america adrift

Be careful what you wish for. Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when I was an earnest neophyte feminist at Vassar, earnestly debating the meanings of feminism, sexism, and choice, I used to wish, earnestly, that we would have a political campaign that actually discussed these issues. And this year I finally got one. Sort of. Only the disingenuousness of the conversation we’re actually having is something that I, in my actual ingenuousness then, could never have envisioned. But democracy being what it is, and Republicans being what they are, it’s turned into something very twisted, indeed.

Who knew that French theory-hating Republicans would be such adept poststructuralists? Floating signifiers are everywhere.

by Sarah Churchwell.

I stumbled upon this terrific article by Sarah Churchwell while perusing MyDD, one of the largest progressive Democratic activist blogs on the internets. It’s also “cross-posted” over at the orange giant, Daily Kos.

I was pleasantly surprised when reading her name attached to this cross-posted blog post. Sarah Churchwell is one of our neighbors from the University of East Anglia’s School for American Studies. Her fascinating book, The Many Lives of Marilyn Monroe, was an early inspiration for my research on popular media constructions of Al Gore.

From reading the comments, Sarah is a “newbie” in the blogosphere. But this article has gone “viral” and has potentially been read by several hundred thousand readers already. Not bad for what appears to be her first blog post? Go read the rest of the article (the original post) at the Motley Moose where she’s active in the comment thread.

(Newsweek, November 20, 2000)

I wrote this a few days ago but was unable to post it until now.

Benita sent me an email link the other day to the Obama campaign’s latest online fund raising video. In the video, Obama is wearing a strong red tie and Biden a baby blue tie. She sent me the link no doubt in response to my claim that Obama has typically only worn blue ties like the one show below throughout the primary campaign.

(Image from the Obama Campaign home page, 27 August, 2008)

So why is this important? Does something so seemingly trivial as the color of a necktie have any relevance to political identities and processes? The answer depends on how much weight one places on the associative and emotive power of color.

As we had been discussing recent visual rhetorical tools employed by different campaigns, I mentioned that the Obama campaign’s virtually exclusive use of blue, including the candidate’s ties are deliberate messages meant to communicate Democratic (and democratic) ideals. As I had been looking at Al Gore’s public image in recent years I began to notice similarities in Obama’s and other Democrat’s attire. Yes, I’ve really been “reading” political wardrobes.

For example, I’ve argued that Gore deliberately projected a “centrist” image during the 2000 campaign (and before) through what became his standard uniform; blue suite, blue shirt, red tie. As far as attire, there was nothing to suggest any difference in political or cultural ideology between Gore and Bush. Bush had not yet introduced the ubiquitous flag pin to his lapel. The New Yorker noted this through an editorial cartoon portraying a mock New York Times article with the headline, “Bush and Gore Stake Out Differences in First Debate, But Agree On Clothes.” The red (power) tie, especially since the early 80’s, came to symbolize wealth, conservatism, and of course power. Red is also the color associated with the Republican Party, blue with the Democratic party. In 1992, Clinton/Gore were also paired together in a similar red power tie uniform, perhaps reflecting their “new” Democrat pro business platform.

But today the color associations of red Republican and blue Democratic are arguably much stronger. Ever since the late Tim Russert coined the phrase “red state/blue state” during the 2000 Presidential campaign, it has become the norm to speak not only about politics in red and blue but cultural and identity ascriptions as well. The association between these two primary colors and socio-political ideology has become deeply embedded across popular cultural narratives. A quick Lexis, Amazon, or Google search will bear this out. If one talks about “red America” for example, they are inferring a whole host of cultural signifiers like 2nd Amendment, Christian, socially conservative, etc. The Newsweek cover above was not reflecting this narrative tradition so much as it was playing a role in its establishment.

Post 2000, national Democrats have increasingly employed blue in their attire and overall campaign imagery. Gore’s image over the last 6 years, which has typified the new Democratic political uniform, is meant to portray a Leftist public image drawing a deliberate contrast with the Republican Right. And no candidate during this (primary) election campaign has been more consistent than Obama, who has carefully branded and blue toned everything from his tie to his website. And it’s not just any blue. It’s “electric blue,” symbolizing not just Democratic political ideology but also democratic cultural values. It’s a blue that’s fresh, bright and hopeful. Just what Obama is pitching to the American public. It’s the Neo-Progressive blue of the new new Democrats. His acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention also made reference to this narrative with the following:

“The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America - they have served the United States of America.”

Light blue is also associated with health, healing, tranquility, understanding, and softness. This is what Obama proposes when he says not a red America or blue America, but a United States of America. But his visual rhetoric has been all blue. Contrasted to power red, which is also associated with war and danger, Obama and the Democratic party are actively portraying these contrasting values through color. At her blog, Cara Finnegan noted that, “Obama Blue ties” were the “male uniform of choice” for the Democratic convention. A very deliberate choice.

The new blue is the anti-red. It was probably no coincidence that Bush’s tie wardrobe was replaced with baby blue after most Americans grew tired of his Middle East adventure and his poll numbers plummeted. John McCain likewise, looking for some extra media attention during the Democratic convention appeared on Jay Leno wearing a soft blue tie. He was similarly attired during his announcement and presentation of his running mate. Increasingly, McCain is ditching the tie all together. His homepage features him in an open collar plain blue shirt. No doubt an attempt to communicate “blue collar” working class in lieu of the recent press coverage about not only how many houses he owns but his not being able to remember how many.

So why would Obama, after consistently portraying himself and his message in shades of blue, now don the red power tie? My first instinct was to think about those ever elusive “centrist” voters and Obama’s strategy which aims to compete (and hopefully win) in “red America.” Perhaps it is simply General Election mode to don the red power tie for a national public.

Looking around I found other images of Obama with red tie coupled with Biden in blue. During the primaries however, every endorsement event (that comes to mind) featured Obama with xyz in matching electric blue ties. See for example, An Uncanny Convention(al) Photo. Can you name a convention speaker who hasn’t donned the true blue?

With Biden brought on in part to “balance” Obama’s perceived experience deficit coupled with the age difference between the two men, it makes since for Obama to wear the power tie when they are paired. Obama needs to be perceived as the CEO or “the boss” when they are together. But given this logic, what color strategy should Obama employ in the debates with John McCain? Does he go with blue for healing and democratic solidarity or red to signify strength and power? I’m guessing the later. Again, for his acceptance speech last night Obama donned the red tie. I think Josh Marshall’s initial thoughts on Obama’s speech reflects the visual logic of the change in necktie color.

I’ve heard a few people say that he seemed to hold back from giving the soaring speech he might have given. But I suspect that was intentional and I think a good decision. Meta-themes and tonality form the deeper structure of political communication. And the aim of this speech was not eloquence but strength.

The meta-theme of Obama’s candidacy has been expressed throughout in shades of blue; change and hope, healing and unity. But I agree with Marshall’s assessment of the logic of the speech. Obama’s performance certainly achieved that. Thus, the convention’s visual presentation, with Obama in a red tie surrounded by a sea of “progressive blue,” captured the essence of the campaign narrative which Obama leads. A necktie is not only a clothing accessory but a rhetorical device. In this sense, the necktie is transformed into a mouthpiece.

Update: When comparing the two conventions I think my basic premise holds up. Both parties and candidates are engaged in an ideologically driven primary color narrative. See this photo essay for an idea of how the GOP is branding their convention in red. For his address, the virtual megatron Bush wore progressive blue, symbolizing his “compassionate conservatism.” Also I noticed that when the ex-Democrat Lieberman spoke, the backdrop behind him faded from red to blue. The sea of blood red signs on the convention floor that read “service” were particularly disturbing.

John McCain’s campaign manager Rick Davis summed it up, “This election is not about issues,” said Davis. “This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.”

Photograph by Matt Stoller

Ben Shahn’s “Register to Vote” poster from the 1940s

Photography by Ben Shahn for the FSA, 1935 - Arkansas

Photography by Ben Shahn for the FSA: Fiddlin’ Bill Henseley, North Carolina, 1937

Which I wish to remark

And my language is plain

That for ways that are dark

And for tricks that are vain,

The heathen Chinee is peculiar.

Which the same I would rise to explain.

Ah Sin was his name;

And I shall not deny

In regard to the same

What that name might imply,

But his smile it was pensive and child-like,

As I frequent remarked to Bill Nye.

It was August the third;

And quite soft was the skies;

Which it might be inferred

That Ah Sin was likewise;

Yet he played it that day upon William

And me in a way I despise.

- The first three stanzas of Bret F. Harte’s “Plain Language from Truthful James”, (Overland Monthly, September 1870, 287-288)

The controversial front page of the July 21 issue of the New Yorker depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as terrorists or subversives is by no means the first such instance of satire being interpreted wrongly, and with long-ranging consequences, in American history. While the New Yorker is claiming that the cover was a satirical jab at the smears propagated by conservative pundits and on the internet, responses from the public range from belief in the smears to rage at the smearers. But ultimately, satirizing the smears merely gives attention to the outrageous claims and helps cement the claimed connection between the Obamas, Islam and terrorism. Continue Reading »

By Professor David Roediger,

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Center for American Studies

University of Southern Denmark, Odense

Thursday, September 25, 2008

14:15-16:00, Room 100

This lecture, based on David Roediger’s shortly forthcoming How Race Survived United States History (Verso), sets the historic presidential candidacy of Barack Obama within longer patterns of white supremacy in the U. S. past. It argues that the successes of Obama’s candidacy register important, though contradictory, changes in racial attitudes in the post-1965 U.S. At the same time, the “Obama Phenomenon” also obscures the extent to which the structural factors leading to race-thinking persist and raises critical questions regarding the political challenges of moving past a view of race predicated on the simple dualism of black and white.

Professor Roediger teaches history and African American Studies at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His books include Working Toward Whiteness: How America’s Immigrants Become White (New York: Basic Books, 2005); Colored White: Transcending the Racial Past (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002); Towards the Abolition of Whiteness: Essays on Race, Class, and Politics (London and New York: Verso Books, 1994); and The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (Rev. ed. London and New York: Verso Books, 1999).

All Welcome!

For further information, please contact Dr. Benita Heiskanen, Center for American Studies, SDU-Odense, email benita@hist.sdu.dk, tel. +45-6550 3133.

See the Agonist for more.

This photo (h/t The Bag) immediately struck me as it provides a very interesting visual narrative to an analysis I recently wrote on some contemporary political appropriations of Abraham Lincoln. I plan to discuss this image in more detail, along with my article which will be available after the weekend.

In the meantime, go check out The Bag’s post, “Taking A Lesson,” which apart from providing an interesting reading of the image demonstrates a very telling case of the politics of photojournalist editorializing.

Why you are there, also see this very provocative post, “Stereotypes From The White Corporate Media: The Black Man Gets His Hands On The Presidency.”