Politics and the “Hero-Victim”
MichaelW on Jan 22 2008 at 11:18 am | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Election 2008, Media, MichaelW's Page
Remarking on how the media narrative tends to frame stories, I once wrote:
An interesting side effect of this framework is the emergence of the hero-victim — e.g. a martyr for her cause, or the modern equivalent of a noble savage who speaks truth to power. No longer are there heroes who save lives and attempt mind-boggling acts of bravery. Nowadays the best way to be deemed a hero by the media is to die as the arguable result of someone else’s folly. Historically we have moved from hero-warriors, to hero-philosophers, to hero-workers, to hero-victims.
In following the Election 2008 race for each party’s nomination, one can’t help but notice that Democrats play the role of hero-victim ruthlessly. Primarily this means employing identity politics as both a shield and a sword, and playing up one’s victim status in order to lampoon one’s opponents.
So, Hillary presents herself in role of the gender-victim, and Obama as the race-victim. When the rough-and-tumble of a political race gets too tough, then the shield/sword comes out and Hillary (or surrogates) complains that everyone’s ganging up on the girl. Similarly, Obama’s campaign hints at racism when it seems useful, such as when Hillary commented on the Civil Rights movement.
Regarding that last example, Greg Gut (in his typically irreverent way) chides Obama for being too thin-skinned, and considers how the media would deal with a hero-victim as President:
A great leader needs to take his lumps. But as long as you have grievance groupies like Al Sharpton accusing squirrels and end tables of racism, then the opposition is silenced. There’s nothing worse than being called a racist - being called a pedophile a close second - so rather than say Obama’s policies are as loony as a bag of frog spit, you smile politely. If you’re a reporter, anyway. For the press is always paranoid that interest groups will come after them - so they cower behind softball questions and shameless brown-nosing.
It is an interesting question as to how the media will handle an Obama presidency. While I’m sure that Hillary would receive softer coverage than Bush (or any other Republican), in some ways her hero-victim status is counter-balanced by her tendency to be shrill and divisive. Obama, on the other hand, is smooth and calming.
Hillary nearly shrieked [during last night's debate] when she said “I am not running for president to put bandaids on our problems! I want UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE!”
Shrill, braying, and grating. At least Obama sounds reassuring, even if his policies aren’t.
This may be irrational, but if I am going to have to endure socialism, can’t I at least get it with a more calming and soothing voice?
As the Democratic primary grinds on the hero-victim cards will continue to be played with reckless abandon. Whomever is left standing when the dust settles will play that card against his or her Republican challenger as well, only with decidedly more effectiveness. After all, the Republican challenger will have no media approved hero-victim status behind which to hide — John McCain comes closest as a veteran and former POW, but we all know how the media feels about veterans.
And if the Democratic challenger wins the general election, you really have to wonder how a media so beholden to its narrative will deal with criticism of a President Hero-Victim. Well, not wonder so much as brace yourself for the media’s imminent spinning and fact twisting in order to preserve it’s narrative. The best we can hope for, I’m afraid, is that the narrative irrevocably falls apart, and the media adopts a new one featuring a new type of hero.
I hear some bloggers named Michael are available.
Sphere: Related Content
