Emasculation in Republican Psychological Warfare, And Why It Works

The racist lynchings of the 19th and 20th centuries featured castration as a central component of those ritualized assaults. The same appears to be true of contemporary rhetorical lynchings visible in the right wing media-scape. First aired on April 23 of this year as a news item, the latest ad by the Grand Dragon of GOP character assassins, Floyd Brown, is only the most recent example. Brown, who succeeded in turning Black rapist murderer Willie Horton into Michael Dukakis's running mate, is now going after the testicular credibility of Barack Obama. The ad cited a vote Obama cast as an Illinois state senator against a bill mandating the death penalty for gang-related murders -- a bill the state's Republican governor later vetoed for being overly broad, vague, discriminatory, and for lacking any deterrent effect. The spot's narrator concludes, "When the time came to get tough, Obama chose to be weak. So, the question is: can a man so weak in the war on gangs be trusted in the war on terror?" The closing shot is that of the rubble at New York's post-9/11 ground zero.

Not surprisingly, Factcheck.org found it to be a mendacious hodgepodge of distortions and misrepresentations. Of course, what Brown is after is not veracity but the generation of emotion in his audience, principally anxiety. As he had successfully done with Dukakis, the aim is to emasculate Obama and thus to induce in the electorate a fear that the Democratic nominee will be unable to function as a manly protector.

Some might think that this strategy is targeted at the so-called "Security Mom" demographic -- women supposedly so frightened by the terrorist bogy man that they will forsake all other concerns, like reproductive choice and health care, and vote Republican. This was certainly George W. Bush's 2004 answer to the gender gap, which since 1980 consistently disadvantaged the GOP among female voters. Unfortunately for McCain, the most recent (June 11) NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows Obama with a 19% lead among women overall, and a seven-point advantage among white women in particular.

The primary audience, I would argue, is the other side of the gender gap, the "Insecurity Men," male voters unconsciously anxious about their masculinity, and who are generally well disposed toward Republican candidates. (Wednesday's poll showed McCain with a 20% lead among white men.) Men as a group tend to be much more troubled than are women over the possibility that they might have traits of the other gender. The more central that male domination is to a social order, the more anxious they are about this. In fact, in such a world, the most important thing about being a man is not being a woman. As I described in my last post, the findings of my own research and that of others have shown that conservative men are much more likely to suffer from the fear that they might be "feminine," than are liberal males. One way this femiphobia gets managed is through projection -- by hating, denigrating, and attacking other men whose masculinity is imagined as somehow deficient.

This is where Republican psy-ops masters like Brown work their crude but effective rhetorical necromancy. They know that most voters don't support typical conservative positions on issues. Many among the electorate might recoil at the liberal label (because of successful framing by conservatives), but when asked on survey after survey, people tend to embrace liberal positions. That means the burden of getting right-wing presidential candidates into office falls largely on the GOP's psychological warfare team, not the platform committee. Their most tried and true method has been to feminize their male political opponents.

Those who think castration is a harsh and overly dramatic metaphor to describe one of the key psychological aims of conservative messaging might want to ponder a 2006 statement by GOP strategist Grover Norquist. He argued that Democrats will only be tolerable once they "are comfortable with their minority status." He went on to elaborate, "Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate."

If past is indeed prologue, then progressives might want to reflect back on the last Republican convention so that we can prepare to respond to the butch histrionics we will no doubt witness at the end of the summer. The organizers of the 2004 GOP convention at Madison Square Garden, a location with a history of pugilistic efforts to prove manhood, clearly understood the importance of calling into question the gonadal bona fides of their opponents. The goal of this hypermasculine strut-fest, after softening the television audience with the foreplay of moderate sweet talk, was to make John Kerry their woman. (Republicans had already attempted this with John Edwards by dubbing him "the Breck girl.")

First, Arnold Schwarzenegger proclaimed that any guys who were anxious about the loss of jobs under the reign of George W. Bush were "economic girlie men." In other words, the Democratic candidates, who are always whining about pink slips, may as well be wearing pink slips. Real men don't fret about the losers in the new global Darwinian economy.

If there is anything wimpier than compassion for those insufficiently ruthless or privileged to be among the financial elite, it is the unmanly predisposition towards international collaboration. Collaboration, for some Republicans, had evoked femiphobic anxiety to such a degree that, in domestic legislative matters, they had been unwilling to even negotiate with Democrats. As Grover Norquist observed just prior to the convention, "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape."

Vice President Cheney raised the threatening specter of collaboration in his convention speech, warning his audience that Kerry would deploy U.S. troops "only at the directive of the United Nations." Even worse, recovering Democrat Zell Miller pointed out, the Democratic candidate "would let Paris decide when America needs defending." The Massachusetts senator, were he ever to run the White House, would imperil the masculinity of all men by turning the U.S. into a submissive bottom in the global contest for supremacy, the deferential housewife in the family of nations. Using certain code words for effeminacy, Cheney impugned Kerry's own manhood more directly. "He talks about leading a more sensitive war on terror, as though al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side." Democrats, the Vice President added, are "faint-hearted," "weak," and "wobbly." In contrast, screamed Zell Miller, "George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat."

We live in a culture where manhood is a Sisyphean and evanescent achievement. I'm sure you remember Sisyphus. He's the fellow condemned for eternity to push that boulder up the mountain, only to have it fall down again before reaching the top. So, you may prove your manhood today. But tomorrow you will have to do it all over again. We could think of this process as the hypermasculine version of Groundhog Day. What's required is a ceaselessly vigilant effort to repudiate any quality coded feminine. Often, especially in politics and warfare, this is achieved by projecting these threatening qualities onto the enemy, and, as witnessed in both the convention performances and Schwarzenegger's films, by striking a posture of chest-thumping omnipotence and insensate hardness. Miller, in his rhapsody to Bush's "spine of tempered steel," mined the same vein in the cultural unconscious that gave us that ultimate image of obdurate manly machinery, Arnold's Terminator. So, what was the effect of this weeklong masculine drag show? It produced an 11-point bounce in the polls for Bush.

Many pundits, especially those of the essentialist persuasion, have explained this sort of political machismo as simply a case of testosterone poisoning. But I would argue that it is not men's testicles that transform some males into mouth-breathing, saber-rattling paleoconservatives. Rather, it is the fear of losing them that animates these histrionic performances of hypermasculinity. And it is this anxiety that we can expect to be a primary target of the upcoming Republican gathering in September.

Comments

[flanardiente]

I'm always amazed that people actually buy into this tough talk by a gang of elitist cowards, most of whom were either born rich or spent their entire adult life sucking on the government tit, and just about all of whom declined to fight in Vietnam, who couldn't or wouldn't protect us from 9/11, couldn't or wouldn't capture Osama, and five years after using the might of the American military to invade and con

[harriscrl3]

It depends to me on how the media frame a debate. In my opinion going to war is NOT rough using the military to solve a conflict is not really tough. Its the EASY way out. People who have no confidence or lack the ability to exert other kinds of cooperative pressure be it economic or some other nonmilitary form resort to Military might. A true superpower should not have to resort to actually military action to get cooperation. The mere threat of military power should be enough. America is a country that should have a reputation where just talking gets cooperation but people like Bush refuses to talk. Its like we have this mentality where we say why should we bother to talk to countries like Iraq when we can crush them with our military. I just dont understand that logic. These are not the days of imperialism we've moved past that. Strong countries should have a state of the art military that they RARELY use.

Carol

[RI]

Let's call the republican campaigners what they are: psychological terrorists.

The republicans will attack our nervous systems with fear invoking ads and messages. Then, they will position McCain as the strong protector who can save us from the unknown terrors of Obama/change/ terrorists­/whatever.

McCain offers the false safety of the abusive government we know. Obama is new and promotes change. Even though we say we want change, it still leads to the unknown future and thus it is frightening. We’ve got to keep people out of fear and into hope.

Obama so right to have an anti-smear team. Also, more articles like this will hopefully serve to keep us operating in the conscious, reasoning parts of our brains so we won’t be so easily manipulated by fear.

[Susanfrom29]

You're right, as far as you go, but isn't the bigger question one of how we block the effect of this type of terrorism on the average American voter who likely doesn't read HuffingtonPost? The Democrats have got to find a way to combat this type of tactic.

[mstew99]

Good point. It doesn't do that much good to only preach to the choir. Since we have learned the painful lesson that ignoring it doesn't work, personally I am trying a three-fold attack: 1) from time to time I go to a conservative website and give them a polite dose of truth (not as ineffective as you might think -- there's a lot of independents and moderate Republicans all over the place) 2) I email articles like I find at this website to friends, especially Republican friends 3) and when in doubt (or depression) I send a few more bucks to Obama. And, if the campaign turns really nasty, and I'm afraid it will, I'm won't be above throwing some slime back at the bad guys; I know Obama wouldn't do that, but I've got 7 years of rage going and the right wing really has it coming.

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

Interesting analysis, it explains quite a lot.

The neocons/republicans have been successful because they've controlled the balance of just how macho they appear. I say the tactic to apply to this dimension of the fight is judo, take that swaggering, macho image and ramp it up.

The republicans have become drunken abusers, raping and pillaging their serfs and setting their houses on fire. Show them to be ignorant, loudmouth bullies, coming home from a long day of thievery to beat their wives senseless along with friends and neighbours who try to intervene. Show the voters republicans so drunk and high on power and money and war that they won't stop until the whole town is either a desert from environmental neglect or a crematorium when they launch another world war.

Basically, show them how they are. Republicans want to use fear? Show the voters that another republican government is the most horrific thing they can imagine.

[WorkingClass]

I would like to see ads depicting Republican men running in fear from Liberal women. The women overtake them and beat the sh*t out of them.

[EngineerBill]

One thing that Obama can do is explain our withdrawal is a way to get tough with the Iraqi government. Staying there indefinitely as McCain would have us do will allow them to never have to stand on their own two feet. Also Obama can talk about Osama. As in how come he is still a free man 7 years after 9/11. If the republicans cry foul then Obama can call them girlie men.

[darker]

I AGREE that Obama should talk about Osama bin Laden.

Floyd Brown works for the SHRILL REPUBLICAN MEDIA OF LIARS who
own corporations advertising in all Media. Floyd Brown is a bought and paid for PROFESSIONAL LIAR--what you call "ad men".

Scared-silly STUPID Americans will believe such trash. While everybody else
rolls their eyes and votes for OBAMA.

[slw0606]

As a gay man, I totally agree with the author's analysis of the GOP's game plan and the push to emasculate "girly" men who support those "sensitive feminist" Democrats. You either kick ass and balls (say the GOP) or you will be defeated. It's irrelevant if your testosterone induced psychology might lead to bad situtaions for the country (like our quamire in Iraq while Al Queda florishes in Pakistan).

Obama is starting to show he has a pair and he will need to demonstrate that clearly and take on all comers. Expose these deceitful manipulators for who they are and how their policies lead to a worse situation.

Obama has said we missed the mark diverting critical military resources from the real battle against Al Queda in Pakistan when we followed Bush into Iraq "to settle a score" for his Daddy and to prove Bush Jr had more balls then his willy nilly Dad.

Ironically Obama has been criticized for his position to unilaterally attack Al Queda in Pakistan if necessary (because, oooh Pakistan is a nuclear power, which is EXEACTLY why we need to defeat Al Queada there).

So Obama, kick some ass. Don't let these school yard bullies who would cry and run home to mama the minute the skinny kid actually sucker punches them back bully you or the American voter. Expose these bastards for who they really are - blowhards and deceivers.

[oafishcad]

You are correct. And it will work again if Senator Obama isn't careful. Last time the gop was successful in making a war hero was less masculine than a cheerleader. This time the GOP has someone who actually served in the military. This is why Obama should pick Wesley Clark as his running mate.He won't let McCain get away with his bull, and he's smart and progressive and southern. If he picks a woman, he might as well give up now, except a military woman or Hillary. And I think, even though I voted for her in the primary, she would not be a very good idea if he wants to send a change message. Assuming people will vote with their brains instead of emotions ignores history.

[heal57]

Senator Obama is a much better candidate than John Kerry. I expect him to pick a white male for ticket balancing which is the right thing to do at this time. More Independents like myself and some Republicans will vote for Obama. We want a better life for our kids and our grandkids. I see victory in November, but we can't take anything for granted.

Independent for Obama '08

[idealist100]

Hey guys, Not gonna work. Nope, not this time. The electorate is on to your games. The jig is up.

Obama '08 ha ha
(ever heard of "the internet"?)

[harriscrl3]

I dont think castration is a pejoritive term to use to describe it by any stretch of the imagination thats exactly what it is. To be honest ALL democrats are subjected to this type of psychological emasculation particularly post 911. The impact that this had was bought home to me in stark reality. I was listening to a talk show and a caller said that republicans were the daddy that because they were tough on terror (if you want to call torture and enteringing into a war under false pretensese tough) democrats were the mommies because they wanted to take care of our economic issues they wanted to take care and be supportive yada yada. The sad part is the media buys into this BS and we dont even realize that they do this. For example I was listening to a newsprogram dont remember what channel and one of the pundits said that economic issues being the forefront of this election favors the democrats but if foreign policy take center stage come November it favors republicans. It boggles my mind that after this diasaster in Iraq that these people have the nerve to perpetuate this kind of claim. Where are the facts that support this claim. The sad part is voters hear this and buy into it. The line between unsupported opinon and opnion supported by facts have become blurred in the media. I think thats one of the tragedies facing this country.

Carol

[TomR]

----
I dont think castration is a pejoritive term to use to describe it by any stretch of the imagination thats exactly what it is. To be honest ALL democrats are subjected to this type of psychological emasculation particularly post 911.
----

And just look who sat for 7 minutes scared and dumbfounded about what to do after being told the country was under attack. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, Rumsfeld, Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Norquist, and Kristol are the biggest bunch of pansies on the planet. They talk tough, but would pee their pants if they were put into harm's way.

They are beneath our contempt.

- Tom

[WorkingClass]

American voters are extremely stupid. But this year they are also extremely angry. They are going to stomp the Republicans into the dirt because they see that the Republicans have stolen their money.

[harriscrl3]

This is the reason that I'm thrilled that a NONPartisan group basically came out and said straight up McCain tax plan favors the wealthy. It doesnt get more basic than that and Americans need to realize this because republicans have a tendency to say we are going to cut taxes but they dont say who they are cutting taxes for and in reality its the top 2% who benefits from their tax cuts. This is the kind of farce they've been perpetuating that they are the leader of the entire country when in reality they are the leader of 2% of the population the rest they dont give a damn about. Thats why this country is in the mess it is in. They have no problem subsizing Bear Sterns when they make irresponsible deals and then suffer consequences the will bear them out of their financial crisis but hwo do they repay average Americans by passing a bankruptcy bill that makes it harder for them to declare bankruptcy. We are living in two separate countries and they continue to loot and steal and subsidize the rich while just letting middle class and working class Americans fall by the way side. Its a travesty what they've done to this country.

Carol

[LiveOakCA]

Verrry interesting article. I wonder if that might explain Hillary Clinton's surge towards the end of the primaries? She definitely butched up (huntin', Crown Royale, "testicular fortitude") and did everything but piss on Obama's podium to try and show she was the Alpha dog of the pack.

[marthlois]

Obviously, the GOP and company have decided to hit Obama early on in the GE with slime and fear-mongering. They're well practiced in that kind of election combat. That, in itself, is depressing as we look at the overall picture of the mess that we're all in because of the Repugs.

Obama fights back by taking the higher road, by facing the smears one by one - quickly and effectively.
But there is a dramatic difference between these two men when compared in the areas that count.
Intellect, how they'll handle (or not handle) the war, understanding of the economy, FAMILY values, Healthcare, Women's issues, the INTERNET? And on and on..... Hands down - Obama not only the momentum but the ability to deal with these issues with a calm and world-view mindset. Remember..­..he wants to change the MINDSET that got us into the war in the first place?
At any rate, I think he's going to fight this battle, from the high road, just about as long as he can tolerate the bigoted and disgusting right-wingers attacking him and his precious family. But those same people should never lose site of what is available to the Obama campaign. Never ever. In the meantime, I believe that the ads from the GOP and 527's are going to come back and bite 'ol Johnny in the ASS big time.