WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.859 Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today we are looking 00:00:02.859 --> 00:00:05.419 at a piece of media that Honestly, it fundamentally 00:00:05.419 --> 00:00:08.599 rewired the circuitry of American political persuasion. 00:00:08.619 --> 00:00:10.839 It really did. Yeah, we've got a stack of sources 00:00:10.839 --> 00:00:13.220 today centered around a single Wikipedia article. 00:00:13.400 --> 00:00:16.960 And it details one of the most analyzed, most 00:00:16.960 --> 00:00:19.460 imitated, and arguably most effective political 00:00:19.460 --> 00:00:22.280 advertisements of all time. Oh, absolutely. We 00:00:22.280 --> 00:00:25.559 are talking about the 1984 commercial universally 00:00:25.559 --> 00:00:28.820 known to pretty much everyone as Morning in America. 00:00:29.059 --> 00:00:30.719 Right, even though its official title is actually 00:00:30.719 --> 00:00:33.979 Prouder, Stronger, Better. But nobody calls it 00:00:33.979 --> 00:00:36.200 that. Nobody calls it that. So our mission today 00:00:36.200 --> 00:00:38.659 is to unpack the architecture of this specific 00:00:38.659 --> 00:00:42.380 60 second montage. Yeah. We really want to understand 00:00:42.380 --> 00:00:46.090 how. this deceptively simple sequence. I mean, 00:00:46.090 --> 00:00:47.850 it's literally just people commuting to work, 00:00:47.950 --> 00:00:50.409 how that became an absolute masterclass in messaging. 00:00:50.450 --> 00:00:53.229 Right. And beyond just that 1984 campaign, we're 00:00:53.229 --> 00:00:54.869 going to trace the echoes of this commercial 00:00:54.869 --> 00:00:58.009 through the decades. We'll look at how its unique 00:00:58.009 --> 00:01:00.729 psychological blueprint is, you know, still being 00:01:00.729 --> 00:01:03.969 utilized and even weaponized in modern pop culture 00:01:03.969 --> 00:01:07.480 and contemporary elections. Exactly. But before 00:01:07.480 --> 00:01:09.260 we delve into the actual mechanics of the ad, 00:01:09.400 --> 00:01:12.219 we do need to establish a really firm framework 00:01:12.219 --> 00:01:15.060 for this discussion. Yes, very important. Because 00:01:15.060 --> 00:01:17.719 our source material contains highly politically 00:01:17.719 --> 00:01:20.879 charged content. And because we'll be analyzing 00:01:20.879 --> 00:01:23.739 figures spanning the entire political spectrum 00:01:23.739 --> 00:01:26.799 today. From Ronald Reagan and Ted Cruz to Hillary 00:01:26.799 --> 00:01:28.920 Clinton and the Lincoln Project. Right. So we 00:01:28.920 --> 00:01:31.120 must be absolutely clear with you, the listener, 00:01:31.280 --> 00:01:34.310 we are not taking sides. We are definitely not 00:01:34.310 --> 00:01:36.530 endorsing any of the viewpoints, the policies, 00:01:36.670 --> 00:01:39.750 or the politicians we mentioned today. Our role 00:01:39.750 --> 00:01:43.290 here is to act impartially. Entirely impartially. 00:01:43.329 --> 00:01:45.689 We're simply conveying the historical facts and 00:01:45.689 --> 00:01:48.370 analyzing the strategic communication ideas that 00:01:48.370 --> 00:01:50.090 are contained in the original source material. 00:01:50.409 --> 00:01:52.269 Right. We're looking at this strictly through 00:01:52.269 --> 00:01:54.590 the lens of media history and rhetorical strategy. 00:01:54.689 --> 00:01:57.709 So, you know. Keep that in mind. Exactly. Just 00:01:57.709 --> 00:01:59.969 looking at the mechanics. Okay, let's unpack 00:01:59.969 --> 00:02:03.810 this. Set the scene for us. It is 1984. The presidential 00:02:03.810 --> 00:02:06.230 campaign is absolutely dominating the airwaves. 00:02:06.250 --> 00:02:09.550 And this specific commercial begins broadcasting 00:02:09.550 --> 00:02:12.050 into the living rooms of millions of Americans. 00:02:12.789 --> 00:02:15.270 What exactly is the visual language they're absorbing? 00:02:15.879 --> 00:02:18.479 They are absorbing a profound sense of calm. 00:02:18.719 --> 00:02:20.599 I mean, if you watch Morning in America right 00:02:20.599 --> 00:02:22.680 now, the very first thing you notice is the total 00:02:22.680 --> 00:02:24.639 absence of traditional political aggression. 00:02:24.879 --> 00:02:28.580 So quiet. Yes. There are no bold, flashing graphics 00:02:28.580 --> 00:02:31.740 on the screen. There's no ominous voiceover warning 00:02:31.740 --> 00:02:34.439 you of impending doom. Right. None of that attack 00:02:34.439 --> 00:02:37.599 ad stuff. Exactly. Instead, the screen just fills 00:02:37.599 --> 00:02:40.659 with this warm, beautifully shot montage of Americans 00:02:40.659 --> 00:02:43.419 engaged in the mundane rituals of daily life. 00:02:43.599 --> 00:02:46.560 Yeah, like a man. And gently pushing a stroller. 00:02:46.680 --> 00:02:49.199 Right. A farmer navigating a tractor across a 00:02:49.199 --> 00:02:51.680 field. You see men and women carrying briefcases, 00:02:51.780 --> 00:02:54.580 loading trucks, riding public transit. It establishes 00:02:54.580 --> 00:02:57.680 this literal morning routine. But metaphorically, 00:02:57.680 --> 00:02:59.939 it paints a portrait of a nation waking up from 00:02:59.939 --> 00:03:03.219 a long, dark night. It just radiates safety and 00:03:03.219 --> 00:03:05.659 optimism. And the aesthetic of that commercial. 00:03:06.569 --> 00:03:10.090 It feels so ubiquitous now, like that sun -dappled, 00:03:10.090 --> 00:03:13.289 anywhere USA vibe. Oh, totally. Yeah. But it 00:03:13.289 --> 00:03:16.189 was carefully engineered. Like a fun fact from 00:03:16.189 --> 00:03:18.650 the sources, the creators actually filmed those 00:03:18.650 --> 00:03:21.509 quintessential American sequences in Petaluma, 00:03:21.590 --> 00:03:24.629 California. Really? Yeah, Petaluma. It provided 00:03:24.629 --> 00:03:27.509 that perfect, timeless backdrop that felt familiar 00:03:27.509 --> 00:03:29.509 to viewers, you know, whether they lived in the 00:03:29.509 --> 00:03:32.360 Midwest, the South, the Northeast. It didn't 00:03:32.360 --> 00:03:34.259 matter. That makes sense. It's geographically 00:03:34.259 --> 00:03:36.780 ambiguous enough to be anywhere. Exactly. But 00:03:36.780 --> 00:03:39.159 the visual warmth is really only one half of 00:03:39.159 --> 00:03:41.120 the machinery here. Yeah. Because the script 00:03:41.120 --> 00:03:43.620 itself is this fascinating contradiction. How 00:03:43.620 --> 00:03:46.780 so? Well, it sounds almost like poetry, but it's 00:03:46.780 --> 00:03:48.939 heavily constructed out of empirical data. Oh, 00:03:48.979 --> 00:03:52.199 right. The script uses those statistics to methodically 00:03:52.199 --> 00:03:54.099 build a fortress around its emotional premise. 00:03:54.360 --> 00:03:56.400 It doesn't just ask the viewer to feel good. 00:03:56.460 --> 00:03:59.180 It attempts to prove mathematically that the 00:03:59.180 --> 00:04:01.280 country is flourishing under the incumbent administration 00:04:01.280 --> 00:04:03.939 compared to the previous four years. Yeah. And 00:04:03.939 --> 00:04:05.979 I actually want to read the specific progression 00:04:05.979 --> 00:04:08.639 of the statistics they use because the rhetorical 00:04:08.639 --> 00:04:11.400 stacking is just incredibly deliberate. Go for 00:04:11.400 --> 00:04:14.120 it. So the voiceover begins by stating that today. 00:04:14.830 --> 00:04:17.250 More men and women will go to work than ever 00:04:17.250 --> 00:04:19.730 before in our country's history. Starting strong 00:04:19.730 --> 00:04:22.610 with employment. Right. Then it introduces the 00:04:22.610 --> 00:04:25.350 macroeconomic data. It says interest rates are 00:04:25.350 --> 00:04:28.629 at about half the record highs of 1980. OK. From 00:04:28.629 --> 00:04:31.810 there, it shrinks the scale down to the personal 00:04:31.810 --> 00:04:35.730 domestic level. It claims nearly 2000 families 00:04:35.730 --> 00:04:38.370 will buy new homes today. That's a great pivot 00:04:38.370 --> 00:04:40.870 to the personal. And then it gets even more personal. 00:04:41.050 --> 00:04:44.639 It notes that this afternoon. 6 ,500 young men 00:04:44.639 --> 00:04:47.319 and women will be married. Wow. And finally, 00:04:47.360 --> 00:04:49.379 it anchors the whole thing by stating inflation 00:04:49.379 --> 00:04:51.860 is at less than half of what it was just four 00:04:51.860 --> 00:04:55.060 years prior. What's fascinating here is the delivery 00:04:55.060 --> 00:04:58.339 mechanism for that data, because a list of inflation 00:04:58.339 --> 00:05:01.100 metrics and interest rates is inherently dry. 00:05:01.279 --> 00:05:03.360 Oh, absolutely. It's boring. Right. It could 00:05:03.360 --> 00:05:05.740 easily sound like a quarterly earnings report 00:05:05.740 --> 00:05:09.439 on CNBC. But the creator's legendary ad man, 00:05:09.540 --> 00:05:12.600 Hal Reine, alongside art director Bernie Vangren 00:05:12.600 --> 00:05:15.920 and director John Pitka, they knew the messenger 00:05:15.920 --> 00:05:18.560 mattered just as much as the message. Yeah, Reine 00:05:18.560 --> 00:05:20.579 made a really interesting choice there. He did. 00:05:20.699 --> 00:05:22.879 He didn't hire a traditional voice actor. He 00:05:22.879 --> 00:05:25.319 actually narrated the ad himself. Which is wild 00:05:25.319 --> 00:05:28.279 for a presidential campaign ad. It is. But he 00:05:28.279 --> 00:05:31.339 possessed this incredibly rich, avuncular voice. 00:05:31.839 --> 00:05:35.300 It totally bypasses the cynical filters we usually 00:05:35.300 --> 00:05:37.439 apply to political advertising. Yeah, he sounds 00:05:37.439 --> 00:05:39.540 like, I don't know, a trusted family member sitting 00:05:39.540 --> 00:05:42.180 across the kitchen table. Just sharing some good 00:05:42.180 --> 00:05:44.759 news over a cup of coffee. Exactly. And it's 00:05:44.759 --> 00:05:46.839 a staggering pivot when you consider Rainey's 00:05:46.839 --> 00:05:49.920 broader portfolio. Oh man, yeah. The sources 00:05:49.920 --> 00:05:52.160 note that Hal Rainey is the exact same voice 00:05:52.160 --> 00:05:54.660 behind Reagan's famous Bear in the Woods advertisement. 00:05:54.720 --> 00:05:58.240 The contrast there is just insane. To shift from 00:05:58.240 --> 00:06:01.300 the ominous existential dread of that Cold War 00:06:01.300 --> 00:06:04.279 commercial, you know, the whole is there a bear, 00:06:04.399 --> 00:06:07.240 isn't there a bear thing, to the suburban tranquility 00:06:07.240 --> 00:06:11.600 of mourning in America. It demonstrates a profound 00:06:11.600 --> 00:06:14.279 command of the psychological spectrum. It really 00:06:14.279 --> 00:06:16.959 does. The same vocal cords that triggered a literal 00:06:16.959 --> 00:06:19.480 fight or flight response in one commercial were 00:06:19.480 --> 00:06:22.699 used to trigger a parasympathetic, calming response 00:06:22.699 --> 00:06:25.600 in another. It reveals a highly sophisticated 00:06:25.600 --> 00:06:28.360 understanding of how to manipulate audience arousal 00:06:28.360 --> 00:06:31.660 levels. Republican strategist Dan Schnur is actually 00:06:31.660 --> 00:06:34.000 quoted in our sources summarizing this exact 00:06:34.000 --> 00:06:36.540 dynamic. What did he say? He points out that 00:06:36.540 --> 00:06:39.180 the vast majority of political advertising relies 00:06:39.180 --> 00:06:41.939 on blunt force. It literally hits viewers over 00:06:41.939 --> 00:06:43.660 the head. Yeah, they're usually so aggressive. 00:06:43.860 --> 00:06:46.220 Right. It's loud, it's aggressive, and it relies 00:06:46.220 --> 00:06:49.199 on high arousal emotions like anger or fear to 00:06:49.199 --> 00:06:51.959 drive immediate action. But Schnur notes that 00:06:51.959 --> 00:06:54.139 Rainey's work manages to make a point of equal 00:06:54.139 --> 00:06:57.000 magnitude, but he does it in a soothing manner. 00:06:57.379 --> 00:06:59.319 The strategy of soothing. That's such a great 00:06:59.319 --> 00:07:01.360 phrase. It operates almost like a rhetorical 00:07:01.360 --> 00:07:03.779 Trojan horse. Yeah. By lowering the viewer's 00:07:03.779 --> 00:07:08.139 defenses with low arousal emotions, safety, nostalgia, 00:07:08.560 --> 00:07:12.069 calm. The political argument. just slips past 00:07:12.069 --> 00:07:14.629 their armor entirely. And this all culminates 00:07:14.629 --> 00:07:17.470 in the final, devastatingly simple question posed 00:07:17.470 --> 00:07:19.829 at the very end of the 60 -second spot. Right. 00:07:20.029 --> 00:07:22.790 After layering the imagery of Petaluma over the 00:07:22.790 --> 00:07:25.370 statistics of weddings and new mortgages, Reini 00:07:25.370 --> 00:07:28.600 just asks, Why would we ever want to return to 00:07:28.600 --> 00:07:31.339 where we were less than four short years ago? 00:07:31.579 --> 00:07:34.399 It's a psychological trap. Totally. By the time 00:07:34.399 --> 00:07:36.160 that question is asked, the viewer has been so 00:07:36.160 --> 00:07:38.459 thoroughly insulated by the narrative of falling 00:07:38.459 --> 00:07:41.180 inflation and rising employment that desiring 00:07:41.180 --> 00:07:43.579 any alternative feels fundamentally irrational. 00:07:44.139 --> 00:07:46.259 Right. The commercial frames the past, not just 00:07:46.259 --> 00:07:49.019 as a different political choice, but as an abandonment 00:07:49.019 --> 00:07:51.259 of prosperity altogether. Exactly. I want you, 00:07:51.339 --> 00:07:52.860 the listener, to pause for a second and just 00:07:52.860 --> 00:07:55.379 consider the media ecosystem you inhabit today. 00:07:56.139 --> 00:07:59.000 We navigate a landscape dominated by algorithmic 00:07:59.000 --> 00:08:02.040 rage, right? Push notifications, perpetual breaking 00:08:02.040 --> 00:08:04.480 news. It's exhaust. It is. The architecture of 00:08:04.480 --> 00:08:06.740 modern information is specifically designed to 00:08:06.740 --> 00:08:10.360 keep you agitated because agitation drives engagement. 00:08:11.079 --> 00:08:14.800 So within that context, the idea of capturing 00:08:14.800 --> 00:08:17.220 an audience, let alone persuading them through 00:08:17.220 --> 00:08:20.500 unhurried gentle optimism, feels entirely foreign. 00:08:20.660 --> 00:08:22.860 If we connect this to the bigger picture, the 00:08:22.860 --> 00:08:25.399 linguistic choice of the word morning. Did an 00:08:25.399 --> 00:08:27.810 immense amount of heavy lifting here. How so? 00:08:28.009 --> 00:08:30.410 Well, on the surface layer, it was the literal 00:08:30.410 --> 00:08:32.730 morning commute, right? People going to work. 00:08:32.850 --> 00:08:35.970 But structurally, it served as a boundary line. 00:08:36.090 --> 00:08:38.250 It signaled that the economic stagnation and 00:08:38.250 --> 00:08:41.570 the perceived malaise of the late 1970s belonged 00:08:41.570 --> 00:08:44.490 definitively to the night. Oh, that's brilliant. 00:08:44.590 --> 00:08:47.409 The sun had risen, the dark era was over, and 00:08:47.409 --> 00:08:50.210 a new era of national renewal had begun. That 00:08:50.210 --> 00:08:52.750 weaponized warmth was so potent it became permanently 00:08:52.750 --> 00:08:55.309 embedded in the American media playbook. But, 00:08:55.509 --> 00:08:57.629 you know, a piece of media... becomes the universal 00:08:57.629 --> 00:09:01.309 shorthand for safety, it simultaneously becomes 00:09:01.309 --> 00:09:03.330 the ultimate target for subversion. Yes, it does. 00:09:03.529 --> 00:09:05.490 And here's where it gets really interesting. 00:09:06.350 --> 00:09:09.110 Decades after the ad aired, the streaming service 00:09:09.110 --> 00:09:12.590 Hulu utilized this exact cultural memory. This 00:09:12.590 --> 00:09:14.950 happened during Super Bowl F3. They dropped a 00:09:14.950 --> 00:09:17.389 trailer for the third season of their series, 00:09:17.549 --> 00:09:20.299 The Handmaid's Tale. Oh man, the execution of 00:09:20.299 --> 00:09:23.059 that trailer was an absolute masterclass in psychological 00:09:23.059 --> 00:09:26.139 misdirection. It was so good. They initiated 00:09:26.139 --> 00:09:29.080 the broadcast by painstakingly recreating the 00:09:29.080 --> 00:09:32.080 visual and auditory cues of the 1984 commercial. 00:09:32.399 --> 00:09:35.840 Down to the letter. Yeah. The narration mirrored 00:09:35.840 --> 00:09:38.799 Reini's reassuring cadence. The screen displayed 00:09:38.799 --> 00:09:42.080 these sunlit, idyllic scenes, but with a specific 00:09:42.080 --> 00:09:44.799 curated focus on women and their newborn children. 00:09:44.980 --> 00:09:47.059 Right. So to a casual viewer, you know, someone 00:09:47.059 --> 00:09:48.779 just tuning into the Super Bowl to watch football, 00:09:48.980 --> 00:09:50.899 it scanned perfectly as a diaper commercial. 00:09:51.389 --> 00:09:53.730 Or maybe a corporate brand spot leaning heavily 00:09:53.730 --> 00:09:56.269 on traditional family values. But the subversion 00:09:56.269 --> 00:09:58.669 requires that initial baseline of comfort. They 00:09:58.669 --> 00:10:00.789 had to lull the audience into the exact same 00:10:00.789 --> 00:10:02.870 state of passive reception that the original 00:10:02.870 --> 00:10:05.559 ad achieved. Right. Get their guard down. Exactly. 00:10:05.779 --> 00:10:09.159 But then the illusion just shatters. The soothing 00:10:09.159 --> 00:10:12.379 instrumentation abruptly cuts out and the aesthetic 00:10:12.379 --> 00:10:15.379 violently shifts to the grim, oppressive reality 00:10:15.379 --> 00:10:18.279 of the Republic of Gilead. The tonal whiplash 00:10:18.279 --> 00:10:20.940 is just visceral. I mean, the commercial transitions 00:10:20.940 --> 00:10:25.590 from sun dappled infants. to scenes of totalitarian 00:10:25.590 --> 00:10:27.850 control. And it concludes with the lead character, 00:10:28.070 --> 00:10:30.789 June Osborne, staring directly into the lens 00:10:30.789 --> 00:10:32.970 to deliver the punchline. Which is such a great 00:10:32.970 --> 00:10:35.470 line. She just says, wake up America, morning's 00:10:35.470 --> 00:10:38.179 over. The effectiveness of that trailer relies 00:10:38.179 --> 00:10:40.600 entirely on the audience's subconscious fluency 00:10:40.600 --> 00:10:43.980 with the 1984 trope. Hulu took a piece of media 00:10:43.980 --> 00:10:46.799 engineered by Hal Rainey to evoke absolute security, 00:10:47.080 --> 00:10:49.240 and they completely inverted it to communicate 00:10:49.240 --> 00:10:52.820 absolute dread. And you cannot successfully subvert 00:10:52.820 --> 00:10:55.600 a cultural touchstone unless the audience instantly 00:10:55.600 --> 00:10:58.399 recognizes the source material. It just demonstrates 00:10:58.399 --> 00:11:01.019 how deeply mourning in America is woven into 00:11:01.019 --> 00:11:03.179 our collective psyche. It really is. And the 00:11:03.179 --> 00:11:05.279 television industry isn't the only entity incapable. 00:11:05.519 --> 00:11:08.200 of letting this ad go. Its political actor life 00:11:08.200 --> 00:11:10.659 is seemingly endless. Oh, yeah, it never stopped. 00:11:10.960 --> 00:11:14.019 Politicians across the spectrum continually attempt 00:11:14.019 --> 00:11:17.139 to harness its lingering power. Like looking 00:11:17.139 --> 00:11:19.940 at the 2016 presidential election. The source 00:11:19.940 --> 00:11:22.860 material details how modern candidates desperately 00:11:22.860 --> 00:11:26.480 chased that specific 1984 alchemy. Because for 00:11:26.480 --> 00:11:29.000 a certain type of campaign strategist, recapturing 00:11:29.000 --> 00:11:31.700 that feeling of inevitable optimistic renewal, 00:11:32.000 --> 00:11:35.059 it's the holy grail of messaging. Right. Senator 00:11:35.059 --> 00:11:37.840 Ted Cruz recognized the utility of that framing. 00:11:38.000 --> 00:11:40.500 He integrated it really heavily into his campaign 00:11:40.500 --> 00:11:43.460 rhetoric. He used variations of the phrase constantly. 00:11:43.679 --> 00:11:45.980 Yeah, as the climactic crescendo in his public 00:11:45.980 --> 00:11:48.500 addresses. Like during the 2014 Conservative 00:11:48.500 --> 00:11:51.360 Political Action Conference, he rallied the audience 00:11:51.360 --> 00:11:53.519 by declaring, we will bring back mourning in 00:11:53.519 --> 00:11:55.360 America. That's why we're here. And he kept going 00:11:55.360 --> 00:11:57.340 with it. He did. He continued to lean on the 00:11:57.340 --> 00:11:59.700 metaphor two years later. Following his victory 00:11:59.700 --> 00:12:03.139 in the 2016 Iowa Republican Caucus, his celebratory 00:12:03.139 --> 00:12:05.700 remarks culminated with the declaration, Tonight, 00:12:05.820 --> 00:12:08.080 Iowa has proclaimed to the world, morning is 00:12:08.080 --> 00:12:10.700 coming. Cruz was attempting a direct associative 00:12:10.700 --> 00:12:13.960 transfer there. By invoking the phrase, he was 00:12:13.960 --> 00:12:16.500 trying to bind his insurgent campaign to the 00:12:16.500 --> 00:12:18.919 legacy and the perceived stability of the Reagan 00:12:18.919 --> 00:12:22.159 era. Right. Mapping the optimism of 1984 onto 00:12:22.159 --> 00:12:25.179 his 2016 political future. Exactly. And Marco 00:12:25.179 --> 00:12:27.759 Rubio's campaign attempted a very similar maneuver 00:12:27.759 --> 00:12:30.659 during that same election cycle. But it resulted 00:12:30.659 --> 00:12:33.299 in this fascinating, honestly kind of hilarious, 00:12:33.639 --> 00:12:36.620 unforced error regarding the mechanics of authenticity. 00:12:36.960 --> 00:12:40.200 This was wild. The Rubio campaign actually produced 00:12:40.200 --> 00:12:42.659 and released. a television commercial explicitly 00:12:42.659 --> 00:12:45.679 titled Morning Again in America. They really 00:12:45.679 --> 00:12:47.840 went for it. They clearly intended to construct 00:12:47.840 --> 00:12:50.019 a modern facsimile of the Hal Reine original. 00:12:50.700 --> 00:12:53.059 They assembled a montage featuring everyday life 00:12:53.059 --> 00:12:55.500 in urban centers and suburban neighborhoods aiming 00:12:55.500 --> 00:12:58.480 for that same sweeping anywhere USA resonance. 00:12:58.759 --> 00:13:00.960 But the complication arose when viewers actually 00:13:00.960 --> 00:13:03.440 analyzed the footage the campaign had selected 00:13:03.440 --> 00:13:06.960 to represent that American renewal. Right. The 00:13:06.960 --> 00:13:09.399 commercial opened with this sweeping skyline 00:13:09.399 --> 00:13:12.399 shot establishing the dawn of this new American 00:13:12.399 --> 00:13:15.720 era. But eagle -eyed observers quickly identified 00:13:15.720 --> 00:13:18.259 that the opening visual was not an American city 00:13:18.259 --> 00:13:21.309 at all. Not even close. The campaign had utilized 00:13:21.309 --> 00:13:24.129 stock footage of Vancouver, British Columbia. 00:13:24.309 --> 00:13:26.830 They inadvertently launched their mourning in 00:13:26.830 --> 00:13:29.250 America narrative with a sunrise over Canada. 00:13:29.389 --> 00:13:32.090 A literal Canadian sunrise. Yeah. It generated 00:13:32.090 --> 00:13:34.350 widespread criticism and amusement, obviously. 00:13:35.070 --> 00:13:36.769 But it actually underscores a critical point 00:13:36.769 --> 00:13:38.809 about the production of political media. It really 00:13:38.809 --> 00:13:40.990 highlights the friction between genuine craft 00:13:40.990 --> 00:13:44.490 and modern expediency. I mean, Reini's team traveled 00:13:44.490 --> 00:13:48.029 to Petaluma, California, to meticulously capture 00:13:48.029 --> 00:13:50.590 the texture of American life. They put the work 00:13:50.590 --> 00:13:53.789 in. They did. The modern equivalent, likely operating 00:13:53.789 --> 00:13:56.389 under tighter deadlines or tighter budgets, just 00:13:56.389 --> 00:13:58.710 grabbed generic B -roll from a digital library. 00:13:59.240 --> 00:14:01.500 And in doing so, they entirely missed the core 00:14:01.500 --> 00:14:03.820 emotional requirement of the ad geographic and 00:14:03.820 --> 00:14:06.059 cultural authenticity. Yeah, you cannot mass 00:14:06.059 --> 00:14:09.100 produce the aesthetics of patriotism using outsourced 00:14:09.100 --> 00:14:11.100 footage. It just doesn't work. It really doesn't. 00:14:11.120 --> 00:14:13.960 But while Republicans in 2016 were attempting 00:14:13.960 --> 00:14:16.879 to resurrect the literal promise of the commercial, 00:14:17.200 --> 00:14:20.659 the Democratic nominee found a way to weaponize 00:14:20.659 --> 00:14:23.539 the memory of the ad. against her opponent. Yes. 00:14:23.759 --> 00:14:25.500 Hillary Clinton's approach was very different. 00:14:25.659 --> 00:14:28.139 During her Democratic nomination acceptance speech, 00:14:28.360 --> 00:14:30.820 she drew a direct contrast with Donald Trump, 00:14:30.919 --> 00:14:33.059 who had just delivered his own acceptance speech 00:14:33.059 --> 00:14:36.539 a few days prior. She invoked the famous 1984 00:14:36.539 --> 00:14:39.919 phrase, but she fundamentally altered its trajectory. 00:14:40.139 --> 00:14:42.519 What did she say? She accused Trump of taking 00:14:42.519 --> 00:14:44.240 the Republican Party on a journey from morning 00:14:44.240 --> 00:14:47.500 in America to midnight in America. See, that 00:14:47.500 --> 00:14:50.299 is a potent rhetorical pivot. She argued that 00:14:50.299 --> 00:14:52.580 his platform relied on making the electorate 00:14:52.580 --> 00:14:55.320 fear the future and fear each other. Clinton 00:14:55.320 --> 00:14:57.840 wasn't trying to claim the mourning for herself. 00:14:58.100 --> 00:14:59.899 Rather, she was using the audience's lingering 00:14:59.899 --> 00:15:03.120 affection for that 1984 feeling of safety as 00:15:03.120 --> 00:15:05.559 a baseline to highlight the perceived danger 00:15:05.559 --> 00:15:07.899 of her opponent. She was arguing that the current 00:15:07.899 --> 00:15:10.399 political offering was the exact inverse of that 00:15:10.399 --> 00:15:13.019 historical optimism. Exactly. And the linguistic 00:15:13.019 --> 00:15:16.279 mutation of the phrase continued to evolve during 00:15:16.360 --> 00:15:19.340 the 2020 election cycle. Oh, definitely. A political 00:15:19.340 --> 00:15:21.460 action committee known as the Lincoln Project 00:15:21.460 --> 00:15:24.059 entered the fray with a commercial release during 00:15:24.059 --> 00:15:26.500 the presidential campaign. They titled their 00:15:26.500 --> 00:15:29.740 ad Mourning in America, but they altered the 00:15:29.740 --> 00:15:32.399 spelling. Right. Spelled M -O -U -R -N -I -N 00:15:32.399 --> 00:15:35.080 -G. They shifted the phrase from a visual metaphor 00:15:35.080 --> 00:15:38.480 of dawn to an auditory homophone denoting grief. 00:15:38.759 --> 00:15:41.759 This was a highly targeted critique of the incumbent 00:15:41.759 --> 00:15:44.679 administration's handling of the COVID -19 pandemic. 00:15:44.980 --> 00:15:48.840 It's a dark flip. Very. The Lincoln Project structurally 00:15:48.840 --> 00:15:52.120 inverted the Hal Reine template entirely, where 00:15:52.120 --> 00:15:54.440 Reine used a montage to aggregate statistics 00:15:54.440 --> 00:15:57.379 of prosperity weddings, home purchases, employment. 00:15:58.139 --> 00:16:00.539 This ad utilized a montage to aggregate metrics 00:16:00.539 --> 00:16:03.039 of loss, economic halting, and institutional 00:16:03.039 --> 00:16:05.379 failure. And the tactical deployment of this 00:16:05.379 --> 00:16:07.679 ad was highly strategic. The sources indicate 00:16:07.679 --> 00:16:09.820 they didn't merely rely on a single national 00:16:09.820 --> 00:16:12.220 broadcast. No, they went hyper -local. Yeah, 00:16:12.259 --> 00:16:14.059 they engineered state -specific iterations to 00:16:14.059 --> 00:16:16.399 maximize local resonance. They released Morning 00:16:16.399 --> 00:16:18.659 in Iowa, Morning in Florida, Morning in Pennsylvania, 00:16:19.000 --> 00:16:21.539 Morning in Ohio. They even produced a variant 00:16:21.539 --> 00:16:25.019 titled Mourning in Republican Party, which specifically 00:16:25.019 --> 00:16:28.100 lamented the ideological trajectory of the political 00:16:28.100 --> 00:16:31.200 organization itself. So what does this all mean? 00:16:31.480 --> 00:16:34.500 When we track this lineage from a sunlit California 00:16:34.500 --> 00:16:38.600 morning in 1984 to a dystopian television trailer 00:16:38.600 --> 00:16:41.480 to Clinton's midnight and finally to the Lincoln 00:16:41.480 --> 00:16:44.700 Project's morning, a really clear picture emerges 00:16:44.700 --> 00:16:48.220 here. It does. A single 60 -second television 00:16:48.220 --> 00:16:50.820 commercial achieved something incredibly rare 00:16:50.820 --> 00:16:53.419 in media history. It transcended its original 00:16:53.419 --> 00:16:55.559 purpose to become a foundational, infinitely 00:16:55.559 --> 00:16:58.279 malleable template for American political rhetoric. 00:16:58.500 --> 00:17:00.779 It demonstrated that if you can successfully 00:17:00.779 --> 00:17:03.179 distill and brand an emotion in this instance, 00:17:03.240 --> 00:17:05.960 the profound relief of safe, optimistic renewal, 00:17:06.160 --> 00:17:08.720 you forge a piece of cultural vocabulary that 00:17:08.720 --> 00:17:11.019 will outlive the candidate, the specific campaign, 00:17:11.279 --> 00:17:13.980 and the historical era of its creation. It provides 00:17:13.980 --> 00:17:16.500 a necessary lens for you. our listener as you 00:17:16.500 --> 00:17:18.960 navigate the modern information landscape. Because 00:17:18.960 --> 00:17:20.859 understanding the mechanics of warning in America, 00:17:20.960 --> 00:17:23.500 it is not just an exercise in 1980s trivia. It 00:17:23.500 --> 00:17:27.519 is a decoder ring for analyzing the DNA of contemporary 00:17:27.519 --> 00:17:30.470 persuasion. Once you comprehend the psychological 00:17:30.470 --> 00:17:33.210 architecture of this specific commercial, its 00:17:33.210 --> 00:17:35.490 influence becomes visible everywhere. Everywhere 00:17:35.490 --> 00:17:37.769 you look. Whether you're analyzing a multi -million 00:17:37.769 --> 00:17:40.609 dollar Super Bowl ad or dissecting the closing 00:17:40.609 --> 00:17:43.829 arguments of a presidential debate, you are observing 00:17:43.829 --> 00:17:46.410 the descendants of Hal Reany's strategic blueprint. 00:17:46.789 --> 00:17:49.549 You're watching communicators either attempt 00:17:49.549 --> 00:17:52.589 to meticulously reverse engineer that soothing 00:17:52.589 --> 00:17:56.049 magic or violently react against it to generate 00:17:56.049 --> 00:17:58.390 contrast. This raises an important question, 00:17:58.470 --> 00:18:00.069 and it's actually the thought I want to leave 00:18:00.069 --> 00:18:02.130 you with today. Let's hear it. We have thoroughly 00:18:02.130 --> 00:18:05.250 examined how the original 1984 commercial succeeded 00:18:05.250 --> 00:18:08.009 precisely because it engineered an undeniable 00:18:08.009 --> 00:18:10.609 atmosphere of safety and gentle reassurance. 00:18:10.630 --> 00:18:13.329 Right. But when we analyze its modern descendants, 00:18:13.529 --> 00:18:15.690 the Midnight in America speeches and the Morning 00:18:15.690 --> 00:18:18.450 in America attack ads, we see that they rely 00:18:18.450 --> 00:18:21.430 almost exclusively on subversion, contrast and 00:18:21.430 --> 00:18:24.119 fear. They hijack the promise of mourning and 00:18:24.119 --> 00:18:26.940 transform it into a warning. It forces us to 00:18:26.940 --> 00:18:30.559 ask in today's highly fragmented, hyper algorithmic 00:18:30.559 --> 00:18:33.059 media environment, is it still structurally possible 00:18:33.059 --> 00:18:36.160 for a purely optimistic, non -confrontational 00:18:36.160 --> 00:18:38.319 political message to break through the noise? 00:18:38.500 --> 00:18:41.200 Or have the incentive structures of modern media 00:18:41.200 --> 00:18:43.660 permanently traded the hopeful promise of mourning 00:18:43.660 --> 00:18:45.859 for the engagement driving shock value of midnight? 00:18:46.460 --> 00:18:48.440 Man, that is a profound dilemma to consider. 00:18:48.619 --> 00:18:50.859 Can quiet optimism still command attention, or 00:18:50.859 --> 00:18:53.279 does the current ecosystem only reward the dread? 00:18:53.559 --> 00:18:55.920 We will leave you to ponder that. Thank you for 00:18:55.920 --> 00:18:57.940 joining us on this deep dive. Keep questioning 00:18:57.940 --> 00:19:00.519 the media you consume, stay deeply curious, and 00:19:00.519 --> 00:19:02.519 keep seeking out the fascinating structural forces 00:19:02.519 --> 00:19:05.480 hiding right behind the daily headlines. We'll 00:19:05.480 --> 00:19:06.160 catch you next time.