18

Elizabeth is an MA student in Sustainability from Raleigh, NC

The 2020 “law and order” advertising debate revolves around definition, most notably definitions of strength. Who defines, or redefines, and which narrative receives prioritization. Can arguments of a subjective idea like “strength” be relied upon to capture the vote of Americans when the cry of “fake news” increases doubt and confusion. Can our political institutions, and those connected with them, invoke the necessary integrity and “strength” to govern? Moreover, with the advent of social media, traditional framing in political advertising and campaign narratives are often edited on an individual level, released into the world with little input from critical eyes. This ability to sway populations through a single edit invites questions of what can be believed. If national narratives can be influenced on a citizen-by-citizen basis, where does national stability reside?

Voters, historically, look to symbols of traditional institutions for stability, including the presidential elections. The president becomes a figurehead to follow in times of need, as with. FDR’s 20th century example. More recently, in the aftermath of the attacks on American civilians on September 11, 2001, George W. Bush, quickly became the instrument for American’s understanding of “strength” in unprecedented times. The subjective trait of strength was associated to both presidents, often translating into traits of wisdom and leadership. Reliance on subjective traits such as “strength” (or “unity”) have historically succeeded. Yet, given the instability infused into our recent national narrative, namely the Trump administration’s determined volatility, it could be argued that past contexts are an insufficient compass for examining 2020’s presidential campaign.

101 ads produced for both traditional media and social media platforms between June and November 2020 were examined. This ad set effectively framed a prime issue, specifically “strength” through the repeated renditions of “law and order” themes. Both Biden’s and Trump’s campaigns defined “law and order” by their perceived source of power.

The Republican Party, following the lead of President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Pence, builds a narrative of trust in existing institutions that serve Trump’s link to power, such as law enforcement on the ground at 2020’s Black Lives Matter protests. Ads that support the Republican party and the Trump campaign, frame their narrative as trust in established political institutions and familiar national symbols, especially the institution of law enforcement.

The Democratic Party, as the party of President-Elect Joe Biden and Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris, builds a narrative of trust in American communities. Their definition of communities largely encompasses the nation, piecing it together through local testimonies, but also apart through who comprises the legitimate community. Attack ads from the Biden campaign and its supporting PACs, exclude American white supremacists from this American community. By excluding them, American white supremacists are used as attacks against Trump, linking them to Trump’s rhetoric. Trump is linked to white supremacists, most frequently The Proud Boys (Presidential Debate, 29 Sept. 2020). Connecting Trump to white supremacists, the Biden campaign marks them as an opposing community, ostracized from the American nation yet tied to Trump, separating Trump from the unified American nation Biden envisions in his campaign advertising.

Biden’s campaign excludes militant, violent protesters from their envisioned American community as well as prohibiting white supremacists linked to Trump, such as The Proud Boys. In a direct address crafted as a response to his critics (mainly Trump), Biden condemns protesters who have escalated protests to the point that they destroy private property. The protection of private property is deemed a foundation of “law and order” and protecting the stability of what is framed as an American nation in crisis. This narrative connecting private property to the foundation of “law and order” at times confuses itself by agreeing with Trump’s campaign narrative that also connects the protection of private property to the foundation of “law and order.” In the Biden campaign’s Be Not Afraid direct-address ad, President-Elect Joe Biden makes “clear” that “rioting is not protesting, looting is not protesting, it’s lawlessness plain and simple” (2020).

Figure 2: Common Images

Biden’s narration in this ad plays over images of burned-out cars with a bright yellow “Police Line Do Not Cross” tape stretched across the foreground, a firefighter carrying a fire hose and a civilian with a skateboard walking past burned-out buildings. Biden then connects Trump to “forment[ing]” his supporters to act as an “armed militia in this country…show[ing] how weak he is” in leading America. In Biden’s definition, militant and violent protesters, are those who actively choose to forfeit legal rights by acting outside of “law and order.” Yet Biden also characterizes protesters as an integral part of community. This confusion links the Biden campaign narrative to that of the Trump campaign, both intentionally as an attack on Trump, but also with Trump’s own narrative of private property destruction Trump claims are caused by protests.

The American First Action PAC (pro-Trump) produced a one-minute, direct address testimonial ad featuring a white, female small-business owner based in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Kimberly (2020). The PAC’s ad identifies the events happening in Kenosha (through the testimony of Kimberly) as “riots,” and uses security footage to link the “riots” to destruction of private property by showing graffiti being placed on windows, and an attempted break-in. To define their envisioned American community, the Trump campaign excludes most, though not all, participants of 2020’s numerous protests, by linking such protests to the destruction of private property and threatening small-business enterprise. The Trump campaign’s exclusion targets the protests participants who were calling for acknowledgement of systemic racism and police reform. Trump’s campaign highlights these protesters as opposing “law and order” by their rejecting the symbols of traditional law enforcement, police and the national Guard. Trump’s focused support of law enforcement and fear-driven dramatizations of an America with a defunded police force, frames protesters as threats, and dangerous. Trump’s campaign links protesters to Biden, and perhaps like Biden as having forfeited their legal rights by breaking the social contract, even engaging in criminal activity against their neighbors. Visually these arguments witness wrongdoers breaking into neighbor’s homes or looting and destroying storefronts. Trump’s campaign narrative conflates “peaceful protesters” as criminals, and links them to soundbites from Biden, Harris, and other Democratic leader’s approval, especially Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. In a dramatic spot President Trump Will Uphold the Law (2020), framed by flames and anarchy, the voiceover repeats large-screen text, “While America’s cities burned, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris FANNED THE FLAMES. Supporting bail funds to help let rioters, looters and, dangerous criminals out of jail.”

These attack ads frame the 2020 protests, and most importantly Biden and Democratic allies, as the source of these criminal activities, through actively encouraging protesters to outright negligence of traditional “law and order” institutions such as law enforcement (i.e., threats of Biden defunding the police to defend against criminal activity). Trump’s overall narrative is a compelling (though dubious) adrenaline rush linking Biden’s campaign to general threats against the stability of established legal, commercial, and social traditions. In the Trump campaign’s attack ads, the narrative expands the definition of “law and order” to include legal (political leaders seemingly undermining law enforcement), commercial (the destruction of small business enterprises in American cities), and social (calling out the irony of a “peaceful” protest against the backdrop of businesses in flames) (Far-Left Fascists, 2020; Lawless, 2020). Trump’s message in framing these ads is clear, that only his re-election will protect and stabilize traditional American ways of life, particularly through supporting traditional law enforcement and strengthening their ranks to restore order by dispersing protesters linked to destruction.

Political advertising that is produced by the Trump campaign and supporting PACs frame visual content in their ads to directly discredit these “peaceful protesters” by using flames, suffocating crowds and tear gas, and unlit city streets. The darkness of much of their ads’ visual content only heightens the images of flames. Images of destroyed landscapes in daylight that follow images of darkness heighten the burned-out businesses as the aftermath of protests. The sequence of visual content in these ads implies that the cause of the blackened and crumbling buildings are the protests seen moments ago in the same ad. The actual sequence of the protests is in doubt but not in the ad’s enthymeme.

Ads both for and against Trump aligned law enforcement’s power with his use of executive power, emphasizing Trump’s claim that he ordered law enforcement to quell protests in support of “law and order.” 54 of the 101 ads include visual and audio content (including crowds chanting and screaming expletives at uniformed law enforcement) that focus on the presence of law enforcement at these protests. Enforcement personnel are either the last line of defense from criminals or the government’s clampdown on its citizens, differing by source.

The law enforcement seen in the visual content (video and photography from established media and raw footage that appears to be from individual citizen phones and uploaded to social media) are often local police officials. Multiple ads also highlight uniformed law enforcement holding shields in front of them that are labeled as “military police”, indicating law enforcement from federal rather than local resources, thus implicating Trump as an arm of the federal government. The framing of these ads indicates a corrupt use of power by the federal government, through Trump’s orders as President, and calls into question Trump’s use of “law and order” and whether it is being used as a phrase to excuse suppression of American freedoms such as speech and assembly. Such attack ads relate to the protests and law enforcement presence in Portland, Oregon.

It has been noted by traditional media and citizen testimonies that “paramilitary groups” appear at these protests, intermingling with both protesters and traditional law enforcement. Testimonies regarding “paramilitary groups” have been used in attack ads against Trump, further tying him to white supremacists, implying that white supremacy is the foundation of these “groups.” The presence of “paramilitary groups” undermines the narrative from the Trump campaign that claims Trump solely backs traditional law enforcement. “Paramilitary groups” are not known as part of any traditional American police force, or institutional law enforcement. Such “groups” make claims to defend traditional American law enforcement yet are understood to originate separately from law enforcement and known legal processes that bind them, such as due process of the law. The Democratic coalition ad Stop Trumps Terror explicitly and dramatically makes the argument that trump’s “endorsements” is the choice “racism or the LAW” (2020). In recent years, social media platforms such as Facebook have played a part in connecting members of “paramilitary groups”, strengthening their ability to act as disciplined units and building national networks. The “paramilitary groups” often use connections through social media to orchestrate self-training in various forms of combat, before they attend protests, such as the Unite the Right Rally held in Charlottesville, Virginia in August of 2017.[i]

“Paramilitary groups” are often associated with The Proud Boys. Trump “stumbled” when asked by both moderator Chris Wallace and President-Elect Joe Biden to condemn white supremacists, and specifically to condemn the Proud Boys during the first Presidential debate in September of 2020. Trump’s reticence, or confusion (or both) when faced with condemning The Proud Boys has been associated with his reticence to condemn white supremacy as a general movement. In an ad linking the Proud Boys to Trump, Trump’s Radical Right, Meidas Touch warns “TRUMP’S RADICAL RIGHT IS COMING FOR YOU” (2020). The connection of white supremacy to “paramilitary groups” indirectly implies Trump’s reticence to condemn these external “groups,” undermining the Trump campaign’s narrative of support to traditional law enforcement units. Debates, interviews, and Trump’s own political support rallies are sources for Trump’s verbal testimony that is used by the Biden campaign and PACs to frame Trump as a hypocrite counter to his own political narrative. The Trump campaign defines “law and order” by association with established institutional law enforcement and legal processes. Through audio content such as the now infamous quote from President Trump, telling The Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” rather than outright condemning them as was requested during the September 2020 debate, such content frames Trump as unable to outright condemn white supremacists who separate themselves from the traditional power he claims to support.

Of the 101 ads examined, Trump is heard as the primary narrator in 13. Footage from interviews and rallies that focus on Trump are included in at least 44 of the ads. Even if Trump is not framed as the primary narrator, his voice is a focal point in the audio content of nearly half of the political ads crafting the narrative of “law and order” in Trump’s existing America. Trump’s vocal prowess, the sheer volume of how much audio content he produces, is cited as one of his assets when he seeks to rally his base. Trump’s volume of audio content also leaves him vulnerable to that same content being used against him, to the point of self-indictment. This is apparent in attack ads associating him with white supremacists. This relationship is underscored by visual content offering footage from the violent Unite the Right rally in 2017 in Charlottesville and includes other rallies that show Trump branded MAGA hats being worn by persons who also hold Confederate flags. The picture of the Confederate flag is worth a thousand words when explaining that someone is fine with their patriotism until they perceive a threat to their particular status quo, what they believe they deserve. When the Confederate flag becomes a symbol of a campaign for the office of President of the United States, this could become confusing. Further examination of the source of the footage that showcases the Confederate flag is needed to provide context for its use.

It would be reasonable to believe that supporters of Confederate flags and ideology see themselves as being outside of traditional American institutions and systems. They may feel that traditional candidates who are representative of American institutions and systems, are not representative of them and so they seek alternatives, such as President Trump. Trump’s detractors cite this as part of his hypocrisy. If Trump’s campaign narrative is to support American “law and order” through traditional, now centuries-old American institutions and systems, then his detractors question his mobilization and acceptance of those who actively seek alternatives to the American systems he vowed to protect and uphold by his vow to the U.S. Constitution (an American institution itself). The answer of how a base that considers itself ultimately outside of traditional institutions, could be mobilized by a symbol of the traditional institutions may lie in the social media platforms already utilized by the base [ii].

Social media democratizes the distribution of narrative beyond traditional American media institutions and platforms. This democratization has produced much of the footage seen in the debate of American “law and order” for both campaigns of the 2020 presidential election. This footage can be used by the presidential campaigns, or by individual citizens showing their support for their chosen candidate. The volume of raw footage taken by professional photographers and videographers, and footage taken by private citizens that finds its way to social media platforms like Facebook is a massive and diverse population. This population of raw footage often means that, much like numerical data, a selection of video and audio data can be found, and thus edited to fit a presidential campaign’s or individual supporter’s narrative.

The raw footage that contributes to visual and audio content within the Trump and Biden campaign narratives is framed through fear. Raw footage has been deemed more effective than crafted dramatizations as indicated by the overwhelming number of times such footage is chosen over the dramatic, staged narrative ad. A paltry eight ads (all supporting the Trump campaign) are dramatized narratives based in fear. Fear of the unknown has long been understood as a powerful motivator for action. Fear of loss (i.e. what strangers invading the nation will take from voters, what a distant national government such as China will take from American voters) was a continual theme in the Trump campaign narrative[iii]. The Biden campaign narrative has benefitted from a fear of unknown, but plausible possibilities how Trump’s re-election could ultimately weaken “law and order” in America (a threat to democracy itself).

Amid a global pandemic, and a divisive election season, Americans were living with the knowledge that protests (or riots, depending on the campaign perspective) were occurring nearly every day in the summer and fall of 2020. Many Americans may have been participants in these demonstrations or were personally connected to a protester. Americans were viewing these demonstrations, understanding their effects, and continuing to exist; to go about their daily routines and to watch those they care about do the same. These protests were a known narrative to Americans who, while perhaps disliking such a narrative, had learned to adapt it into their daily lives. while Trump’s campaign used footage of protests as a fear of what was known to be occurring, PACs supporting the Biden campaign pushed the fear of Trump’s potential escalation of traditional law enforcement’s power to challenge protests under a corrupt definition of strengthening and returning to “law and order.” PACs supporting Biden linked this fear of law enforcement escalation to historic and current regimes they defined as corrupt and totalitarian. These regimes included historic Nazi Germany, and the current governments of North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the corruption they felt challenged the pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong. This fear of an unknown, yet plausible reality, based in actual historic precedence which further emphasizes how easily such totalitarianism could happen weaved through the fear-driven ads of Biden’s campaign narrative. Plausible scenarios of waking up to living in an American police state was linked to Trump’s re-election, challenging Trump’s campaign cries of strength through “law and order” by questioning how America could be strong if it began to resemble those it deemed dangerous, or at the worst, its historic enemy.

References

Abolished (2020, July 13). The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/campaign-ads-2020/donald-j-trump-for-president-abolished–campaign-ads-2020/2020/07/13/b669df90-ab19-4a06-ba9f-b611b1b977c5_video.html

Be not afraid (2020, September 2). Joe Biden for President, YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgHXJ3rdOn0

Far-left fascists have turned Portland into a violent hellscape (2020, July 22). Donald J Trump, YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odUMyzqzjcc

Kimberly (2020, September 21). American First Action Super PAC, YouTube.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGRC1VZo6_Q

Lawless – Kenosha, Wisconsin (2020, September 2).  Donald J Trump, YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfDgCCpXTE

Stop Trumps Terror (2020, October 8). The Democratic Coalition, YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrZSgzpyOHQ

Tien, J. H., Eisenber, M. C., Cherng, S. T., & Porter, M. A. (2020) . Online reactions to the 2017 ‘Unite the right’ rally in Charlottesville: measuring polarization in Twitter networks using media followership. Applied network science. https://www.math.ucla.edu/~mason/papers/tien2020-final.pdf

Trump’s Radical Right (2020, September 8). Meidas Touch, YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW-T8QszNLA

President Trump will uphold the law (2020, October 27). Donald J. Trump, YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDP9iqcvZuU