Iowa Democratic Candidate for Governor Deidre DeJear Responds to Governor Kim Reynolds' Attack Ad
And there are small mammals in the house
Much has been said of Governor Reynolds's TV ad that was released on September 22, including that it's racist, manipulative, and misleading. Judge for yourself:
Laura Belin takes an intellectual chain saw to it in Kim Reynolds race-baits in new ad at Bleeding Heartland and in the Iowa Capital Dispatch--it’s a must-read. In Take two on Kim Reynolds' racist campaign commercial, Belin summarizes some other critiques and offers an additional detailed analysis worth reading.
Rachelle Chase shares her thoughts on the ad in Opinion: Kim Reynolds' 'Still Works' ad misleads viewers. Here's how.
“I discovered Gov. Kim Reynolds' latest campaign ad by accident. I'd made a rare appearance on Twitter and caught a tweet of journalist Laura Belin’s Bleeding Heartland column, “Kim Reynolds race-baits in new TV ad.”
So I watched the video. And was struck by the blatantly manipulative and misleading messaging delivered in a mere 30 seconds…
In two seconds, this opening delivers a political trifecta: (1) an "angry Black woman" (because any Black woman, including me, being passionate about anything is often deemed “angry”) who the viewer has no time to identify (but perhaps it doesn't matter, if we throw in the stereotype that all Black people look alike), (2) advocating for the defunding of the police, a perceived "Black issue" that instantly triggers some people, (3) both of which the viewer is supposed to associate with Reynolds' opponent in the race for governor, Democrat Deidre DeJear. All of which is the antithesis of what Iowa is, according to the ad.
Which sets the tone for the rest of the ad. And foreshadows the negative portrayal of blackness that will continue.”
Sunday afternoon on October 2, at the Iowa Democratic Hall of Fame Celebration, DeJear had an opportunity to address a large group of Democrats after the ad first aired. Her tone and the audience's reaction are best caught in listening to the audio I captured, but I also transcribed her speech.
There are important messages in it, some obvious, others not so much, which I’ll discuss below.
(Introduction, music “Girl on Fire” by Alicia Keys, applause…)
“It is so good to be amongst you Iowa Democrats. I’m seeing some new faces in this journey today, and it's great to be amongst all of you all, and because I assume that you’re here, you are probably leaning on our side, so I'm not going to go into all of our bio and all of that, but what I am going to do is just share one of the lessons that I've learned along this trail.
Starting out, we all know about the uncertainty that existed in this particular race, and in communicating with Iowans all over this state, I was insistent on learning a variety of opinions, a variety of thoughts; I was asking folks two questions. What do you see good that exists in your community…what opportunities are there for growing, and every once in a while, I’d wanna meet with somebody, in a coffee shop per se, and they’d ask me this question “are you sure you wanna be seen with me, in public.
You know, I'd look and seek out the support of an organization to endorse me -- are you sure you want to receive our endorsement--would that be good for you?
Every once in a while I'd sit down with a nonprofit or a for-profit entity that may be on the other side and they'd ask the question--are you sure this is a good idea for you to be listening to us?
This question was prevailing and consistently prevailed, over and over and the reason why that question was being asked is because the question was surmounted on this idea of differences of opinion cannot coexist in the same space. That’s because we don’t agree on everything; the things we do agree upon cannot be talked about because we've got these differences.
You all often hear me talking about this fight for common ground, but the reason why I want to talk about our differences today is because we have 37 days left and the other side's attack on us is to pit us against one another, to magnify our differences and to cause us to be shameful about those differences. But what I’m asking us to do is to not lean into that shame. I’m asking us to lean into our strengths, because despite our differences, there is nothing shameful about strong quality public schools in the state of Iowa. That is a part of our strength. Despite our differences there is nothing shameful about a strong labor force empowered by unions--there’s nothing shameful about that--that is a part of our strength, and this has recently come up for us folks--you know, my opponent put an ad about a few days ago; some people have differences of opinion in the ad.
When I first saw the ad, I’ll be honest, I thought, Oh, she’s got a real cute look-alike for me; I leaned in and realized it’s a congresswoman from another state, a congresswoman who on that specific issue in that ad, we have a difference of opinion, but I saw what my opponent was doing--not only was she trying to stoke divide into our party, she was trying to stoke divide between two women that had never even met each other before. But I had an opportunity to meet Congresswoman Bush, and I heard her talk about her story as a nurse. I heard her talk about her story as a woman who values mental health, a woman who has suffered through sexual assault, a woman who is pro-choice, and realized, man…we’ve got a lot of strengths, and she asked me a question--is it good for us to be talking, is it good for us to be communicating via Twitter, and I said, heck yes, because we are not going to allow anybody to divide us, despite the differences of opinion. It’s not going to stop here, good people. There will be more things that come up amongst us, differences even in this room.
But what I am asking us to do again is to lean into our strength. Heck, we are celebrating people today in a Hall of Fame--the best of the best--the best of the best!
(she reads the names of those recognized in the program with pride, honoring them)
This is the best of who we are; stand up if you are in the Democratic Hall of Fame; stand up if you are in the Democratic Hall of Fame! Turn these lights up! Turn these lights up and if you have ever been in the Democratic Hall of Fame in this state, stand up right now! We've got so much good that exists in our party, folks. Let’s lift up this, so we can get Democrats elected up and down the ballot in this year. There’s no question about whether or not we can. I know we can. Our question is are we willing, and because you’re here, I know you’re willing.
Thanks for sticking with us, even when it’s hard. Thank you so much…
(applause, unrecognizable music, at least to me)
So, in her first major public appearance after the ad aired, what did DeJear do? Did she respond with anger? Did she call the ad racist, manipulative, and misleading?
No, she let journalists do that.
She responded with grace and dignity, called for unity, and embraced Congresswoman Cori Bush, despite their disagreement. She wants to embrace us all with our different expectations, ideas, hopes, and dreams. Her call for unity at the awards ceremony and on the stump across the state extends beyond Democrats to Independents and dissatisfied Republicans. And she wants to win.
This was all on the surface and easy to see and hear. A couple of other things weren’t. More connections need to be made.
One is, in talking about the ad, DeJear took the high ground. She rejected the “angry black woman” trope that Reynolds employed--not that DeJear should have to--there are plenty of reasons for black women to be angry.
Digging a little deeper, consider the first clause of the first sentence of the second paragraph. Hang with me as I do a little anthropological geek-out.
“Starting out, we all know about the uncertainty that existed in this particular race…”
What was the uncertainty in this particular race--the DeJear for Governor race?
I’m figuring it has something to do with Brianne Pfannenstiel’s reporting on February 2 in the Register; Is it time for Democrats to Panic about the Governor’s Race? where she related that several high-level Democrats she spoke with were “panicking” and expressed doubt about DeJear’s ability to conduct a credible campaign. The Register allowed me to rebut those high-level Democrats in Opinion: Inept Iowa Democrats show little interest in trying to win. Their seeming dismissal of Deidre DeJear proves it. Sometimes the headline in my Register piece comes up as Opinion: Iowa Democrats leave candidates of color in the cold: their seeming dismissal of Deidre DeJear proves it.
Which is fine with me.
Now, let’s put this “uncertainty” into its simplest form.
{old/rich/white/men > young/middle-class/black/woman}
Democratic leaders—I presume mostly old, rich, white guys told an excellent political reporter for the highest circulation newspaper in the state that Dems were panicking and that they feared a successful young middle-class black woman couldn’t run a viable campaign for governor, even though I argue she is The Best Qualified Democratic Candidate to run for Governor in a Generation.
This rejection is partly about race, but I think it’s more about class and privilege.
Where’s the power? Of course, the power here is replicated in our society's social and power structure. {old/rich/white/men} on top.
Flip it and consider these quotes by DeJear in her speech from people she met on the campaign trail:
“…they’d ask me this question “are you sure you wanna be seen with me, in public.”
“…are you sure you want to receive our endorsement--would that be good for you?”
“…are you sure this is a good idea for you to be listening to us?”
And in her conversation with Cori Bush:
“…she asked me a question--is it good for us to be talking, is it good for us to be communicating via Twitter, and I said, heck yes, because we are not going to allow anybody to divide us, despite the differences of opinion.”
Consciously or not, DeJear has constructed a symbolic inversion, publicly inverting the social structure of the Iowa Democratic Party. Symbolic inversion, or Mundus inversus, relates to those forms of expressive behavior which invert commonly accepted social codes. Mundus inversus, Latin for "world upside-down," represents a time in which the order of things is overturned, and social hierarchies are reversed.
That’s what DeJear did in that speech. Those asking the questions of DeJear recognize her power. But not only does she invert the social structure of the party, but she also inverts the outcome.
As I said above, it is {old/rich/white/men > young/middle class/black/woman} with the old white guys. With DeJear, it is: {young/middle class/black/woman & everyone else} with the ampersand representing unity--something the old/rich/white/men apparently don’t care or don’t know anything about.
DeJear is elevating everyone. That’s the party's future, and for regular rank-and-file Democrats, she is the de facto leader now and into the future, should she continue to lead and grow the party. Democrats who know and have listened to her recognize she is a brilliant leader who leads with values. They love her and resent those who hold the purse strings and who chose not to support her. This is how revolutions are built, and the Democratic party needs one—from the bottom up. And not just in Iowa.
No matter the race's outcome, by not investing enough, the monied “leaders” of the party have lost an opportunity. Just think of how much she and other Democratic candidates could have accomplished with their help, one voter at a time—even if some candidates don’t win. Play the long game. Build a bench.
We’ve known for some time a few of these guys have formed an organization or two to help the party. Good for them. Get at it. Now I read that they are “reluctant to talk” to the press about it.
What are you hiding? Be open and bold.
And now to you Democratic “leaders” who told Register reporter Brianne Pfannenstiel that you were “panicking” and had doubts about the viability of DeJear’s campaign? Who sought to ingratiate yourself to a reporter by undermining the campaign of your gubernatorial candidate to the media?
You are weasels. Do you know what you call a group of weasels? A “confusion of weasels.” Sounds about right.
And you know how when someone says, “please don’t think of an elephant, please don’t think of an elephant?” Of course, you can’t help but think of an elephant.
Brianne, the next time you see one of these guys, “please don’t think of a weasel!”
Would Republicans ever do this? Undermine a candidate like this to the media? Never.
But thinking about it, that’s not a fair comparison.
For example, no matter how much harm Trump has caused this country and the damage he continues to do, every Republican running for state-wide office in Iowa today would refuse to condemn him for any of it.
In fact, if Trump dropped his pants, bent over, and said to them, “kiss my ass,” they would ask, “which cheek?”
One last thing. On Thursday, Politico dropped The Franken Campaign Was Doomed Even Before an Assault Allegation Shook the Race by Iowan Lyz Lenz.
I don’t want to examine the piece's merits or the allegations. But I would like to remind Democrats who have their undies in a knot about the piece to remember Lenz blew up Grassley not that long ago in Vanity Fair in CHUCK GRASSLEY’S LAST ACT.
I want to comment on a tiny piece of it. Lenz writes:
“As one Iowa lobbyist, who was granted anonymity because they were concerned about maintaining a positive working relationship with politicians in both parties, told me, “It’s the Iowa Democratic D-listers’ time to shine.”
First, the candidates aren’t “D-listers.” They are great candidates that every Democrat, Independent, and dissatisfied Republican should get behind. They are also courageous. They are the ones who stepped forward when we face an authoritarian tide, attacks on our public schools, our electoral process, and on the civil rights of us all.
They should be praised, not diminished.
And to the lobbyist who called the candidates “D-listers,” seeking to ingratiate himself to a respected reporter with a national readership, I say, you, sir (of course, it has to be a man, few women I know would choose to be as condescending and smug in one sentence), have no honor. No honor. I not only hope the Democratic Party figures out who you are and dumps you, but that the Republican party does so as well. Who knows what you are saying to the media behind their back?
And Lyz, please, please, please, the next time you see this man, don’t think of a “skunk!”
Are you following the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative? Paid subscribers to any of our columns will get you an invitation to our next online ‘newsroom’ meeting we are calling The Office Lounge, featuring our columnists. We are making the world a better place, one column at a time. Please support us:
Thanks, Bob, for what is probably the best analysis of the Democratic Party's woes I've read in this election cycle. You didn't even drive me off when you went into your "little anthropological geek-out." In the eye of this storm, Deidre DeJear has been steady and terrific. But so many people evacuated and have missed witnessing her courage and vision. There's just under a month left in this campaign. When I continue to see DeJear out solo on the campaign trail, I start wondering where the heck are Tom Harkin, the Vilsacks, Dave Loebsack, Fred Hubbell? Where the heck are the Obamas?
Bob, thank you. Diedre represents the best of us.