The Elephant and the Ass

Alrighty, just like I said, now I'm going to examine the origins of the Republicans' elephant and the Democrats' donkey. Unlike the colors of red and blue, these mascots go way back into history. What I find particularly interesting is the fact that neither the elephant, nor the donkey, is particularly heroic or even attractive.

It's actually quite a bit simpler. The donkey originated in Andrew Jackson's 1828 presidential campaign.

After this cartoon, the donkey was pretty much synonymous with the democrats. Even now, the embrace it, saying that it is smart and brave.

The Republican Elephant is only slightly more complicated, and it actually comes from the Donkey. In Harper's weekly in 1874, they feature the below cartoon, where the elephant, labeled "The Republican Vote" is running away from the donkey clothed in Lion's skin.

It, also, was embraced, and the Republicans now say that it is strong and dignified.

We hardly even notice these symbols any more, they are simply an image, without any meaning of their own. The fact that the democratic symbol is a donkey really has no effect on how the party is viewed at all, which is probably good for them. The words 'stubborn' and 'ass' are not positive, especially in politics.

Red and Blue

I always found it interesting, how red and blue are associated with the Republicans and Democrats. So today I looked up the origins of these associations.

It's become such a tradition that I hardly notice anymore. Our colors are Red, White, and Blue, but for whatever reason, each of the parties in our two-party system have chosen to associate themselves with only one. All you have to do is watch the debates or look at a map to see it:





Well  after looking at the Wikipedia page and a Smithsonian article, I realized that things are quite different now, from the way things used to be. In general, Democrats actually used to be red, and Republicans were blue, but some people used different colors or the system we use now. In Europe, the left was associated with red, and this influenced many of the color schemes.



Now, there is no doubt: Republicans are red, and Democrats are blue.

So what changed? Blame the 2000 Election, between Bush and Gore. It went on for so long, and maps were shown so often, that eventually, even unconsciously, everyone began to use the same scheme. People even started using the terms 'blue state' and 'red state,' to the point where today we don't even notice. These terms are cemented not only in our minds, but also in our visual culture. And they ain't gonna leave, either.

Check out my next post where I will examine the Elephant and Donkey.

The Rule of Seventeen?

Continuing in my mini-series-thingy on the Rule of Three, I will now focus on why other lengths and methods are not as successful.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that 4 or 5 or 6 (etc) word slogans don't work. All I'm saying is they don't work as well.

The first reason why actually has nothing to do with the Rule of Three: Three word phrases work well because they're short. You don't have to stand there in front of the poster for 30 seconds to read it, all it takes is a glance. This isn't necessarily a novel idea--slogans are pretty short to begin with--but sometimes people don't put in the effort to make it as short as possible.

Just compare these posters. Which do you find most effective and visually appealing? Furthermore, which one are you most likely to actually remember?

   

Sure, they're both memorable right now, but if you were in a hurry to class, I think we can all agree on which one is easiest to read. With each extra word, the message becomes more jumbled.

Yes We Can has a simple structure, with three distinct parts. See my previous post for some background. If you add a fourth and fifth word, like "Yes We Can Do It," it messes with the message, and makes it exponentially less effective. Also, the word "Do" limits the possibilities put forward by "Yes We Can." Yes We Can says that we can do anything, or not do anything, if so we choose. Also, notice that it doesn't say 'Yes America Can', or 'Yes the People Can.' These just complicate the simple message of the Obama campaign.

[Kind of going off on a tangent, another thing I've noticed is that the farther back you go, the longer the slogans. This could be because people have learned from their mistakes, but personally I would argue that it shows our shortening attention spans.]

Well, this closes out my two-part rant about campaign slogans. Who knows what the next half hour (and another blog post) will bring.

Third Word's the Charm

On election night, President Obama posted this tweet on his twitter feed:

"Four more years. pic.twitter.com/bAJE6Vom"


(Here's my source. You can also go there for more social media coverage)

It caught on like wildfire. It was favorited 240,000 times and retweeted over 700,000 times. Quite simply, its the most popular tweet of all time.

What's even more interesting is the timing: he posted it at 11:16pm, which is pretty early, even though most people agreed that he had won. There are many facets to this, but I will focus on one in particular: his use of three words.

Three words, no more, no less, are a staple of campaigns. Just look at the slogans of our past Presidents:

Lincoln: "Vote Yourself a Farm"
Harding: "Cox and Cocktails"
Eisenhower: "I Like Ike"
Nixon: "Nixon's the One"
Clinton: "Putting People First"
Bush: "Yes, America Can!"
Obama: "Yes We Can"

The power of three is palpable, even if most people don't even realize it. It's called the Rule of Three, and it's the idea that, basically, everything is better in threes. The basic feel of it is 1) the creation of tension, then 2) its buildup,  and 3) the release of that tension. It can be seen in many, many essays, and especially speeches. Even in music, the three movement form is extremely common in all kind of classical and popular music.

Just look at Muse's Exogenisis: Symphony, and you can clearly see this Rule of Three in action, not only in the music, but in the volume and lyrics.

"Four more years" works in the same way, although on a smaller scale. "Four" creates tension ('four what?'), "more" builds tension ('We're getting more of something...do we want more?'), and then "years" releases the tension, answering all of our split-second, unconscious curiosity.

All of the above slogans work in the same way. In my next post (the second of four, today) will talk about what more (or less) words can do to a slogan.

Nobama at the Debate 2012

Regardless of political affiliation, or political bias, the consensus seems to be that Romney won the first debate of 2012. This confounds me. Granted, I am a liberal (who will vote for Obama), but still, I just don't see it. Romney straight up lied, multiple times, said he was going to cut America's beloved Big Bird, and seemed to be on the defensive for a large portion of the debate. To me, he seemed flustered; sure, he was well prepared, but his execution seemed panicked. 

I could get into a huge discussion of how pointless debates are, but I'd instead like to talk about how I'm sure Obama and his aides knew this just as we do now. If they knew it, wouldn't they have prepared him for Romney, had him prepared to give a show? This cartoonist makes a different argument about what should happen: 

In the above cartoon, notice the almost blank faces of both Romney and Obama, almost making them look dumb, or even simple. Of course, there is also the common metaphor of the boxing match, as well as the red shorts of Romney and blue of Obama. 

Obama's trainer is telling him to stand back, because they were expecting Romney to go crazy. This idea really isn't that much of a bad one, in fact I would say that in the debate, Romney proved it to be true. What they (hopefully) now understand, is that people don't care if he says things that aren't completely true. I'm sure they knew that all people wanted to see was a show, like a NASCAR race. What has me confused, and what they didn't understand (what no one could have known), is that this time, the car that crashed was the winner. Maybe he convinced them that he cares more. Or maybe it was the fact that he showed his moderate side to all the people who haven't decided. 

Certainly, his strategy was effective, and he successfully changed his image. But does it really matter? See my previous post if you want to know what I'm talking about.

Forgetfulness

So for this class, I'm supposed to post at least one blog every single week...it's been a couple weeks since I posted on here, but I do believe there's a nifty little transition coming up into politics. Do you remember what was happening in the political world two weeks ago? I barely do. It was the whole fiasco over the Mother Jones video, the "47 percent."

And that's what I'm going to talk about today: the forgetfulness of the American Public. It doesn't matter how people feel now, for the most part. All that matters is how people feel about the candidates when the time for voting comes around. This 'iconosphere,' this entire world, filled with thousands and thousands of photos, videos, posters, etc.; it is constantly changing, preparing us or teaching us to think a certain way. Every one if them is an appeal, a plea, essentially, for votes.

Now, I wouldn't say that what happens today doesn't matter. It does, but only in the way that the first domino matters because of its connection to the last domino. This video prompts a response, which may even lead to something else. Even when they stop talking about it directly, that event will continue to have an effect on the 'image' which voter have of Romney, and it is something that he will either embrace or refute. And that action could be the one that defines his campaign, all the way up, and maybe even, on election day.

The Book's Cover

Many people have already seen this video of Romney remarking about how 47% of people are already behind Obama because they depend upon the government.

The above picture is from the New York Times. Its interesting because it presents him as if he is frantically defending himself from some impending disaster. They easily could have chosen some other photo (lord knows, Fox News probably did) but they didn't.

Just imagine these being at the top:

Allelujah

The above video, an Obama ad called "Gloria's Letter: 'Dear Mr. President'," is interesting because it never mentions Obama's name. She never says "Thank you President Obama." She says "Thank you Mr. President." This simple distinction makes quite a difference, because it presents Obama as the President, our President, and her story, thanking him, makes him seem so close and personal, as if he is just a phone call away. It doesn't show him as a candidate (someone who will help us) but as some one who has helped us, and someone who will continue to help us. In fact her letter is akin to a prayer of thnks to a God that cannot be seen, because not once do they show Obama's face.

Rack 'Em Up

This video from the Gregory Brothers and NY Times [http://nyti.ms/RXWjmw] depicts an idea that I'm sure almost all people have thought of before: that politics is just a game where politicians try to say the right things to set people on their side. What they actually think is irrelevant, even when they become President.

A huge part of this game is how they are represented visually. Whether its in a political cartoon....


...or in an offical photo...



...the images of them can be extremely helpful or damaging. And that's what we've been studying in the Visual Culture of Politics class, A-H 360.

Happy Wife, Happy Life

I know I said in my last post that I would talk about the Republican's trouble's in creating a new image, but for now I'll put that off, and focus on the success of the Democrats in creating Obama's image.

Today, I watched Michelle Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention, and I found it not only amazing (regardless of your political affiliation) but also intriguing. Towards the beginning of the speech, they hovered on an angle that isn't normally used (shown below) for 15 entire seconds. It's a view from behind, and it's important because she doesn't hold an elected political post, yet she still faces the nation.

She's a normal woman, a mom with two girls. And through her amazing speaking skills, her conversational yet eloquent style, they can not only convince the nation that Obama is an amiable and hard-working, loving husband, but also that Obama is normal. I wouldn't say that Obama is weird, in any sense of the word, but I think we can all agree he isn't normal--he's the president of the United States of America. Through the words of Michelle Obama, and her touching stories of his humble beginnings, Obama has friendliness about him, a sense of connection with the people, without even saying a word.

A Belated Bush Blog

[See the GOP Convention's photostream here.]

I had the idea for this particular blog about a week ago, but I've been so busy, traveling over the weekend and doing general school stuff that I forgot to actually write it up. The idea isn't necessarily too different or special, but I do find it quite interesting.

Napoleon Bonaparte created his own childhood and his own history through the use of paintings, making himself into what he needed to be in order to take control of France. I've been following the political movements of the Grand 'Ol Party for a while, and I've noticed that they're trying to do the same.

George W. Bush is an outcast among the Republicans, not because of anything he necessarily did or didn't do (though that is a factor), but more because of what he represents. During his time as President, he reached the highest approval rating ever, but he ended his Presidency at a very low level. He's untouchable because the Republicans want to rewrite the last 12 years.

The only picture of him on their Flickr is the one above, in celebration of his birthday. He isn't presented as a president, he's presented as a normal guy, whereas President Reagan is presented as a hero, still wearing a suit.



Even George's father, George H. W, Bush, is presented heroically.

Though they may be successfully erasing the past, it does seem that the new crop of Republican's are having trouble finding an image. (There's some food for thought). I find this topic very interesting, and I'll move into this second part of the issue in my next post.

What is 'politics', really?

In high school, I took a music theory course. It was my first time in class with the head band director, and he had all 30 of his students writ down what they thought the definition of music was. People had all kinds of different ideas about how to define it, and an interesting discussion ensued. Meanwhile, I stared at my (empty) notebook page. I, to this day, have no frickin' idea what music is. I and I'm going to play it to make a living.

Now, I've recently started this class called the Visual Culture of Politics, and I'm asked to define 'politics.' Its a little bit easier, I guess. But I still don't have a clue about where to start. I guess I'll go with the classic. Merriam-Webster defines it as "the art or science of government." But the connotation I'm familiar with is far different than the definition. Its more about the government officials (or wannabe-officials) than the government. Also, many people use the word 'political' to describe when people act for their own benefit, whether socially or professionally. 

I personally think that both connotations are just mutations of the true definition. Politics is anything having to do with people. If that sounds a little broad, then you understand that politics cannot truly defined as a whole.  Tuna isn't a political issue for me. But in 1986, tuna cans were a political instrument, and were boycotted to allow thousands of dolphins and their descendants to live.

The range of politics is based on the person, just like anything else. You might think that elections are politics for everyone, but that might not be true on the international scale. In the same way, we don't care about a monopoly in Guatemala, it doesn't affect us. Here's a political image that matters to me:

Dolphins? see http://www.eurocbc.org/page322.html