Political Asylum — September 5, 2012, 2:06 pm

Michelle Obama and the DeGeneres Vote

For the last four years, it has been painful watching Democrats struggle to coordinate a single message amid the millions of tiny medialets misting around us. Typically, watching a Democrat on television is like seeing a small child on rollerskates wobble along until an inevitable and ugly face plant. Last night, though, Democrats schooled Republicans on how the accumulating speeches of speakers both soft and hard can create an overarching narrative at a convention. Former Ohio governor Ted Strickland showed current New Jersey governor Chris Christie how you strip the bark off your candidate’s opponent: “If Mitt was Santa Claus, he’d fire the reindeer and outsource the elves.” Strickland had a bit of the happy warrior about him. He’d chuckle when he got off one of his zingers, as if to say, I have another one coming. And inevitably he did: “Even his money needs a passport,” he said. “It summers on the beaches of the Cayman Islands and winters on the slopes of the Swiss Alps.”

Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick’s speech was a textbook case of public oratorical structure. He opened by dinging Romney on business: “By the time he left office, Massachusetts was forty-seventh in the nation in job creation.” Then he pivoted into a refutation of the Republican line of “we built this” with a central riff on how public investment pays off. That could easily have faded into stem-winding wonkery. But Patrick whipped it along until bringing the moment down a bit, slowly and sorrowfully describing one of the worst elementary schools in Boston: “Its record was poor, its spirit was broken, and its reputation was a wreck.” He mournfully noted that the opposition was saying that those kids were “on their own to deal with their poverty.” Even though “among them are the future scientists, entrepreneurs, teachers, artists, engineers, laborers, and civic leaders,” we as a society won’t gain the benefits of those potential taxpayers unless we invest in schools and buildings. Then he throttled back up for the closer. “For this country to rise, they must rise,” he told a screaming crowd.

The evening culminated in Michelle Obama’s talk. It was masterful on many levels. The wild praise by liberal pundits is to be expected. E. J. Dionne: “a big hit.” The evidence that it flew rhetorically above anything we’d heard in either Tampa or Charlotte was evident in conservative pundits’ reactions immediately afterward. Karl Rove begrudgingly admitted the speech was “very well delivered,” and columnist Jonah Goldberg, after a few paragraphs of buts, finally had to agree: “All of that said, I thought as a political speech it was excellent and did nearly everything she needed it to do. She was more comfortable and convincingly passionate than Ann Romney.” Probably the most telling review was from Wolf Blitzer, whose tedious beard and even-handedness can dampen any moment. And yet, “The first lady not hitting a home run, but probably a grand slam.”

Thematically, she pulled off something rare. She managed to weave together a love of country with the love of her children and her man. Especially with the latter, there’s always the danger of getting goopy and putting off the audience. She layered those confessional moments with humor: “We were so young, so in love, and so in debt.” Sure, she managed to make the case for her husband, but that was almost the least of it. If the Republicans say they want “our America back,” Michelle Obama was content to describe an America to come. She slyly incorporated gay Americans seamlessly into the various melting pot metaphors that typically dot the speeches of both parties: “No matter who we are, or where we’re from, or what we look like, or who we love.” And at the end: “If proud Americans can be who they are and boldly stand at the altar with who they love, then surely, surely we can give everyone in this country a fair chance at that great American Dream.”

She wrapped up her speech with the phrase “mom-in-chief”—linking every anecdote she’d just told and every virtue she’d just extolled with the key voter that Democrats have been chasing these last few months. Call it the Ellen DeGeneres vote. The independent women’s vote. It’s a sensitive voting segment—one that gets distressed by name-calling and gay-bashing. Romney has been courting them with solid rock-ribbed Republican issues, and he’s right about this: women in the DeGeneres demo may very well not like deficit spending or terrifying national debt. But they also appear more likely to be moved by the social issues on which the Republicans have moved far to the right. A recent poll in Virginia and Ohio—two battleground states—reveal that 55 and 56 percent of women there say they disagree with the Republican Party’s position forcing victims of rape and incest to carry the pregnancy to term. Last year, a conservative group called for a boycott of J.C. Penney after the chain named comfortably-out lesbian Ellen DeGeneres as their spokesperson and watched it fizzle. This was around the same time as Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke, who had publicly made the case for including birth control in health care insurance, a slut and then watched scores of his advertisers walk away forever. (Just yesterday, Sears dropped out to become, by one count, the forty-fourth advertiser to flee Limbaugh.)

This segment of the vote is one of three key demographics the parties are courting in battleground states—the others being the Latino vote and the youth vote. The brilliant speech by Marco Rubio in Tampa, the selection of Paul Ryan as the vice-presidential nominee, and Ann Romney’s graceful speech revealed that Romney intended to fight for each demographic head on. After last night, there may be only two demographics left to fight for.

Share
Single Page
undefined

More from Jack Hitt:

Political Asylum November 6, 2012, 2:01 pm

The Electoral Battle Between Corporationism and Empiricism

Obama’s data-driven approach may decide today’s race—and determine the future of the G.O.P.

Political Asylum September 25, 2012, 3:18 pm

Wall Street Places Its Election Bets

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2018

The Minds of Others

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Modern Despots

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Before the Deluge

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Notes to Self

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Within Reach

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Bodies in The Forest

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Minds of Others·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Progress is impossible without change,” George Bernard Shaw wrote in 1944, “and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” But progress through persuasion has never seemed harder to achieve. Political segregation has made many Americans inaccessible, even unimaginable, to those on the other side of the partisan divide. On the rare occasions when we do come face-to-face, it is not clear what we could say to change each other’s minds or reach a worthwhile compromise. Psychological research has shown that humans often fail to process facts that conflict with our preexisting worldviews. The stakes are simply too high: our self-worth and identity are entangled with our beliefs — and with those who share them. The weakness of logic as a tool of persuasion, combined with the urgency of the political moment, can be paralyzing.

Yet we know that people do change their minds. We are constantly molded by our environment and our culture, by the events of the world, by the gossip we hear and the books we read. In the essays that follow, seven writers explore the ways that persuasion operates in our lives, from the intimate to the far-reaching. Some consider the ethics and mechanics of persuasion itself — in religion, politics, and foreign policy — and others turn their attention to the channels through which it acts, such as music, protest, and technology. How, they ask, can we persuade others to join our cause or see things the way we do? And when it comes to our own openness to change, how do we decide when to compromise and when to resist?

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Within Reach·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On a balmy day last spring, Connor Chase sat on a red couch in the waiting room of a medical clinic in Columbus, Ohio, and watched the traffic on the street. His bleached-blond hair fell into his eyes as he scrolled through his phone to distract himself. Waiting to see Mimi Rivard, a nurse practitioner, was making Chase nervous: it would be the first time he would tell a medical professional that he was transgender.

By the time he arrived at the Equitas Health clinic, Chase was eighteen, and had long since come to dread doctors and hospitals. As a child, he’d had asthma, migraines, two surgeries for a tumor that had caused deafness in one ear, and gangrene from an infected bug bite. Doctors had always assumed he was a girl. After puberty, Chase said, he avoided looking in the mirror because his chest and hips “didn’t feel like my body.” He liked it when strangers saw him as male, but his voice was high-pitched, so he rarely spoke in public. Then, when Chase was fourteen, he watched a video on YouTube in which a twentysomething trans man described taking testosterone to lower his voice and appear more masculine. Suddenly, Chase had an explanation for how he felt — and what he wanted.

Illustration by Taylor Callery
Article
Before the Deluge·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the summer of 2016, when Congress installed a financial control board to address Puerto Rico’s crippling debt, I traveled to San Juan, the capital. The island owed some $120 billion, and Wall Street was demanding action. On the news, President Obama announced his appointments to the Junta de Supervisión y Administración Financiera. “The task ahead for Puerto Rico is not an easy one,” he said. “But I am confident Puerto Rico is up to the challenge of stabilizing the fiscal situation, restoring growth, and building a better future for all Puerto Ricans.” Among locals, however, the control board was widely viewed as a transparent effort to satisfy mainland creditors — just the latest tool of colonialist plundering that went back generations.

Photograph from Puerto Rico by Christopher Gregory
Article
Monumental Error·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1899, the art critic Layton Crippen complained in the New York Times that private donors and committees had been permitted to run amok, erecting all across the city a large number of “painfully ugly monuments.” The very worst statues had been dumped in Central Park. “The sculptures go as far toward spoiling the Park as it is possible to spoil it,” he wrote. Even worse, he lamented, no organization had “power of removal” to correct the damage that was being done.

Illustration by Steve Brodner
Post
CamperForce·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

After losing their savings in the stock market crash of 2008, seniors Barb and Chuck find seasonal employment at Amazon fulfillment centers.

Amount Arizona’s Red Feather Lodge offered to pay to reopen the Grand Canyon during the 2013 government shutdown:

$25,000

A Brazilian cat gave birth to a dog.

Trump’s former chief strategist, whom Trump said had “lost his mind,” issued a statement saying that Trump’s son did not commit treason; the US ambassador to the United Nations announced that “no one questions” Trump’s mental stability; and the director of the CIA said that Trump, who requested “killer graphics” in his intelligence briefings, is able to read.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today