who had held the most extreme views at the outset of the experiment appeared to have softened. The percentage of right-leaning residents who said that Arabs were solely responsible for Israel’s past wars decreased by 23 percent. The number of conservatives who said Israel should be more aggressive toward Palestinians fell by 17 percent. Incredibly, even though the advertisements never mentioned settlements, 78 percent more people said that Israel should consider freezing construction in the West Bank and Gaza. (Residents in nearby towns who hadn’t seen the ads were surveyed as a control; they showed no such evolution in their views over the same period.) 

A year after the ads had ceased, by which time some residents had trouble recalling the specifics of the campaign, polls still showed greater tolerance. The campaign wasn’t a panacea, but it is among the most successful conflict interventions in contemporary social science.

The researchers believe the results worked because the satirical ads went to "embarrassing, offensive extremes." 

“No one wants to think of themselves as some angry crank,” one of the researchers, Eran Halperin, told me. “No one wants to be lumped in with extremists or the angriest fringe.” Sometimes, however, we don’t realize we’ve become extremists until someone makes it painfully obvious.

Duhigg conjectures that Donald Trump's political rhetoric -- particularly at his partisan rallies -- is "so extreme" that it offers similar "essentially absurdist provocations."

The hope is that Trump rally attendees will be shocked by the President's words.

Call me skeptical. 

My guess is that context matters. Political ads are public, even if targeted at particular geographic areas, and can be ridiculed publicly within the area. Trump's partisan rallies are closed events in front of his greatest admirers. They might be televised, but the broadcast audience is much more diverse -- and Trump's long speeches have so much content that it would be difficult to separate the mundane partisan words from the truly CRAZY. 

Again, Duhigg might be right that audience members would know, but I'm very skeptical. 

Political opponents, however, might achieve a big payoff by running "pro-Trump" ads that selectively feature some of his most outlandish claims. Don't run them on comedy websites and don't criticize the words as an opponent would. Run them as genuine over-the-top ads. 

That might work to deflate Trump. 

Visit this blog's homepage.

For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

Presidential politics goes nuclear

This "daisy ad" from 1964 is infamous, though it aired only once (but see also this ad for more context from that campaign cycle). I've showed this ad many times in my classes:



A super-PAC supporting Hillary Clinton is going to run the following ad in a number of swing states this election cycle -- Florida, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio.


I'm not 100% sure that ad is all that effective. Read this piece and watch the accompanying videos to understand the context for this ad. People who have paying attention to the campaign for months (high information voters) already know this material, but those not paying attention (low information voters) won't get enough content from the new ad.

Will it resonate emotionally?

I'll close by quoting a (former?) Republican hero:

“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?”
Ronald Reagan, 1984 State of the Union


H/T to Patrick Caldwell. 

Visit this blog's homepage.

For 140 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

Getting hosed in Kansas

Today, I'm envying my aunts, uncles and cousins who live in Kansas. They probably get to see this ad all the time:

Trivia: Jim Slattery is exactly 13 years to the day older than Barack Obama (and me). I believe he spoke in one of my classes in 1982 when I was a student at University of Kansas. He was elected to the House that year, representing Topeka.

Visit this blog's homepage.

McCain's ad is "Painful"

John McCain released another new TV ad today: "Painful." The AP notes that it is airing in 11 key states targeted by the McCain campaign.

A female voiceover says, "Life in the spotlight must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough. Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000."

It is interesting that Senator McCain says "times are tough" for "the rest of us."

Who is he trying to kid?

McCain is not really like the rest of us, thanks primarily to his affluent heiress spouse, Cindy McCain. She is worth at least $27 million -- and may be worth $100 million. From ABC blogger Jake Tapper:

CNN this week [reported that]... she "is not only a wife to Senator John McCain, she is also his meal ticket. Her reported 2006 income of more than $6 million exceeded her husband's earnings 16 times over. That money pays for a wealthy lifestyle of high end condos, an Arizona ranch, flying in a corporate jet, and more."

The McCains apparently have 8 or 9 houses and access to a corporate jet.

The Senator wears $520 loafers.

The AP story also reveals the truth about the ad's tax details. Obama didn't vote for a binding policy that would have increased taxes -- and if he had, John McCain would have agreed with him just a few years ago:

The ad's most specific assertion — Obama voted to raise taxes on people making $42,000 — is based on a nonbinding Senate budget resolution early this year that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 be allowed to expire in 2011 as scheduled. Obama has criticized the Bush tax cuts and called for ending them for the wealthiest taxpayers.

McCain didn't support Bush's tax cuts when they were passed but has said he supports them now. He contends that to allow the cuts to expire would be tantamount to a tax increase.

Someone not altogether committed to "truthiness" might ask Senator McCain why he flip-flopped on Bush's tax cuts. The far right has been attacking McCain about this since 2000.

In the primary season, Mitt Romney said McCain failed "Reagan 101" because of his past tax arguments.


Visit this blog's homepage.

McCain's celebrity

The more I think about it, I am increasingly convinced that the latest McCain "celebrity" ad and attack is ridiculous -- or at least hypocritical.

Last week, blogger Robert Paul Reyes at American Chronicle explained the blunt facts about John McCain, celebrity, and talk show appearances:

The typical guest on a late-night comedy show is a jaded celebrity who oozes irony or an average person who makes the news for some wacky reason.

Sen. John McCain, 71, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee is from a generation that eschews irony. McCain is like a fish out of water trying to exchange quips with Jay Leno or Conan O'Brien.

One of McCain's 2000 campaign officials says his success that year was caused, in large part, by his celebrity...as a former prominent POW:

Ken Khachigian, Reagan's chief speech writer in 1980 and now McCain's top California strategist, said Reagan and McCain both benefited from their celebrity status, Reagan as an actor and governor, McCain as a POW and senator. ''It's an accident of history'' that the similarities exist, Khachigian said. ''But in my own mind, it's constantly there.''

In any case, do you know just how many times John McCain has appeared on "The Daily Show"? Comedy Central Insider reveals all:

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) will be a guest on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" on Wednesday, May 7 at 11:00 p.m. (ET/PT). This appearance will mark the Senator's 13th time on the show, more than any other guest...

After learning this, I clicked over to the Internet Movie Database to see just how often John McCain has appeared on other TV talk shows since 2000, when he became nationally famous after his failed presidential bid:

Jay Leno: 10 times
David Letterman: 8 times
The Daily Show: 12 times (or 13?)
Conan O'Brien: 3 episodes
Larry King Live: 9 times
Saturday Night Live: twice
Live with Regis and Kathie Lee (!): once
Entertainment Tonight (!!): twice
The View: twice
Tony Danza Show (!!!): once

The man had a cameo in "The Wedding Crashers"!

And in 2006, Senator McCain apparently appeared as an actor in an episode of "24."


Visit this blog's homepage.

Gas prices and Kentucky politics

With his first political ad of this election year, Senator Mitch McConnell has thrown a softball to his Democratic opponent -- Bruce Lunsford.

McConnell's ad, which is airing statewide and first ran in Lexington during the early morning news shows Friday, criticizes Lunsford for pushing for a provision 28 years ago that automatically raises Kentucky's gas tax each year if the wholesale price of gasoline shoots up.

”Bruce Lunsford: automatic tax increases, more expensive gas,“ the ad's announcer says to conclude the 30-second spot.

Lunsford worked for Governor John Y. Brown back in those days, so the attack is a bit of a stretch. Moreover, the automatic tax provision was first triggered in 2004. Since that date, the law has cost Kentuckians about a nickel a gallon.

Given that gas has been priced at or above $4 per gallon for some months, it seems unlikely that McConnell can blame his opponent for current high gas prices.

If he wants to, Lunsford can point out that the law was designed to assure road funds during periods of escalating prices. People drive less when prices surge. The road fund has collected an extra $340 million in taxes since 2004 thanks to the extra nickel. Lunsford can campaign on pork -- something McConnell the incumbent wants to do.

More importantly, McConnell's ad set the stage for the obvious response:

”McConnell raised $3 million from big oil while voting to give them billions in tax breaks,“ the female announcer says in Lunsford's 30-second spot that began airing Friday.

Last week, Lunsford also announced an 8 point plan to expand energy supply and reduce gas prices:

The plan Lunsford unveiled yesterday includes withdrawing 50 million barrels of oil from the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve; stopping speculators who drive up the cost of oil; requiring oil companies to drill on land they currently lease; promoting clean coal and renewable energy technologies; and prosecuting price gougers.

Lunsford is running to the right of Barack Obama and other Democrats nationwide, so he spoke in favor of drilling in ANWR (only after other sources have been exploited) and off-shore.

Still, it is difficult to believe that this is a strong line of attack for McConnell.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Where's the beef?

In the 1984 election cycle, former Vice President Walter Mondale (the well-known and well-funded establishment candidate) faced insurgent charismatic newcomer Gary Hart. To stress that Hart's impressive-sounding ideas lacked substance, Mondale jokingly used a line from a popular Wendy's commercial: "Where's the beef?"

In her effort to stop the Barack Obama juggernaut, Hillary Clinton's campaign has borrowed this tactic from Mondale's 1984 campaign. To my ear, it's not as simple or elegant:

"That's the difference between me and my opponent. My opponent makes speeches. I offer solutions. It is one thing to get people excited. I want to empower you," the New York senator said....

"Now, over the years, you've heard plenty of promises from plenty of people in plenty of speeches. And some of those speeches were probably pretty good. But speeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank, or fill your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night," Clinton said.

I put the most incendiary sound bite in red -- look for it in Republican commercials next fall.

Based on the economic content Obama added to his stump speech today, I do not expect this charge to stick.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Political Advertising through the ages

Guest Blogger Paul Parker

Political junkies may like to listen to Fresh Air host Terry Gross’s interview with David Schwartz, curator of film at the American Museum of Moving History. He discusses the evolution of campaign commercials since 1952. The interview ends with a discussion of George Bush’s campaign attacking his opponent as a Massachusetts liberal, weak on defense.

Yes, you remember 1988. And you’ll hear more about the evils of Dukakis in the next months. Innoculate yourself now by googling Dukakis + Kerry. His new show at The American

For those with broadband, relive the past with the online exhibit, The Living Room Candidate Here in the boonies, I am working on 19.2 kbps dialup speed. Text is good.

Another image

David Weinberger pointed me to an image that I'd forgotten about when I blogged the other day about the casket photos from Iraq:


That image is from George Bush's early March TV advertisement.

Yes, the President used an image of a fallen firefighter from 9/11 in his own political ads.

Weinberger said this about the hypocrisy:

I don't have a problem with using images of fallen heroes in campaign ads. I do have a little problem with censorship for rank political aims.

Bingo.

Fantasy Ad

[October 19, 2022 -- this April 2004 post was flagged by Google for violating its Malware and Viruses policy. 

In response, I've removed all links. They were already dead, but may have been the source of the risk. I've provided sources that might be available on a web archive. The remainder is merely text so it should be safe.]

None of the blogs I regularly read has yet mentioned the latest column from Matt Miller. As anyone who watches TV knows (and it is probably repeated every couple of minutes on talk radio, but I don't listen), the Bush campaign has tried to make an issue of John Kerry's vote against the $87 billion supplemental request for Iraq. For comic "waffling" effect, they also note that Kerry also voted for the $87 billion. Hmmm. 

Matt Miller Online (dead link from mattmilleronline.com removed in 2022) has the syndicated columnist's "fantasy ad" for Kerry, explaining these votes -- and using them to define the difference between the President and the challenger. "If I were Kerry," opines Miller, "I'd use this fight over the funding for Iraq to showcase the difference between his values and the president's on a choice where the vast majority of Americans would side with Kerry." 

It's good:

"Here are the facts: George Bush is having our children pay for Iraq. He has put $160 billion so far on our kids' credit card to pay for a war we chose to wage. We are running record budget deficits of over half a trillion dollars a year because George Bush says our children should pay for their parents' war. "My plan was different. My plan was to pay to finish the job in Iraq by repealing some of the tax cuts that George Bush gave to the best-off Americans. "Every well-off American I've asked has told me they would have gladly supported such a plan. They feel, as I do, that it is un-American to stick our children with debts for today's wars in order to preserve big tax cuts for people at the top. It's just wrong. "So I voted for my plan to pay for our own choices today, and against President Bush's plan to slip our children the bill so that he could give tax cuts to the wealthiest. I can't think of a clearer way to show you how my values differ from those of this White House. You'll be choosing between these values come November.

Miller then imagines Kerry challenging Bush to abandon the "hit-and-run" sound bites to explain why his administration's approach is better than Kerry's would be. 

 A pro-Bush blogger named Oberon (link to the rjwest archive removed because of possible violation of Google malware policy) says "No way dude," but I think he (or she?) underestimates the American people's intellect. 

Was Kerry voting against the troops? No, he voted for the troops -- right? Even the Bush people say so. The vote against one version of the $87 billion was precisely the kind of gamesmanship that Congress engages in all the time. Bills are forwarded from committees and amendments are typically offered on the floor. This pits two or more versions of a bill against one another. Usually, the alternatives address the same issues, but are different in some important way. 

It's a basic truth of Congress. With the Republicans in power, the Democratic-preferred bills virtually never pass, but that doesn't mean they haven't proposed better ideas. In 2002, the Republicans used the Homeland Security Department bill as a weapon against Democrats like Max Cleland. Dems had pushed the agency, but wanted a bill that assured union rights. The administration actually originally opposed the new department, but worked to frame a bill that Democrats would have to oppose because it spit in the face of one of their core constituencies (labor). Republicans play these games too. 

As Kerry said the other day (dead link to a Guardian article removed), the President threatened to veto the $87 billion for Iraq "if it included money to pay for health care for reservists and required Iraq to pay back some of the money set aside for its reconstruction." Neither Oberon nor I quote the last line from Miller's fantasy ad:

"I'm John Kerry and I approved this message because one of the choices you face this fall is whether you want a leader who will finally trust you with the truth - or one who can only achieve his goals by misleading you or insulting your intelligence."

Surely what Miller and I argue here is readily understood. Elections are about choices, but the "drive by" false choices are a poor way of thinking about them.

Yesterday, I wasted 90 minutes watching Chris Rock's movie "Head of State" on HBO. The southern white candidate for President runs an ad pointing out that his black opponent (Rock) didn't speak at an anti-cancer forum. Conclusion: his opponent is for cancer. Idiocy.

I think the American public can figure it out, especially if Kerry did something like what Miller suggests.

New Visuals

The Presidential race is heating up early this cycle. President Bush has already made the news twice this past week for his controversial advertisements -- one using images of 9/11 (including actors as firemen) and one featuring an apparent Arab terrorist.

Billmon calls the man in the ads "Muhammad Horton" since the image echoes Bush Senior's famous Willie Horton ad. Actually, Atrios uses this tag too...

In any case, Digby points to a website that has a great archive of presidential ads. View some of the old ones to get a good idea of whether this year's efforts are any better or worse.

I watched several of the 1988 Bush-Dukakis ads (you know, a Bush versus a guy from Massachusetts...and a Bush won) to get a feel for what this year's campaign season might be like.

Check it out.

Oh, speaking of visuals, someone with photoshop has been reworking the President's image. I realize that men and women react differently to the two major parties (the "gender gap" has been real for many elections now), but this is ridiculous. I got the link from Mark Kleiman.