Why, then, does the ad begin and end framed as a masculine complaint against Harris? It's a three minute ad, but only the first 15 seconds and the last seventeen seconds are about the frame. Discarding the frame entirely, the ad remains devastating and compelling -- in her own words she tells you what her intentions are, and her victims spell out what it meant to them that she behaved as a prosecutor exactly the way she says she did.
"As men and protectors of women and children," it closes, "you are simply a risk we are not willing to take."
15 comments:
Just guessing, but maybe the assumption underlying that framing is men are more persuadable? I also see a lot of men hesitant to vote for or opposed to Trump because he's "not a gentleman", the most extreme example I can think of might be David French. This would seem to be a way to get them to consider the ways Harris's policies would be harmful.
It's interesting to me following on the Harris campaign's appeal to male voters (if you can call it that), which came down to a bunch of actors playing male stereotypes asserting that they were 'man enough' to vote for a woman. There weren't any male interests, or authentic male voices, on offer.
Here the 'males' involved are actually AIs, computer voices and AI generated images of men rather than any real men. The only living voices are women; they're mostly talking about womens' experiences, whether as a prosecutor or as her victims.
The one argument about what men should think about this here, too, is pointed at womens' interest: as a protector of women, you should vote against this person who is dangerous to women and children.
It's very strange. I wonder if it will be effective, which perhaps it will because it is brutal but accurate; and perhaps the role they ascribe of being 'protectors of women and children' is one men really desire to fill, but have long been told they aren't needed for anymore.
I had another thought about the reason, and we might both be overthinking this. A little Googling suggests that an ad not aiming to be sex-specific may be more effective if it includes both male and female voices because of the way men and women respond to voices of each sex.
Obama recently made a big deal out of the lack of male enthusiasm for Kamala and suggested it was because they were sexist. So, this is a response to that.
Here's one article covering Obama's remarks:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/obama-campaign-one-particularly-tough-crowd-young-black-men-rcna175260
Similarly, White Dudes for Harris blames the lack of male enthusiasm for the Democrat candidate on racism and misogyny.
https://peoplesworld.org/article/white-dudes-for-harris-we-reject-maga-racism-and-misogyny/
Although not directly calling men sexist, Michelle Obama recently appealed to men to protect the women in their lives from the evil pro-lifers.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14005859/kamala-harris-michelle-obama-swing-state-michigan.html
The Dems know they have a problem with men and are trying to do something about it. I think even the choice of Walz with his hunting photo op and military background was an attempt to appeal to men.
So, this ad speaks to that.
Walz is just another actor playing at being the kind of stereotype they think will resonate with men. "I was a CSM! See my coin! I'm a combat veteran!" Yeah, no, dude, you're not any of those things, and you don't know how to load/carry a shotgun so you're probably not much of a hunter either.
It just strikes me as strange. It's all fake -- actors and AIs -- and nobody on either side tried to address any concerns that men normally address.
Team Trump may think they don't need a sex-specific address to men, of course, since they've got 'jobs/economics' and 'border/security/crime' as well as 'gun rights' and the general small-l libertarian 'leave us alone and quit trying to control every aspect of everyone's lives' that seems to be very popular with men.
Then there's the "evil Republicans are going to stop you from being a wanker!" ad:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/10/the-weirdest-appeal-of-the-2024-campaign.php
I suppose that’s what men get in lieu of “reproductive freedom.”
Yeah, I think it is. It's all aimed at the same thing - sex w/o responsibility, especially the responsibility of children.
The ad really is devastating. Even I was shocked, and I didn't think my opinion of her could go much lower.
There's something about a prosecutor laughing nastily at how she can arrest and terrorize someone, while planning the whole time to dismiss the charges a few weeks later.
Yes, exactly. It’s just as effective without the weird AI frame.
To charge someone with the least offense, knowing that you’ll never even try to prove it in court: but they will be arrested, taken away in chains, stripped naked and searched, forced to wear prison clothes, thrust in a cell and kept there against their will; suffer reputation loss and rumors; possibly lose their job and pay and home; and for what?
Several of the amendments to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights aim to quell just that kind of tyranny. Apparently they aren’t enough. At minimum, we must also not elect people who love to be tyrants.
Not that I have any interest in defending Kamala, but this analysis suggests that parts of the ad are misleading as to what she was actually saying about prosecutorial discretion:
https://www.thenewneo.com/2024/10/28/truncated-quotes-from-both-sides-now-with-a-swipe-of-my-pen/
Fairness is a reasonable interest in itself.
It would be nice to think that she understood the peril; but how easy it was to find examples of her having done exactly what she was allegedly warning against.
Neo says she thinks the ad works just on the truancy bits; I think it works without the weird AI/masculinity frame. Odd they felt it necessary to include those elements.
This is from RFK, Jr’s, (former) group and I think about the ad exactly what I thought about his book on Fauci: I’m inclined to agree with the argument but the presentation is maddeningly messy. The fact that the ad is so devastating - shocking, really - despite the mess is a testament to how bad Harris really is.
Clean up the mess and there are 3 good, short ads in this one:
- They say men who won’t vote for Harris don’t support women but really it’s Harris who doesn’t support women (pieces of the truancy clips using the mom).
- Men oppose Harris because she doesn’t support fathers (more pieces of the truancy clips using the dad and the guy from Alameda).
- The dangers of power. David Foster is right about the “swipe of the pen” stuff from Harris; she is warning that such power should not be entrusted to someone like Donald Trump. So be honest: play the clips and say something like: Harris is warning that some people can’t be trusted with that kind of power. She’s right and she’s one of those people. Then explain what she did as prosecutor, using Tulsi Gabbard’s attack on her interspersed with pictures of the people (men) she did wrong.
I think you can use a man to frame the first two. I’d make several versions of each of them using a (real) different man for each version (older, younger, scruffy, buttoned-down, black, white, Hispanic, etc.). I’d leave out the protector line. It’s not necessary and coming from an organization related to a Kennedy man, unconvincing.
Post a Comment