There’s one thing I know about losing a loved one to an unexpected tragedy. There’s no right or wrong way to feel about it…all the thoughts you might have about what happened are valid, no matter how disloyal, no matter how unfair they may seem. In my large family, we form a protective circle around those most affected in order to let them act out in any way they need to; we give them a license to do whatever it takes.
I’ve lost two very close loved ones to tragedies in the past two years. That protective circle, that license, has been extremely helpful. So I watched the Today Show with compassion this morning as three women who had lost loved ones in the 9/11 tragedy expressed different views on the President’s new campaign ads, which are being criticized by some.
I didn’t lose anyone close to me in the WTC, so I consider myself part of that protective circle in this particiular tragedy; that is, I think the folks who did lose someone should have a license to express their grief in whatever manner they choose (within in the law and within reason, of course), but I personally don’t object to the ad. Not because I think it was “tastefully” done, as some Bush defenders have claimed (it’s a joke to suggest a political ad could ever be described that way; they are complete manipulation of events and images…and that’s their purpose…but “tasteful” they ain’t). But because I think the folks predisposed to support Bush, including many who lost a close loved one on 9/11, will find comfort in those images in that ad. They’re entitled to the license as well.
UPDATE: I realized between my home, where I wrote this, and my office, where I’ve yet to caffinate, mind you, that I left this rather unclear. The woman who defended the ad didn’t go so far as to say she wanted to see campaign ads with images of 9/11…it’s not like Bush is trying to comfort her and others like her by using them…but that she didn’t object…so maybe that line of reasoning is beside the point. I guess it just struck me that the women who objected to the ad were clearly anti-Bush, and that at a certain point this begins to border on manipulation the other way (i.e., using their own personal tragedy for political purposes).
It’s not easy to discuss this without risking callousness (and all three women on the Today show, pro and con, were very measured and respectful). I guess “I don’t want the tragedy to be exploited by either side” is my point.
But because I think the folks predisposed to support Bush, including many who lost a close loved one on 9/11, will find comfort in those images in that ad. They’re entitled to the license as well.
Sheesh. Edward, I was all set to object to the 9/11 ads just on the idea of them – I don’t watch much TV, and I haven’t seen them yet – but this point takes the wind out of my sails. You’re absolutely right, much though I hate to admit it.
Well, of course they’re entitled to that reaction.
(I didn’t see the show–how positive was the reaction, and how much did the panelists disagree? It makes me wonder if they think the rest of the country has forgotten, because I don’t think a political ad would be very many people’s preferred place to see those images. Clearly they’re being used in some way–the goal is not to bear witness to the tragedy; the goal is to re-elect the President.)
But–I don’t know if it follows that the people who make those ads are entitled to that license. In fact I’m pretty sure it doesn’t.
If you opposed the Iraq war strongly, and lost a brother, it might bring you comfort to see a Democratic political ad that showed images of soldiers’ funerals–that if the people who decided to go to war were held politically accountable, it might be less likely to happen again. But I still thought it was totally inappropriate for Kucinich to use those images in an online ad, let alone for Kerry to use them in a TV ad campaign airing in dozens of states.
It’s not a perfect analogy. I don’t know about “oh, but it’s a positive ad” distinction, but perhaps that makes a difference. And military families tend to be pro-war, whereas I have no idea how WTC families feel about Bush (though I know how most New Yorkers feel.)
I’d have to see the whole ads to be certain. I’ve only seen clips on the news, and I can’t tell if they’re intercutting them with other footage (did they really show the planes crashing into the towers?)
My own personal reaction, you can guess. He’s used the city enough as it is, and when you add in the crap they’ve given the Keane comission….
also, any negative reaction now is bound to cut down on the offensive stuff at the convention itself. (Are they REALLY considering an acceptance speech at Ground Zero?)
Nice post Edward.
Since Kerry has used the Vietnam War as a centerpiece of his campaign, including in his commercials, apparently nobody cared about the “line” before. After all, many many more people lost loved ones in that war versus this one. I heard no objections to Kerry’s commercials so it’s hard not to assume that the objections to these aren’t colored by partisanship. Would be out of line for Roosevelt to mention Pearl Harbor? Or Clinton to mention Oklahoma City or the WTC bombing?
Nice post Edward.
You only say that when I criticize the Bush critics, Mac…not that there’s anything wrong with that…;p
Or Clinton to mention Oklahoma City or the WTC bombing?
Actually I was wondering about that…did Clinton ever use imagery from those events in his ads?
Actually I was wondering about that…did Clinton ever use imagery from those events in his ads?
I’d doubt it. Not because it would be unethical, but because those deaths were attributable to some fairly isolated activity by guys that were nabbed fairly promptly (not to mention, locally) whereas the WTC is a by-product of a global (not saying prevalent, just widespread geographically) hatred of things American by certain people who are willing to express that hatred in units of body bags.
Damn. Me pre-caffeine, too.
But Slarti, Clinton rounded up and prosecuted those for bombed the WTC the first time…why wouldn’t his showing images of that fall under the same argument Bush is making for showing the 9/11 images: leadership in hard times?
And if you say Clinton didn’t start a war to end it all, like Bush supposedly has, I’ll be forced to dive into my excrucitating pre 9/11 v. post 9/11 diatribe.
I do remember audio and video footage of the OK bombing being used in a campaign video at the 1996 Democratic convention complete with sirens, a 911 dispatcher’s voice, and a clip from a speech Clinton made afterwards. IIRC it was on the night when he made his speech officially accepting the nomination.
Frankly I didn’t care one way or the other as political ads do invoke emotion but at least this is job-related. Asking “where the line” is seems to me to be manufactured outrage which unfortunately is also a part of politics.
Asking “where the line” is seems to me to be manufactured outrage which unfortunately is also a part of politics.
Or, Thorley, if you weren’t on perpetual prowl to illustrate how superior you are to all of God’s other creatures, you might have realized that in this context it reflects a flat rhetorical question…an unemotional look, a complete absence of outrage on my part…until now, anyway.
But Slarti, Clinton rounded up and prosecuted those for bombed the WTC the first time…why wouldn’t his showing images of that fall under the same argument Bush is making for showing the 9/11 images: leadership in hard times?
Good point. All I can say is that tapes showing internal damage to the WTC don’t quite produce the visceral reaction that a couple of smoking holes in the ground do. Are those images good or bad, in the context of reviewing what GWB has done and why? I’d say neither; they’re just part of the story. Images of shattered concrete and twisted steel in the WTC parking garage, though, just might serve to remind people that the reaction to this mass murder attempt was to try and apprehend the culprits and conspirators via diplomatic and legal means. The idea that terrorism by groups is an act of war by those groups is a sort of paradigm shift in the way we relate to the world. You may not agree with it, but an explanation of why we thought that shift was necessary is relevant, methinks.
The idea that terrorism by groups is an act of war by those groups is a sort of paradigm shift in the way we relate to the world.
I’d say different acts beg for different definitions. If England had responded to bombings in London by invading Ireland, for example, would this still apply?
It’s a big country. Those who lost loved ones on 9/11 don’t own that day. Our change in foreign policy and defense strategy was hinged on that day. Bush would be irresponsible if he did not use 9/11 as a reference point in his campaign. The Left is taking a couple of fleeting images and calling it exploitation. Rubbish.
If England had responded to bombings in London by invading Ireland, for example, would this still apply?
🙂 Well, depending who you ask, they did.
But they didn’t respond to terrorist bombings in England by bombing Boston, which would have been the direct equivalent of what the US did when it attacked Afghanistan. After all, plenty of IRA supporters live in Boston, they’re pretty vocal, and they donate money to “the cause”. More than enough excuse… right?
(Neither did they drop cluster bombs in Belfast or in Dublin. The English figured out that randomly attacking Irish civilians wouldn’t stop the IRA from randomly attacking English civilians.)
I’d say different acts beg for different definitions. If England had responded to bombings in London by invading Ireland, for example, would this still apply?
Would what still apply? I’m presuming you’re talking IRA bombings and not German bombings. But assuming you meant in response to IRA bombings, I’ve always wondered why England showed the restraint that it did.
Of course, England has a bit more reason for the blaming-oneself trend that afflicted us post-9/11 than we actually did, given that Ireland’s being pissed off at them springs from centuries of ill-treatment at the hands of England. I’m pretty sure that, even at a stretch, the blame-America-first crowd can’t make nearly as compelling a case.
Bush would be irresponsible if he did not use 9/11 as a reference point in his campaign.
Oh, so now he’s only using them because it’s responsible to? Because he must? Puh-leaze…at least own up to the fact that it is manipulation, even if you don’t object to it.
I’m presuming you’re talking IRA bombings and not German bombings.
It’s not that much of a stretch to imagine that England’s reponse to German bombings would be to invade Ireland. : )
I suspected if that wasn’t your initial point, it might be used to supplement it. Still, I had to ask.
A fair post, Edward.
at least own up to the fact that it is manipulation
Goes without saying. That’s what commercials do. But manipulation is such a sinister and Roveian word, as if the ads are shooting some invisible secret delta rays into viewers’ brains, turning them into Bush-voting zombies. The commercials are intended to sell the candidate by influencing people to vote for him, just like any other commercial. Part of that strategy to influence voters is Bush’s response to the singular and most defining moment in his administration.
That’s what commercials do.
I agree. They are advertisement. The product is a candidate.
I’d welcome a suitable synonym for “manipulation” then, Bird Dog…”influence,” doesn’t quite cut it…it suggests an objective presentation of the facts, and advertising is not a field most thinking people would associate with “objective” anything…
I think influence is fair. As a culture we have built up an impressive immunity to manipulation by commercial imagery, since we’ve been fighting off that disease for 50 years.
Bird-
“The Left”
I always get a kick when you (or anyone, really. Not to pick on you) uses the capital L. And I told everyone else as much in our Friday meeting of the Grand Council of Leftist Strategy. I wore my Hawaiian shirt.
I wore my Hawaiian shirt.
That was you?
I can’t tell you what I was wearing since I’m obviously a spy in your midst.
(No I wasn’t that goof in the dockers and penny loafers)
No, that was Reuben. The VRWC sent him over in the Ideology Exchange program. We sent Franken in spandex.
Were you in the pirate hat?
I thought Navy Davy was in the pirate hat.
HRC draws the line.
But assuming you meant in response to IRA bombings, I’ve always wondered why England showed the restraint that it did.
Centuries more experience in foreign policy. 😉