The image found above is a cartoon-like depiction of what a Trump Presidency would look like. It does so in a manner that also shows the Americans that it excludes. The top portion of the image is used to show what Donald Trump has stated are his most important objectives and what the real meanings behind them are. The Trump Towers represent Donald Trump’s conflict of interest with his various businesses. As president, Donald Trump could use his power to favor his businesses in many situations. Next you find the image of an airplane which signifies the mass deportations that Donald Trump has promised to occur throughout his presidency. Attached to the airplane you find a large banner that states another radical policy of his: to ban all Muslims. If not that, he would like to create a registry of all Muslims inside the United States in order to “watch” carefully who is coming in and out of the country. This idea in some ways calls into mind the Holocaust, where thousands of Jews were forced to register with their government and ultimately live in concentration camps. Following the airplane, we have a factory which is polluting excessively. The factory itself holds many significances. First, it is a representation of Donald Trump’s idea to bring back jobs to America by forcing companies to create their products here, in the U.S, as opposed to underdeveloped countries like India, and China. With that comes Trump’s belief that global warming and climate change does not exist but rather is a mere “hoax by the Chinese”. Next to the Trump Towers, is a small but important billboard which is symbolic of the hate crimes that have spiked since Donald Trump was elected President. It represents the idea that racism is thought to be acceptable now because, of the racism and bigotry Donald Trump sustained throughout his Presidential campaign.
Next we have the famous wall, which consumes the center portion of the picture and is meant to show the huge division in America. Not only is it a reference to Trump’s urgency to build a wall in order to keep out Mexicans, and illegal immigrants who he believes are “rapists and criminals”, but also to demonstrate the exclusion of all other people he has insulted throughout his campaign. These people are represented below or outside the wall as if they were/are not a necessary and vital part of America.
Campaign Ad Analysis
Clintons ad ‘Role Model’
Hillary Clinton’s campaign ad titled “Role Models”, sponsored by Hillary for America aired on July 7, 2016 in Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire, Iowa, Florida, Nevada, Arizona and North Carolina. The controversial ad depicts Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as the two presidential candidates vying for the presidency. The campaign ad first aired before either Trump or Clinton received their official nomination from their respective parties. The ad focuses on Trump as a bad role model for kids. The ad features innocent children watching TV clips of Trumps outrageous, demeaning, offensive and what we call incorrect political speech. The ads narrative is masterfully created through the eyes and ears of children.
The “Role Models” is a 60 second ad that shows Trump in negative light. Trumps own statements are used against him. Clinton emerges at the end of the ad to show her as an obvious moral choice. The ad has four main objectives and each claim makes use of universal appeals to the American public by using uniting language as “our” and “we”.
Firstly, the ad wants to make a point that “our children” are watching the example “we” set for them. As the ad title “Role Models” implies that children look up to their elders as part of their learning in growing up and they are also responsible for keeping them safe. Evidence of Trump as an inappropriate candidate comes from several footages in the ad. Specifically, when Trump makes fun of news reporter with a disability in one clip. He acts and makes fun of him saying, “You got to see this guy, I don’t know what I said. Agh I don’t remember”. His message was certainly not acceptable and was supposed to be condemned by the most American population if not all. The clear purpose was to highlight that is this the example we want to set for our children that when they grow up they could mock people especially the ones with the disability and those children with the disability could know that this is how they would be treated in future.
Secondly, the ad questions Trump’s moral character. It was clearly to show that a person who could stand in public and not abide by the social rules and instead who could use the support he has to commit wrongdoings. The ad features Trump saying, “I could stand in the middle of the Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK? It’s like incredible.” By this statement, he not only any dismisses the norms required for an American president but also disregards the laws the designed to keep Americans safe.
Thirdly, the ad reflects on the guiding principles of Trump. The logic in the ad suggested that Trump will disgrace the principals governing society if he becomes president. Indicating the way Trump mock disable people, promotes violence, ableism, and sexism. It was evident from his statement, “You know you could there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her whatever” the way he treats woman too.
Finally, Clinton uses an emotional appeal after presenting the whole picture that would “our children” be proud of us if we elect Trump. She says, “Our children and grandchildren would look back at this time, at the choices we are about to make, the goals we will strive for, the principals we will live by.” Clinton makes viewers question themselves that how will history look back at this time and see the choices we made, referring that it would be our children who would judge our social choices in future. Indirectly, introducing herself as the right option.
Looking at the visual components of the ad, the ad begins with a soft piano music with camera focusing on a house in fields. It’s the time of sunset and dim light is coming out of the window of the house. Sunset showing that people are back from work and watching TV as a way of relaxation. The screen then transitions to a several houses in a neighborhood and it’s also the time of sunset and we can see the lights from the windows of the houses. From the soft piano music, we hear Trumps voice in background saying, “I love the old days. Do you know what they do to guys like that whenever they were in a place like this? They would be carried out on a stricter folks”. While during the Trumps statement the camera focuses on two children from behind watching TV in dark with their heads close together showing that they were afraid. Then the camera focuses on a child. A child whose innocence was reflecting from his face and was afraid.
This was just the beginning of the ad, Trumps own comments were used against him throughout the ad. Several more innocent faces were shown and then we hear Trump speaking in a rally in New Hampshire, “And you can tell them to go fuck yourself.” While Donald Trump makes this statement, the screen transitions to two small young boys who are watching Trumps say this from lying on a bed. The ad then takes the viewers to a child shown from behind in dark watching Trump say in a rally, “I could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters. That’s like incredible.” The ad then moves on to focus on a small innocent Latino girl in dark while she hears Trump saying, “When Mexico send its people. They are bringing drugs. They are are bringing crime. They are rapists.” On the other hand, the ad shows a child is shown covering himself in blanket, showing that how afraid he is. Clinton by showing the innocent Latino girl clearly showed the reflection of Trumps offensive statements on the innocent Latino people.
Trumps demeaning statements didn’t end till the very end of the ad. The ad then further transitions to focus on another child who hears Trump saying, “You know you could there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her whatever.” The screen transitions to a little girl and a boy lying on a carpet and have food in there mouths and listening to Trumps statement on TV. Then we see Trump live on TV mocking a reporter with disability. He is acting and making fun of him and saying, “You got to see this guy, I don’t know what I said. Agh I don’t remember.” The screen transitioning back to the two innocent children watching him in the dark. His facing disappearing into a black screen and the soft piano music still in the background we see a text on screen, “Our children are watching” and then it disappears and another text id displayed saying, “What example will we set for them?”
While the purpose of the ad was to prove that Trump is not fit to be the president and Clinton would be the better choice but more importantly the ad warns parents to protect their children from listening to Trumps messages. The powerful ad “Role Models” leaves a morality question for the audience to decide that who do they want to pick for the next president.
Shibley, Robert. “Vindictive Protectiveness on Campus.” Society 53.4 (2016): 375-82. Web. Kimball, Roger. “Political correctness or, the perils of benevolence.” The National Interest 74 (2003): 158+. Biography in Context. Web. 24 Oct. 2016. http://link.springer.com.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/article/10.1007/s12115-016-0031-7
In this article, the author talks about a trend he finds particularly troubling on US campuses, namely the quest to silence all those who disagree. He begins by recounting the history of pc activism in campus culture and then narrows in on the current issues by using a somewhat modern example to highlight the issue. He uses the example of a Jewish student who referred to a particularly raucous all black fraternity as a herd of water buffalos. He discusses the legal case surrounding this incident and the political and ideological implications inherent in the practice that lead to this becoming a case in the first place. Concluding that the trend towards labeling certain words and behavior as physically or mentally damaging is nothing more than trying to pass off rampant speech regulation under the guise of addressing medical need.
Kimball, Roger. “Political correctness or, the perils of benevolence.” The National Interest, no. 74, 2003, p. 158+. Academic OneFile, remote.baruch.cuny.edu/login?url=http://go.galegroup.com.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=cuny_baruch&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA112411733&asid=e64376700eb9e02deb2df6f7f6920526. Accessed 16 Dec. 2016.
In this article, the author takes a rather alarmist position on political correctness, defining it as an encroaching danger that we are told to neglect by its proponents. He claims that pc, defining it as a string of reactionary bouts of hysterics directed at conservative positions, started as something of joke used to describe detached idealistic academics up in their ivory towers preaching to the rest of us. He believes pc to be about nothing more than a totalitarian need for conformity. It is a position which seeks to bring everyone under the same umbrella by simply labeling its position as one of virtue. In the end he sees it as an attempt to legislate morality and stifle individuality, and such must be rejected where found. This source serves to provide a through of the current ideas that define the era of backlash against political that we currently find ourselves in.
Hoover, Judith D., and Howard, Leigh Anne. “The Political Correctness Controversy Revisited.” American Behavioral Scientist 38.7 (1995): 963-75. Web. http://onesearch.cuny.edu/bb:everything:TN_ericEJ520813
The authors in this article argue that certain ideas of pc are antithetical to certain important principles of modern education. They argue that a heightened emphasis on the exclusion of contrary ideas and points of view that may be offensive to some, runs counter to the principle of inclusion that ought to be at the center of education. By not allowing students to immerse themselves in a diversity of ideas and points of view, we limit their learning potential and ultimately harm our stated goals of social development rather than further them.
Western, Simon. “Political Correctness and Political Incorrectness: A Psychoanalytic Study of New Authoritarians.” Organisational and Social Dynamics 16.1 (2016): 68-84,177-178. Web. http://www.pep-web.org.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/document.php?id=opus.016.0068a
In this article Dr.Simon explores the traditional association between certain authoritarian policies and ideas with the two major “tribes”, as he dubs them, those concerned with political correctness on the left and those who proudly carry the mantle of political incorrectness on the right. He suggests that although the right is traditionally thought of us responding with increasingly authoritarian policies in times of social, political or economic upheaval, currently we can observe a similar trend on the part of the left as well. Looking at the issue in context of current ideas surrounding political correctness/incorrectness, the author explores current leftist responses to the rise in right wing authoritarianism, in the form of increased nationalist, and its connection to those same authoritarian ideals found on the right. Ultimately attempting to link the two “tribes” ideologically and in terms of their methods for social reform.