CalgaryLiberal

Archive for the ‘Words’ Category

Update: The youtube video has just touched 200,000 hits. Err, it has gone viral. I’d like to think I helped it (I wrote this comment up last night when it was at 5,000 views) but, err, this video/ad did it all by its lonesome.

I disagree with Mr. Dale Peterson of Alabama on most, if not all, of his policies but there is one thing we can say: this is a good ad.

First of all, there is a core understanding that needs to be understood in terms of communication and argument creation. All ads can be broken down into three pieces: ethos, pathos, and logos.

Ethos is the society/base to which a person formulates an argument from. This would be like positions held, like priest or war veteran, to establish credibility and am ethical, supportive basis.

Pathos is the line of argumentation that pulls at the emotional strings of an audience.

Logos is logic, with reasoning and thought placed in such a manner to convince a viewer to side with the presenter.

This ad by Peterson showcases this trifecta in spades.

The Scene: Note the scenery that it begins in. It’s blue sky farm country, and he’s on a horse. He has a cowboy hat. He is no bullsh*t. And he gets right to the point: he wants your support to run, and this is done in the first 5 seconds into the ad. Bam–ethos and pathos in the first five seconds.

He then establishes ethos vis-a-vis his jobs that he has held–war veteran, cop, farmer, and businessman, etcetera–showcasing his smarts and ability. Logos and pathos right here.

Going along with this trend of setting himself up as a respectful, blunt guy, he hits his nameless opponents.

Watch the split here: it is both a positive, intellectually pushy, quick, and negative ad. It does everything in one go, and at the end you get the feeling of being overwhelmed. However, after watching it a third and fourth time (which is likely in the TV-centric world of the Americans south of the border) this overwhelmed feeling will likely lead to a familiarity and eventually an appreciation of this politician.

He then hits the issues, which a forefront to current American politics: immigration and the economy. And then he returns to how he can solve it, followed by how his opponents are corrupt (and bragging about it on facebook).

Amazingly, he turns his position he is running for (something that I had never heard of before his ad) into an argument against his opponents. That’s creative and another draw of the piece of ad work.

And it concluded with calling his opponent a “dummy”, which is classy in a sort of old fashioned way. It will appeal to the GOP base (which he is aiming for in the primary he’s in) and likely be a solid continuing theme from now until election day in November.

But then he wraps it up by emphasising three points: (1) silently showcasing his support of gun owners, (2) calling upon Tea Partier to vote for him along with other stakeholders in the GOP through including the constitution not once but three times during the entirety of the ad, and (3) then saying that Republicans should be “better than that”. It’s a call to arms to be better, to vote better, and expect better, while at the same time establishing a core principle and understanding of both him and his electorate.

Peterson has values, commitment, a bluntness that can be appreciated by his electorate, and several visual cues setting his viewpoints quickly/effectively for his audience. For a minute and 11 seconds this is a fabulous ad and, even though it can be viewed as a tad bit corny, it will likely proof effective.

As a side note, the ad also has this quick choppiness about it. It is fast, forces attention on him, and grabs one into his arguments. This is useful to gathering the attention of the voter for the first time (although it is a small bit disorienting) and making his points over and over again simplified/quick.

Link to a transcript of Swann’s Speech

Just a sidenote: this is a speech delivered to Liberals and not the general public. This means that the deliverance of the speech is monumentally different than how it would have been expressed to a more general audience. For one, I don’t think regular Albertans, educated or not, care much for Latin.

Who else is talking?

Bowie - “One attendee went so far as to claim it was the best political speech in Alberta since Decore’s time which is high praise indeed.”

Words have the amazing power to make mankind feel emotions not present before those words were uttered. Words have the ability to shift and change emotion, people, and the very existence, or at least the perception of it, for mankind. They’re powerful. They’re almost magical, one could say.

And words have recognized meanings.

The “long gun registry” being one phrase that is very much laden with emotion. It’s the billion dollar boon-dongle, skewerer of farmer’s rights, and a perfect example of Liberal corruption/waste.

But what about “limited gun control”?

Firstly, the name switch is obvious because that’s what it is now. Ignatieff and the Liberal Party of Canada have proposed a different mechanism for the registry: making it a ticketed offence and not a crime for not registering your gun as but one example. A different word is needed to describe a different thing.

Secondly, Albertans like limited government. Being limited means it has a limited goal, limited means, and limited in its mandate. While this point is tied to the first one, whereas the current registry is different than what it was before, it highlights something completely new: a inroad to rural Alberta and limited-government seekers.

Thirdly, I tested it out. I went onto www.reddit.com to their Canadian section and made a poll. 400 people participated. While the comments section was a fitful mess of people decrying the long gun registry and registries in general the poll was written in a way that said “limited gun control”. While the gun registry people were peeved at a majority of those who took the poll entered that they were fine with limited gun control. With 404 user voting 79% were in favour of limited gun control and 24% against.

Although the website trends young (18-25) and favours centre-left positioned people, this is something substantial. Different words created a different reaction, and the test proved it.

So in conclusion, when you’re debating with your neighbour or knocking on someone’s door come election time ask about limited gun control and not the gun registry. It works. (Or should mostly work.)