My fundamental belief about the current election is that change in the White House is so important, that once again we should support the Democratic nominee, no matter how egregiously he or she imitates the people that they are hoping to replace. Hillary Clinton's recent campaign approach has put my belief to the test.
The now famous "3:00am" ad is actually a piece of Republican propaganda. First and foremost, it postulates a problem: a nameless crisis that has disturbed your home and our country at 3:00am. Intended association: a looming foreign threat. It invites you to share the fear it wants to create. And then it puts forward a single individual, some sort of magician, who at 3:00am is going to save the day, presumably by some strong, confidant military action somewhere, anywhere, to overcome the nameless fear. The experience being referenced in the ad is the experience to be tough enough to attack, not the experience to accomplish. The entire subtext of the ad is, in my opinion, war-like.
The ad is also designed to create a fictional picture of an all powerful president who holds your personal fate in her hands twenty four hours a day. It is not an invitation to think or reflect on the question of Ms. Clinton's actual experience -- what it really is and what it really means. It is an invitation to descend into a fantasy terror world for which she is portrayed as the only "realistic" solution. Problem: the unknown. Solution: "Strong," " tough" Hillary Clinton.
Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan (for those of who us who remember the "bear in the woods" ad), George Bush (both) and John McCain would all be utterly comfortable with this ad. It is the opposite of what Franklin Roosevelt meant when he told the nation that "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
This ad is also a distraction from a discussion of the problem of the United States' over-reliance on the military, the problem with our continued involvement in a three trillion dollar war that will help to prevent passage of the social programs that Ms. Clinton claims are her priorities, and the problem of the erosion of our constitutional form of government.
Many in the pundit community who know better (and I guess I am trying to be a pundit here) will forgive or approve of the ad because they subscribe to a cynicism that postulates that anything that works is smart. Dan Abrams is on MSNBC saying that exact thing right now. Next we will hear: "Sure the Swift Boaters were creeps, but you really have to hand it to that Karl Rove...he knows what works" -- win at all costs and the ends justify the means.
My belief is that you can't be a progressive and resort to these kinds of right wing propaganda techniques. Bill Clinton's administration floundered much of the time because he was usually the electoral pragmatist, and seldom tried to truly lead the public on any issue that was too challenging. If this kind of television ad is what gets Ms. Clinton elected, we can count on more of the same from her administration in the military sphere, because she is exhibiting the same mindset as the people already in power. Having run on a parody of being a Republican president, if elected, she will find herself forced to govern that way.