Good Luck, Huck'

Greetings dear students! I am here to supply you with even more information about the infamous Mike Huckabee! We talked about him a little in class this week after your quiz: he is the former governor of Arkansas who is making a run at the Republican nomination for president. You all know that the Iowa caucus is coming up soon: January 3rd. I've provided a few things for you here. There is a short article from The Economist on Huckabee's chances in Iowa and beyond. The Economist is a British magazine, so it's perspective on American politics is usually interesting if only because the tone differs from American reporting. They are devoted advocates of the free market, but generally moderate in their other policy positions. Check the article out here. For even more Huckabee reporting, please read this piece from the NYTimes Magazine. It's a much longer profile with more personal details and history. The NYTimes Magazine has been writing profiles of nearly all of the presidential candidates as the campaign has gone on. I'll share the links to some others of them soon. And finally, I submit for your consideration, one of Mike Huckabee's television advertisements.

This ad plays on something of a US pop cultural phenomenon from last year: Chuck Norris jokes. It can be seen on one hand as a very clever move by Huckabee. Republicans can often be seen as too authoritative, militant, mean. Huckabee is working hard to develop an image that makes him seem humorous, easy-going, and likable. Very often, advertisements in campaigns can be negative (called "attack ads"). The effectiveness of these advertisements is often debated. Sometimes an attack ad can expose (or create) a weakness in an opposing candidate; sometimes it makes the candidate who sponsors it seem overly aggressive. The most notorious recent example of an attack ad comes from the 2004 presidential election, when Swift Boat Veterans for Truth released a series of television advertisements that sharply criticized Democratic candidate John Kerry. They questioned his military service and patriotism and accused him of being a liar. Kerry fought against the ads, but the damage was done. President Bush and the Bush campaign refused to condemn the ads. Here is one such advertisement:


The Swift Boat scandal was an ugly situation all around, but it ultimately worked to President Bush's advantage. Doubt was cast upon Kerry's military record. You can learn more about it here.

One of the stunning aspects of the whole situation was that, for many people, Bush emerged looking like the candidate with more military credibility. Bush was in the Texas National Guard for a short time as a young man. His military record has also been a source of controversy.

One important thing to recognize in these scenarios is that patriotism and a military background are two qualities that are very important to American voters. Candidates have to work hard to show that they are patriotic, that they are up to the challenge of acting as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and that they will not be too "soft" in their foreign policy. This is usually more of a challenge for Democrats than for Republicans, because Democrats are more often seen as "doves," that is, people reluctant to go to war, more prone to use diplomatic solutions to international problems and in favor of a more limited military budget. Republicans, on the other hand, have a reputation for being "hawks" - advocates of war who push for a very strong military with a worldwide presence and a large budget.

I think that's enough for one post! There is more to come!

on the attack,

Eric

(nota bene: several of these links are to articles on Wikipedia. Especially in the case of controversial topics, Wikipedia is a good place to start, but it is not the only place you should look for information. Follow the links at the bottom of the wiki entries and don't hesitate to do some google searching as well to get other perspectives on the issues.)