Biden is doing what Trump does: attack at the opponent's strongest point.
 |
| Click: 60 seconds |
It is the "swift boat" approach. It seems odd. One appears to be making an impossible argument.
Swift boating seems to work in politics.
It is not intuitive that one would attempt to claim that Einstein were stupid or that Michael Jordon were bad at basketball.
But it also wouldn't be intuitive that Trump, with his bone spurs, would criticize the war record of John McCain, who spent five years being tortured as a prisoner of war, but that is what Trump did.
"Swift boating" is the term of art in politics for a political attack that directly--perhaps outrageously--criticizes a political opponent for the very characteristic that is a bedrock of their biography and brand. In 2004 John Kerry was well known as a person who (unlike nearly every other Ivy Leaguer of his era) actually served in combat in Vietnam. He had medals and citations for bravery and earned three purple hearts. George Bush, by contrast, used political connections to join the Texas Air National Guard and had sketchy records of actually showing up for duty.
The GOP swift boat attack on Kerry was that he wasn't really a hero, indeed that he was a coward, that the enemy fire he faced wasn't all that dangerous, that men under his command didn't respect him, and that his speeches after returning to America gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
The attacks made people wonder. People inclined not to like Kerry (i.e. Republicans) were given an excuse to discount his military service. Independent and weak supporters of Kerry grew skeptical.
Swift boating is a technique: don't acknowledge the hypocrisy or improbability. Just attack.
Take eyes off Don Junior, Erik, Ivanka, and Jared by criticizing Biden for outrageous nepotism. Criticize Biden for a record of unwanted sexual advances. Criticize Obama for politicizing the Justice Department. Criticize China for downplaying COVID-19.
Biden is attacking Trump for being weak. It is unintuitive. Trump's brand is strength, so the intuitive thing is acknowledge the strength and criticize Trump for using that strength to bad purposes. Call Trump a con man: strong but cynical, dishonest, and self serving. That, after all, is his record, with vendors, bondholders, his "University," his steaks, his supposed deep Christian faith. He gives ample evidence that he deceptively downplayed the virus response in the hope of keeping the economic indicators positive. He calmly calculated to put his own interests ahead of the country's. That is an easy sell.
The hard sell is to say that Trump was actually weak, frozen, panicked. He wasn't calculating. Biden says he was too panicked to know what to do. He was incompetent. Note the difference here. In a con, Trump is competent but villainous. In Biden's ad, Trump's villainy came from incompetence itself.
This blog has repeatedly described Trump's core brand as the cruel, decisive, dominating bully, one whose supporters love watching him swat at opponents. Just yesterday this blog described him as playacting the Marlboro Cowboy, not using a mask, a guy too tough to care about the disease. This ad attacks that image of masculine strength . It makes one think. Is he really all that brave? Are his shows of cruelty and strength just bravado?
In the case of the first mention of the 2004 swift boat attack, the public's reaction was incredulity. Same with Trump's criticism of McCain. But after time, the very fact of continuing attacks made the courage of Kerry and McCain a matter of debate, rather than a certainty.
There is time to develop this theme. Trump's brand may change from being the "strong, dominating leader" into the "guy who makes a show of being the strong, dominating leader." Those are very different things.
In the case of the first mention of the 2004 swift boat attack, the public's reaction was incredulity. Same with Trump's criticism of McCain. But after time, the very fact of continuing attacks made the courage of Kerry and McCain a matter of debate, rather than a certainty.
There is time to develop this theme. Trump's brand may change from being the "strong, dominating leader" into the "guy who makes a show of being the strong, dominating leader." Those are very different things.
4 comments:
Impressive ad, and guaranteed to set his hair, if that's what that thing is, on fire. I'm sure it will set off another of his unhinged, incoherent lie-filled rants.
More to the point...
"If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black"
Careless comments like this, which exhibit an undeserved overconfidence, will cost Biden and plays into the counter narrative to a more effective degree than trying to blame the epidemic on Trump personally. The worst a fair minded person can attribute to Trump is incompetence, which is shared by many in and out of the administration, and old news. Supporters don't care, opponents need no reminder.
It's clear that the danger was evident in January if not sooner and the media was distracted by impeachment. It's fair to share the blame with the CDC and WHO, and others who should have been sounding the alarm, including our own OHS, and so I think the ad is not persuasive in that regard and opens the question of the wider accountability.
I think a more effective ad would ask why, if China was such a "good friend", they didn't warn Trump, a question that would expose that falsehood, the phony "trade deal" and the likelihood that China made a cold calculated geopolitical decision to gain future leverage with an administration they don't respect, to put it mildly.
The more difficult case to make is if Democrats would have done any better.
I like the tactic because it shows the "emperor" has no clothes, lays bare what we all intuitively know: all bullies are really cowards.
Andy Seles
"all bullies are really cowards"
Nope, some are sociopathic, sadistic and violent, and it's important to know the difference.
Post a Comment