BooMan pointed out that Edwards’ message isn’t resonating with the natural constituencies that you’d think it would: hyper-partisan and low income voters.
I’ve heard people say that it’s because Edwards is appealing to fear or anger and it turns people off, but I think that misses the point. Then there’s the fact that he doesn’t get much press coverage at all, and that almost gets it right. He’s angry and uses fear in a way that turns the press off, so no one else gets to hear what he says. Why, though?
Let me suggest that one of the reasons Democrats have a hard time pushing fear messages is because they’re accorded second-class status by the press. Defining what people are supposed to be afraid of is the right of an authority figure, which the media never act like they take Democrats to be. Their disrespectful behavior is evidence enough.
Second class citizens are supposed to be cheerful and uncomplaining. Grateful. If they do complain, they’re either mad or shrill, by default. Their negative reactions are a threat to society, as opposed to defining it, because it isn’t their place to set priorities, to direct efforts or resources.
Be angry means, ‘things should be different.’ Be afraid means, ‘pay attention to this.’
It’s telling people what you think their priorities should be. The media would rather have conservatives set their priorities, the people whose authority they respect. No pissant liberals have the right to tell them anything.
So I simply don’t buy that the voters are done with fear, even though they no longer especially trust the Republicans, who’ve been dining out on it for ages. ‘Oh, people have fear fatigue.’ Right. What’s Lou Dobbs selling, after all? Fear of foreigners and brown people. It’s going like hotcakes.
Part of the problem might be that people can only focus on so many things at once, no matter how many topics they care about. It’s the difference between importance and urgency. Urgency is usually measured in line with the number of times an issue is raised in someone’s life, especially in the press. Even the people reading this, who probably have a longer than average personal list of important political issues, can only focus on a small set of them.
Edwards is trying to sell fear of corporations. Now, people don’t like them, sure, but it’s a rare political opinion that anyone should be afraid of corporations, or angry about the way they’re integrated into our lives.
The public notoriously tends not to politicize issues that aren’t explicitly politicized by a plurality of politicians and the press. They tend to think it’s just them, or maybe a few of their buddies, and hey, there’s always that *one* guy in Congress with the wacky platform. Politics are the things politicians and pundits talk about, all else is just life.
Further, the media choose stand-alone story formats that encourage people to think about things in isolation, as opposed to tying stories in with larger narrative arcs that encourage people to think of issues as systemic concerns. One story about a problem with Blue Cross coverage is a damn shame, how unfortunate, Seinfeld reruns are up next. A series of stories about problems tied to their routine occurence within the Murder By Spreadsheet insurance industry is a big social problem, a call to action.
The media won’t let anyone’s anti-corporate message be repeated enough to be fully politicized, they won’t be party to an education on the issue. They may even describe a candidate as populist, but in their mouths, it’s a rarely elaborated insult that’s now the same as calling someone an unscrupulous demagogue. And they can usually get away with it without having to face any pent up anger.
Because it isn’t that people just want to feel good, it’s that they want to feel in control. The establishment political class have learned how to make people feel they’re in control without giving them any. Reagan was sunny, yes. He also had a message of ostensible empowerment that people liked hearing and that wasn’t a threat to anyone powerful. It was just snake oil. ‘I will empower you to shop and not give a damn about your neighbor, who will in turn not have to give a damn about you.’
That’s the sort of empowerment the corporate media likes. The kind that keeps the peasants happy, but still peasants.
Yet Reagan, too, trafficked in fear and anger. Fear of brown people, poor people, and foreigners. Which somehow never made him a ‘negative’ candidate, because he had happy things to say about a social order dominated by racist, sexist, authoritarian corporate aristocrats. Anger at a supposedly interfering government that was keeping the rich man down. And you, you could be rich, too, if it wasn’t for the frakking Fed.
The establishment press continues to be the main, if not only, source most people have for political news. And we know who they work for. Their function is not to inform, it’s to narcotize. Not to challenge society, but to reinforce its existing authority structures.
Edwards’ message threatens their paymasters. It’s never going to get out on their watch.
I think you have hit on something. The press gets all hot and bothered when poor and middle class people start pointing out injustices. “Class Warfare” apparently the act of pointing out that the corporate policies in place are enriching the few to the detriment of the many. “Class Warfare” is apparently NOT the act of screwing over the lower economic classes.
yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
and you also said;
[It’s telling people what you think their priorities should be. The media would rather have conservatives set their priorities, the people whose authority they respect. No pissant liberals have the right to tell them anything.]
why? is it a respecting the bigger caveman club/penis thing?
why? is it a respecting the bigger caveman club/penis thing?
Not to discount this aspect, I think it is more like: You don’t publicly criticize your boss.
The media is owned by corporatists, so it is no surprise it will have a corporatist slant.
If only someone else were the messenger. I have serious personal problems when it comes to Edwards. He really bugs me. I wish it was different I see he is the populist but man his fake way of speaking bugs me. His sick wife at home who obviously worships him. While he gets all duded up to run for president. I’m convinced his hint of a southern accent is fake. No one is going to elect him who isn’t a committed leftist and pure in spirit.
I had to watch Bush for eight long, long years it probably has taken nine years off of my life. I’ll vote for Edwards if he is our nominee. But I would rather push Obama farther left and save what few years I have left. I say Edwards go home to the poor woman that loves you and take care of her. You can be an activist and spread your message without being president.
Now I’m running for cover.
I know this is shallow. But so am I sometimes and in some situations. This is one of them.
Salunga, I can’t stand listening to any political stump speech because it’s generally without any substance and it’s a blatant attempt to appeal to emotions. The problem is that whatever visual or verbal weaknesses that a politician have will be attacked and thus made even more blaring.
Edwards is a little too goodlooking for my taste. He should have a scar across one cheek, maybe grease up his hair and comb it back. And forget the complaint about him being too angry. He’s not angry enough. He’ll look earnest and concerned, or he’s smiling. I’d like to see him cold-cock someone on the way to the podium sometime. When I find a candidate with whom I agree on most issues I try not to be swayed by these things. If I feel I’m being emotionally charged, I don’t watch, I read.
As far as Edwards not resonating, I see it as the media keeping him well-hidden. Now that Obama and Clinton are leading justification for ignoring him is further justified. This has happened as long as I can remember.
edwards is a little too good looking for your tastes?
he doesnt want you to fuck him….he wants you to vote for him for president.
um…ok.
so, is hillary “too fat” or obama “too smooth” for your tastes as well?
christ, i thought this was a site for intelligent political commentary. i guess we need more brittney posts here, so properly ugly people can speak of who should represent them too. whatever, dood.
Anna and Chicago, I think Bob is snarking to make a point. If you read a candidates opinions without a visual you can make a better choice. Ever hear the one about the taller candidate always winning. That is why candidates are evened in height during a debate.
Its a commentary on our society. I admit I am being shallow about Edwards. But I think he is a fake too. We all fall victim to this kind of thing white or black, straight or gay. He is a reminder that we lost in 2004 when he should have been all over Cheney the war criminal.
Anna I know his wife is campaigning for him. She loves him. Is this the best thing for her? Maybe. It may be good therapy and keeps her mind off her illness. Will Edwards be able to stay focused if Elizabeth doesn’t do well? I guess its not for me to judge. But others will and I do not want john McCain or Mitt Romney in the whitehouse. I don’t want 100 more years of Iraq and supplyside bullshit.
Since the primaries are in some ways more important than the main presidential election i don’t think the press is justified at all in plowing him under by obscurity.
I don’t like the power the press has to decide which people get air time and which people don’t That’s a form of election manipulation.
If Edwards is fake then let everyone have equal time on air so people can spot the fake for themselves.
i went to clemson….thats not a fake accent….my daughter had that exact accent when she was 5 yrs old.
his wife isnt at home sick…she is on the road with him helping spread his message.
im not a committed leftist..and im certainly not pure in spirit….i believe in the death penalty for rapists and public executions….i think it should be the law that everyone over 15 own a gun and know how to use it (except for the criminals and crazies)….i think men who get women pregnant with unwanted unintended babies that have to be aborted should be castrated….i think alcohol should be harder to get and pot should be easier to get…i think porn is fantastic and prostitution should be completely legal and unregulated…..i think all adults should be able to marry any other adult and as many of them as they want and get full marriage rights at state and federal levels….i believe in universal cradle to grave healthcare and assisted suicide.
edwards is my first pick.
Edwards has several real negatives as far as image goes. First is his southern accent. That carries the implication of not-very-smart (obviously not true in his case, but image trumps fact.)
Second is that he is a trial lawyer, clearly a very effective one, and as such has spent years learning to appear confrontational. He has spent a lot of time and effort developing that persona.
Third, he is carrying the populist message to a political world dominated by corporations and their money. The political press is part of the very corporate structure he is opposing, so they aren’t going to cut him any slack. Worse, they consider his arguments to be frivolous. That’s the corporate mindset, and it is especially prevalent in the money-dominated TV Press that controls political images in this nation.
Fourth, he really is too much of a pretty-boy. If I had to hazard a guess, I’d guess that he has always been able to standout in any crowd on his looks alone. While that may be an advantage for a woman, it is at best a mixed blessing for a man. (I’d swap for his looks or an added four inches in height in a heartbeat, and put up with the negatives, but the negatives are there.)
So whenever you look at Edwards and check your gut to see how you react, you will react primarily to at least those influences before every listening to what he has to say.
As for what he has to say, he is on the leading edge. If you want to know how the Reagan Revolution has changed the rules in America so that the government takes money from the average guy and funnels it to the rich, go see Free Lunch: by David Cay Johnston. It’s no surprise that workers have not gotten a real pay raise since 2000, while the wealthy have made out like bandits. The government changed the rules to make that the case.
It’s not mainly globalization and greater pay to education. It’s a change in how government collect taxes and distribute them and how the governments (federal, state and local) hand out effective monopolies that run other businesses out of business. Did you realize that when a local government gives a big box store a tax rebate to put up a store, the profit from that store is usually about the amount of the rebate, while the nearby tax-paying businesses are put out of business? Cabelas, WalMart, Home Depot, all of them participate in this form of patronage.
Edwards is on the leading edge of the pushback. The corporate system (See Chamber of Commerce vows to punish anti-business candidates) will use every tool to stop him, and manipulating his image so that people don’t “feel good” about what he is saying is a large part of it.
Ran had an interesting take on this, referring to the differences between what Ds and Rs are allowed to get away with in terms of deviation from the norm:
“I would put it this way: now both parties stand for authority and corporate rule, for repression at home and conquest abroad… but among the Republicans, it’s permissible to make exceptions. Huckabee can get away with being a near-socialist, and Ron Paul can almost get away with aggressively opposing the war and the police state. Any Democrat who takes those positions (like Kucinich or Gravel) is pushed to the fringe. This is because American politics is like an abusive family, and the Republicans are the abusive father, and the Democrats are the abused wife, and we’re the kids, some of us broken and some of us still rebellious. The father can disobey his own rules, but the wife must obey them perfectly. Hillary Clinton, as a woman in this culture, has a lifetime of training in cringing, in sensing just exactly what the biggest bully wants, and doing exactly that. This is why so many Democrats support her even though they disagree with her on the issues and they find her uninspiring and they know Obama is more electable. On a subconscious level, they are resonating with her “expediency,” her submission to the Abuser. When they say they support her for her “experience,” they mean her experience in being broken, like them.” Source: http://www.ranprieur.com
Both of them are considered to be fringe candidates by the Republican mainstream.
That’s why the social Republicans are unhappy with the mainstream Republicans.
It’s really interesting that both Huckabee and Edwards have pushed the populist anti-corporatist message as far as they have for this election. Both have run surprisingly strong races on this theme, and both Obama and Clinton have been forced to include some of Edward’s message into their campaign to keep Edwards from taking too many voters away from them. This dynamic has forced even the Press to recognize and report on it. But if Edwards gets out of the race before the convention, it will start to disappear, and Huckabee is going to be defeated outside the South. On the other side, corporations are already going all out to defeat the populist message.
Of course, it’s not going to be that easy for the corporations, what with the Recession that Merrill Lynch reports has already begun.
But at the moment, Huckabee and Ron Paul are fringe Republican candidates, and I don’t think that will change. (I’m just wondering if either will run on a third party ballot? At the moment I give Ron Paul about two chances in three of doing that, and Huckabee about one in three. Both are building the national organization to do it.)
“It’s never going to get out on their watch”……Yep!
In the old days outside the US it was the Church that used to tell people what to think. The reactionary media have taken over the roll of the Church. Their problem is that nobody has to watch their crap, unlike that of the Church, where people watched if you went. I don’t know if our present situation is self-correcting, but it is definitely not stable. We aren’t talking Eric Sevareid here. Who the hell ever knew who Russert or Tweety were? I sure as hell don’t, and I pay attention.
They don’t get lots of $400 haircuts. They haven’t run as a DLC Democrat for Prez in 2004. They don’t propose a health care plan that is nearly identical to HillBama’s.
Edwards’ campaign was apparently clueless about this credibility gap?
Hilbama – as you call them – came out with their health plans WAAAAAYYY after Edwards, so I’m not sure why you believe his is identical to theirs.
What are you, Rush Limbaugh. Big, Bad, Media no like us, boo hoo.
I’ll make it simple. It has nothing to do with Edward’s issues. Nobody believes him because they change every week.
He loves war, he hates war, blah, blah, blah.
He blows whichever way the wind blows.
Plus, we saw him running in 04. Were you alive then? He was as boring as stale milk.
Cheney kicked his ass in the debate, he looked like Gomer Pyle blinded by headlights.
So quit blaming everyone else. He lived in Iowa for four years. They weren’t impressed, and America isn’t either.
Your trying to blame the media is simply pathetic.