Rant: Kerry/Edwards, Please Stop "Fighting"

A deliberately provocative title, but this is an aspect of the Kerry campaign's message (Shrum? this is Shrum's doing, I don't doubt) which desperately needs some work.

My problem is.. every time I hear Kerry or Edwards answer a question with the gratuitous use of the verb "to fight," it makes me so fucking angry...

So, a message to Team Kerry:

I think Kerry is an excellent candidate.  I do admire the man and think he is pretty inspiring, and I don't say that about many people in politics.  But I think the people shaping his image have got him  wrong.  What's coming across to me is the message that it's all about looking and talking stupid tough (bring it on!) and fighting, fighting, fighting everyone, everywhere.  That's George W Bush's own stereotypical tough-guy stance and we should let him have it.  

Yes, Kerry's a tough guy as well and we know he's a former prosecutor (and of course, there's Vietnam..), but what's interesting and perhaps even inspiring about Kerry's record in this sense is a different sort of toughness, the kind required of a real leader.  Sticks to core beliefs.  Loyal and generous to friends.  Honorable and principled in dealings with his political opponents.  Relentless as an investigator - see BCCI, Iran-Contra which I wish someone would talk about already.  Willing to work as hard as necessary to accomplish a goal.  Confident.  100% cool under pressure, and will make tough decisions when it counts.  

But by saying fighting, fighting, fighting all the time Shrum and company have succeeded in making all these real strengths sound boring, fake, trite, and hideously dull.  So please, stop! All this talk about what happened in Vietnam is, in a way, limiting the level on which people can understand how Kerry would lead the nation. Indeed, it's admirable to be physically tough in a situation like that.  But this doesn't translate to presidential and strong leadership when the other end of Rove's attack is to totally undercut the mental aspect of leadership: hence, flip-flop, wavering, Bush out there saying "at least you know where I stand."  Answering this attack with "I will fight, I have fought, I am fighting" does not work, it's rhetorically on a whole other level and just evokes physical strength without really telling you much about the mental, about leadership.

I heard Edwards the other day get asked by someone at a campaign event, to paraphrase, when were the Dems going to come out swinging against the lies and distortions of Bush/Cheney?  And he says, to paraphrase, blah blah blah blah, we have to decide what we'll fight for and when we're fighting for the American people and what we've fought for all our lives. And not a word of it sounded sincere.

Just stop with the "fighting"!  

•  Paradox

  The "fighting for" metaphor is so ubiquitous that it sounds stale and banal, I'll grant you that.  The problem is that it still consistently polls much better than almost anything else, especially for the more populist, common-man-against-the-big-impersonal-forces messages that Dems usually run on.  

  by DHinMI on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 03:20:51 PM PDT

  •  I don't buy it

    I think it is K-LAME.   It sounds like Al Gore in 2000, not that I don't think Al Gore should have won in 2000, but I don't want to rerun his campaign in 2004 with a guy who is a lot better and more interesting of a candidate than Al Gore.  

    I just think this sort of macho rhetoric is paradoxically diverting people from knowing much about Kerry as a leader.

    Yeah, the phrase might poll well on its own.  But if, at the same time, a shit load of people are saying "We don't really know who John Kerry is," is it helping to say something anyone can say, something that already sounds trite and retro?  

    by daria g on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 03:26:50 PM PDT

    •  Point taken

      But you have to have short, positive, verbs in your rhetoric.  "Fight" is indeed a good verb with lots of people who feel disempowered, but less popular in the suburbs.  "Work" is universal.

      I think Kerry should start mixing in "lead," "stand," and "reach out," all of which subliminally reinforce his height.

      by DelRPCV on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 03:36:14 PM PDT

    •  K-LAME. Not.

      "It sounds like Al Gore in 2000, not that I don't think Al Gore should have won in 2000, but I don't want to rerun his campaign in 2004 with a guy who is a lot better and more interesting of a candidate than Al Gore."

      Why not?  The problem in '00 wasn't the campaign, it was the candidate.  I think they actually ran a pretty good campaign.

      "Shrum? this is Shrum's doing, I don't doubt"

      If the recent TNR profile is to be believed, Shrum has been arguing against this type of populism.

      ---

      "Fight" and "Hope" are two staples of Democratic rhetoric that date back generations.  They may sound dated to you, but as someone who is politically literate, you're not the intended audience.

      If you're a lower middle class white male in Ohio who likes Bush on cultural grounds, why should you vote for Kerry?  Because he'll fight for your economic interests.  There is no other argument.

      If you can find a better formulation for expressing this, please forward it to the DNC.  I'm sure they'd be interested.

      by NoDissentAllowed on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 03:42:07 PM PDT

      •  If I'm a lower middle class white male in Ohio..

        Well, those would be my neighbors from where I grew up, not quite in Ohio, but very close.  

        Anyway, I wouldn't believe a guy saying "We're going to fight for you."  Why?  Well, it's lame.  I've heard it before, and I still can't find a decent job with benefits.  Also, BushCo and the SLCM are saying they're just gonna raise my taxes and otherwise they could give a crap about hardworking people like me.

        Now, what I would like is for a guy to say, "We know you need a good job with benefits so you can support your family, that you need affordable health care and good schools for your kids.  We think every American deserves that, but George Bush has had four years and hasn't done anything about it.  Well, here's what we're going to do about it."   Just the facts, please.  

        by daria g on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 03:55:09 PM PDT

      •  Really?

        "Why not?  The problem in '00 wasn't the campaign, it was the candidate.  I think they actually ran a pretty good campaign."

        If you consider swinging in the political winds a good campaign, I guess so.  It's about message dicipline.  Gore's campaign never had it.  I remember "Compassionate Conservative" even if it's bullshit.  What theme did Gore run on again?
        

        by rashomon on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 03:57:44 PM PDT

        •  Discipline Depend on the Candidate

          As someone who's struggled in the past and the present with trying to impose and maintain message discipline, it'smuch more a function of the candidate than the campaign, especially at a Presidential level.  For all the odious things about Bush, I honestly admired his discipline as a candidate during the 2000 race.  Sure, he's dumb as a satchel of spatulas, but he's disciplined.  Gore is very, very smart, but he was utterly lacking in discipline, in no small part because he has no confidence in the version of himself he feels comfortable in showing to the world.    

          by DHinMI on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:03:40 PM PDT

          •  Gore.. and others..

            no confidence in the version of himself he feels comfortable in showing to the world

            Bingo!  Every now and then the unscripted Gore would threaten to jump out, and it made the scripted Gore seem even freaking weirder than he already was.  Dean fought the script every step of the way and you could tell it drove him up the wall.

            George W Bush is disciplined and hyperscripted, but he's still all too often unconfident because.. well.. pet theories are..  absolutely petrified of losing election, and in over his head and knows it.  Bush has failed upward so many freakin' times in his life that the very real prospect of a plain, obvious and very public failure terrifies the living shit out of him on a real fundamental level.  

            Kerry is good because he is super confident and keeps the public/private boundary strong enough that he'll quite willingly do the disciplined and scripted thing - doesn't worry about becoming the script, doesn't mind doing cheesy stuff like delivering kinda lame jokes about every town he's in, because it's just the proper thing to do in a campaign.  Really old school.        
            

            by daria g on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:20:30 PM PDT

      •  Could well be right

        I agree with Daria, and I think she is close to my age and demographic profile, but Petey, I trust your political instincts. I do think they need to be a bit more creative, however.

        by Ben P on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 03:59:54 PM PDT

        •  political instincts

          I tend to trust Petey's more than my own, because I actually have, like, Maureen Dowd style aesthetic intuition, except I think matters of war and peace really are more important than a candidate's choice in sweaters and weak riffs on Shakespeare.  God, you can turn anything into a riff on Shakespeare if you put in the minimal amount of creative thought..

          by daria g on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:07:28 PM PDT

          •  Too Much Information

            because I actually have, like, Maureen Dowd style aesthetic intuition...

            Daria, really, you don't have to divulge your darkest secrets.  You're among friends, but don't push it.  :)

            by DHinMI on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:22:19 PM PDT

            •  It's bad

              I'm always considering starting a blog but the problem is, it would be politics as filtered through totally superficial pop culture bullshit.  Somebody was writing about Congressman Wu the other day and all I could think to say was, did ODB and Method Man endorse him or what?  Congressman Wu is for the children, motherf(*&kers!

              The really sad part is that I'm bailing out of academia, the only place besides the New York Times editorial page where this sort of thing is eventually rewarded.

              by daria g on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:39:22 PM PDT

              •  er, it's *always* been like that

                we just don't get all the pop-culture ObRefs nowdays looking at the old-tyme stuff.

                · The filks done to the Gilbert and Sullivan medleys and other pop tunes, and the spoofs of hit plays.

                · The fact that the urinal sticker of Bush is just an update of the ever-popular chamberpot-with-candidate silkscreened inside.

                · The campaign posters riffing on bestselling sci-fi novels, with Lady Liberty wielding an axe, fighting off a giant squid whose tentacles are labeled with various special interests...

                by bellatrys on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 06:26:04 PM PDT

                •  Ah, well then..

                  Bring It On!

                  by daria g on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 10:35:55 PM PDT

      •  Addendum..

        Also, there's something peculiar about the construction of "We'll fight for you."  It's a different dynamic than, "we'll represent you and your interests."  Obviously no one will use the second as a catch phrase.  But it sounds more like politics, and this is politics, after all.  I don't think my representative is fighting for me.  He's going to committee meetings and sitting in his office and working on bills and stuff, and if I ran into him in a bar, I probably wouldn't have the first thing to say to him.  I'd have to be some kind of fool to think he got up in the morning and went, "Daria, are you ready to rumble! Today, we're gonna go out there and kick some Republican ass and win back your health benefits!  Yeaaaarrrrggh!"

        Obviously, I exaggerate.  However, I would buy the "We're fighting for you!" stuff coming from, say, a twenty-something leader of the Feminist Majority, I'd be like, kickass!  I'll vote for you!  

        My point is.. I think the whole "fighting for" dynamic heavily depends on some degree of identification between voter and candidate - there's a difference between the relationship of asking something to represent your interests (what's really going on here) and the relationship that implies.. this person is like you, is your champion, so to speak.  

        I guess you can buy Kerry saying "I will fight," but it's hard to buy Kerry saying "I will fight for you" when the identification thing doesn't really work.  Just makes you want to say, WTF do you know about a person like me?

        by daria g on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:36:24 PM PDT

        •  Re: Addendum..

          "Obviously, I exaggerate.  However, I would buy the "We're fighting for you!" stuff coming from, say, a twenty-something leader of the Feminist Majority, I'd be like, kickass!  I'll vote for you!"

          Exactly.

          "My point is.. I think the whole "fighting for" dynamic heavily depends on some degree of identification between voter and candidate..."

          Exactly again.

          ---

          Now since I'm more worried about winning the vote of a lower middle class white Ohio voter with limited education than I am in winning daria g's vote, I look for candidates who can create that kind of identification with those kinds of voters.

          Hence why I was advocating for Johnny Edwards instead of John Kerry or Howard Dean during the primaries...

          by NoDissentAllowed on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:47:10 PM PDT

          •  But we have the candidate already

            That's the thing.  Rather than try to force an identification where it's just not working.. you either let Johnny Sunshine handle the campaigning there, or you switch the dynamic.  Now, my opinion is that Kerry isn't going to easily reach these voters who are still undecided by trying the populist fighting tack.  He's posh and he's privileged, it's just the way he is.  Nevertheless he can still be.. no-nonsense, straightforward, and respectful..  

            After all, it's terribly presumptuous to go out there and tell people you'll fight for them.  They didn't ask you to do that.  Fox News gets most of their audience to agree with their agenda even as they're telling people "We report, you decide."  O'Reilly spins and says it's the No Spin Zone and you decide for yourself.  That's how you reach these people in Ohio.  Don't declare that you're their champion, it's not your place to do that.  Their economic situation might suck big time, but they don't see themselves as helpless, downtrodden people looking for a fighter and a champion.  Tell them your plans in a no nonsense way, and ask them to decide.    

            by daria g on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 05:02:23 PM PDT

            •  Re: But we have the candidate already

              "you either let Johnny Sunshine handle the campaigning..."

              Oh, to dream.  To dream.

              "Their economic situation might suck big time, but they don't see themselves as helpless, downtrodden people looking for a fighter and a champion."

              We're admittedly arguing semantics, but I think they do want a fighter and a champion for their interests.  Bush is telling them he's fighting Islamic boogeymen for them.  And they like that a lot.

              Kerry needs to tell them he's fighting for them too.  People want someone to go to Washington and fight for them.

              ---

              I fully understand your point about the disconnect with the messenger.  And it's a problem, although it should be surmountable.

              I'm just not sure what the winning alternative is to that type of rhetoric.

              by NoDissentAllowed on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 05:23:08 PM PDT

              •  Hey, semantics matter..

                "Fighting for" is not the same as "defend" or even "take the fight to the terrorists." Bush's formulation is usually "defend America."  Big difference in the dynamics and the relationship implied.

                I think I'll have to do a rant part II on this one, it's feeling more and more like this populist "fighting for" deal feeds into the caricature of Democrats that the right trades on: passive, looking for help, the infamous "class warfare" accusation..

                by daria g on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 10:33:15 PM PDT

                •  Re: Hey, semantics matter..

                  "Hey, semantics matter.."

                  Most definitely.

                  "it's feeling more and more like this populist "fighting for" deal feeds into the caricature of Democrats that the right trades on: passive, looking for help, the infamous "class warfare" accusation."

                  That's not the caricature the right attacked this year.  Or the caricature they attacked in '00 or '92 or '88.  The caricatures they like to attack are "not resolute / honest", "out of touch culturally", and "weak".

                  The one comparative question even a weak Democrat will beat a strong Republican on is "Cares about people like me".  

                  That is the strongest Democratic trump card.  So how do you translate that advantage into votes?  

                  By saying you'll fight for what you care about.

                  Not only do you emphasize your partisan trump card with this language, but you also neutralize the right's caricatures that actually resonate.

                  ---

                  Unless you're proposing a radical departure from my above argument, the verb has to be something close to "fight".  What is the best rhetoric among the following?

                  • "I will fight for a woman's right to choose."

                  • "I will defend a woman's right to choose."

                  • "I will stand for a woman's right to choose."

                  • "I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose."

                  The last choice is closest to what you're proposing upthread.  But I to my ear, the first two choices are clearly the best choices.

                  Of course, feel free to substitute better words than I've supplied.  I'm not trying to straw man your argument.

                  by NoDissentAllowed on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 01:09:14 AM PDT

    •  On Your Side

      It's a variant on the "I'm on your side and fighting for you" theme that's been used since, oh, the age of prarie populism.  

      Remember, Gore was lagging until he took up the "people vs the powerful" theme, and after that he rallied and won the election (and lost the Presidency, but I digress...)

      And as for equating "fighting" with machismo, go back to the main page and look at that Tammy Baldwin ad: "Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin Fights For Us Every Day."  Tammy Baldwin's hardly macho.

      by DHinMI on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 03:59:20 PM PDT

•  If we're going tp pile on,

  then I wish they'd stop bringing up Bush and Cheney's military issues. Most people already know about this, and they just don't care. I know it's unfair that they get away with this shit while Kerry is hammered for every little word in Vietnam, but that's the way the public and the media is. Saying Cheney and/or Bush were draft dodgers won't change that. It just sounds desperate.

  by JamesB3 on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 03:26:11 PM PDT

  •  I usually agree with this

    but I liked Kerry kind of reclaiming the Vietnam issue. Even if it doesn't resonate with swing people or whatever, it's something that resonates a lot with the base, who need to be cheered up.

    Now I'd like him to attack them where they are strongest -- terrorism. Hit him again and again -- vacation in August 2001, pulling out of Afghanistan before finishing the job. repeat.

    Incidentally, I have no particular problem with fight. But that's me.

    by ZoBai on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 03:39:11 PM PDT

    •  It's more than that

      Seemingly every time any of Kerry's security votes were criticized, or anytime Bush went on the attack, the response is/was, "Don't criticze Kerry's war record/Bush and Cheney are chickenhawks". It's overkill and tiresome and doesn't really reach the audience they think it reaches.

      by JamesB3 on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:20:21 PM PDT

      •  I agree.

        But it reaches the base, which is what I was saying. You need to get your base back on board. Plus it shows a bit of guts talking about Vietnam after what happened, and Kerry has to deal with the idea that he's weak. And he's a veteran so if he wants to defend his record and call out the chickenhawks, I'm in no position to tell him not to.

        But in general I agree with you -- they have to get beyond it. Hit Bush as soft on terrorism again and again, and then talk about all the issues where Kerry already beats Bush.

        by ZoBai on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:48:20 PM PDT

  •  Yeah

    I'm sick of that too.

    I'm just tearing my hair out sometimes because at the end of the day, I think Kerry is a really fascinating person who could well be a very great president and it will be the biggest goddamned shame if he & his people can't get voters to see that.  You know, maybe this is unfortunately old school in today's political climate, but Kerry is a serious, trustworthy, and honorable man and has an immense amount of integrity.  He doesn't sell out his friends for political gain and he doesn't assassinate the character of his political enemies like the petty, miserable thugs currently installed in the White House, these fools who have no regard for ethics and common decency.  Maybe his advisers think emphasizing such qualities doesn't poll well because most politicians are more or less bereft of them and therefore the polls say, don't try to show it, you will look fake.  But Kerry's the real deal.

    So why the fuck do we have to talk about fights and Vietnam?????  And even if we do, the story for me is not really even about Kerry getting hit by shrapnel or pulling Jim Rassman out of the water, and it's annoying that the Swift Liars managed to reduce the issue to these isolated little moments, taking it out of the larger narrative.

    by daria g on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 03:42:49 PM PDT

    •  Re: Yeah

      "Kerry is a serious, trustworthy, and honorable man and has an immense amount of integrity."

      That and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

      Actually, all of those things will become very important after January.  But right now, we need a candidate who will fight for Americans.

      by NoDissentAllowed on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 03:49:03 PM PDT

      •  No....

        we need a candidate who's going to win the election.  I think I'd agree more with the "Fight" theme if it was more than two days old.  Consistent messages win.  Flavor of the month goes home.

        by rashomon on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:01:31 PM PDT

        •  Two Days Old?!?

          Where'd you get that?  Kerry, and especially Edwards, have been talking about "standing up to" and "defending" and "looking out for" and "protecting" and all the other verbs that fit into the "fighting for you" theme ever since the early days of the primary season.  About the only Dem candidate who didn't run on a variant of this was Lieberman (and possibly Graham, who's rationale for running never was clear to me).  

          by DHinMI on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:06:59 PM PDT

      •  Blah

        Cannot ward off intense visceral dislike of that wack-ass phrase.  

        But what do I know, people seem to like it coming from Edwards and to me he comes off as verging on phony a fair amount of the time.  Agreeably phony and not at all malicious, but nevertheless a bit.. fake.

        This is why I could never have a career in politics.  I'm too much of a snob.

        And yet I still think the "fight" thing is not inspiring in the least.  It's the very opposite of a big, bold idea.  Can we have some of those please?

        by daria g on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:02:17 PM PDT

        •  Re: Blah

          "This is why I could never have a career in politics.  I'm too much of a snob."

          Nothing wrong with being a snob.  You've just got to be able to use your imagination to walk in some very different shoes.

          "And yet I still think the "fight" thing is not inspiring in the least."

          Bill Clinton used the word a lot, and he made it inspiring.  There are big advantages to having a really good messenger.

          by NoDissentAllowed on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:24:03 PM PDT

          •  Bill Clinton

            Can make just about anything inspiring.  We are damned lucky he uses his skills for the forces of good.  Do you know just how much more destruction people like Dick Cheney and Richard Perle could wreak on this world if they had half the charm of Bill Clinton?  It's such a lucky thing that whenever Dick Cheney tries to show even the slightest bit of good humor, he just manages to look more evil.

            by daria g on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:45:19 PM PDT

        •  I agree with you

          daria, but what you and I are fighting is also "conventional wisdom" of the election industry.  I think I have a visceral dislike of this for two reasons: like you I also find it ingenuous and formulaic.  But I also have a visceral response to the fact that it does work; I hate that I live in a culture that is so politically one-dimensional.  

          by a gilas girl on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 06:43:36 PM PDT

•  synonyms

  "prosecute"?

  "solve"?

  "obliterate"?  :)

  by pyrrho on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 03:28:54 PM PDT

  •  Hm... maybe... PWN

    G30Rg3 W Bu5H = PWN3D!!!!

    

    by daria g on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:49:54 PM PDT

•  WOW!

  You Think Kerrys Inspiring? I find that hard to believe. Really I do. the Only reason I can think of to vote for him is... Hes Not Bush. Im Voting for Not Bush.

  by Eidolon on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:08:55 PM PDT

  •  I find Kerry inspiring too

    Sure, he doesn't land on aircraft carriers in flight suits, speak in punchy one-syllable words or say "God" two hundred and forty-eight times in a week, but I find him very inspiring.

    A man who at age 27 came back from war and took an unpopular stand in front of the U.S. Senate and the whole wide world? I find that VERY inspiring.

    A man who took the unglamorous, boring, painstaking job of hunting down and following money laundering trails to bust terrorists during Iran-Contra? I find that VERY inspiring.

    Perhaps your definition of "inspiring" is closer to "exciting" than mine is.

    I'm inspired by honorable, steadfast, dogged people who take on bigger powers than themselves. I'm inspired by Kerry immensely.

    by SusanG on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 05:24:52 PM PDT

  •  Geez

    You know, I started this campaign not knowing anything about him, having a vague impression of a "Massachussetts Liberal" and consummate politician.

    As someone who a) used to be a conservative, b) was always cynical and apathetic about politics, c) this year started out as ABB and was disappointed that Clark didn't get it - I found myself first admiring, then liking Kerry the more I saw of him and the more I went and researched what he was and did.

    He's smart, honourable, self-confident - and humble. Add brave and experienced to that, and what more is there to ask for in a political leader? Championing "undesirables" in his career as prosecutor, working for the environment, when that alone is enough to get you tarred with the "crazy" brush up here, and willing to run for president knowing that he was going up against the most evil and ruthless people on the planet, who would stop at nothing to smear him just as they did with Gore and McCain?

    He's one of the few in my lifetime that I'd call a statesman rather than a politician.

    And I'm damned grateful that Kerry is willing to stick a target on himself and go out there to be shot at by scum like Rove and Limbaugh and Drudge, and mortgage his house for the privilege of being called a traitor and a coward and a liar by chickenhawks, for us.
    

    by bellatrys on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 06:19:45 PM PDT

•  Oh the first thing we did right

  was the day we started to fight:
  Keep your eyes
  On the prize--
  Hold on, hold on, hold on!

  Long, venerable tradition of the word in progressive circles.

  by bellatrys on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 06:11:47 PM PDT