Listening to the documentary "Tricky Dick" (silly title, but good film) I came to the part where they say the anti-war protests at the Democrats' nominating convention helped Nixon's support with voters.
Now, why was that?
It's weird.
One tries to see how one phenomenon caused the other, and where the puzzle pieces fit together.
The Democrats couldn't be blamed for the (peaceful) demonstrations outside the convention hall. The candidates and organizers of the event did not invite people to come and protest the war. Those (mostly young) people did that on their own.
If I were walking by, at the time, and I saw people protesting America's involvement in the Vietnam War, I wouldn't say, "Oh, there are people protesting; guess I have to vote against whomever is in that convention hall."
Like - what?
But it's kind of like what Nixon did with the Checkers speech in 1952 - he changed the narrative - it went from slush fund to the family dog, and it appears there was no follow-up on the big-money group that had allegedly been giving money to then-Senator Nixon.
When Nixon visited Chicago the week after the convention and the protests outside, he starts speaking heatedly about "law and order" and - like with the dog speech - he changes the narrative.
He says "a picture" of Chicago and its people went "out across this nation" and it was an ugly picture, and it wasn't a true picture.
(Well, not really - no one said or thought that protesters were Chicago citizens, the news reports said they were people who came in to visit the convention and express their anti-war sentiments where the Democratic candidates would hear them.
But Nixon made it sound like the people of Chicago were somehow being maligned. Sometimes telling people they're being victimized, in some way, gets their attention and brings their support.)
"They want a change in America, and they're gonna get it...!"
Like - what kind of change? No more protesting?
The right to protest is in the Constitution (First Amendment).
To me, it seems like what Nixon was doing in that speech was departing from factual narrative of events of the previous week, and instead, in a subtle way he's hinting at, and appealing to, people who recoil at the sight of large groups demonstrating, even though it's peaceful.
"A change in America" - but he doesn't say what change.
His address leaves it up to every individual's imagination to fill in the blank as to what the change will be.
It seems like an appeal to people who don't like -
protests
protesters
"hippies"
kids
college students
big crowds
Democrats
politicians in general
---------- and you-name-it.
It's generalized language, delivered with dramatic emphasis; it encourages in the audience - enthusiasm, even if they don't know for what, specifically. ...
I think a lot of politicians have used this tactic.
Some commentators call it a "dog-whistle."
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment