[This ad] employs this device of the disillusioned Trump voter as a stand-in for the viewer. It's a permission structure for the small sliver of undecided voters who might have voted for Trump before to say: It's okay, there are other people just like you, other people who don't think that Donald Trump is good anymore....
Here is a Harris supporting celebrity saying he is disillusioned with what she Harris has said. It's the same permission structure for Harris. You have a white lady saying: You know what? Maybe I can actually vote for Kamala Harris.
"Permission structure" was used as if it's a standard term, so I wanted to get up to speed.
I can see that Obama used it back in 2013, but I'm interested in its repeated use in the last few days. I'm seeing it first in Ms. Magazine, on November 1: "New Ad Creates ‘Permission Structure’ for Men to Support Harris":
[T]he idea of “permission structures” [is] the assumption that voters sometimes need to be given permission to vote for a candidate or party that is not popular with their social group. That is why Kamala Harris has campaigned with Liz Cheney: to send the message to suburban Republican women that it’s OK to break from their party and vote against Donald Trump, even if they remain committed to conservative principles....During this election season, the permission structure concept has been widely discussed as applied to the (white) women’s vote. The [Julia] Roberts-narrated ad has tapped a major vein of cultural energy and controversy, with more than 52 million views so far, writeups in The New York Times and other newspapers and segments on everything from Fox News to Stephen Colbert and The Daily Show. But the concept applies to the (white) men’s vote as well, although it hasn’t received anywhere near as much attention.
Don't miss the white-man ad. It's narrated by George Clooney:
Hilarious and kinda touching. If you're a MAGA man, do you see the "permission structure" offered to you there? It doesn't mean you'll grab onto that structure and climb, but you do see how to go that way if you are blocked and feel you're somehow bound to vote for Trump.
The NYT used "permission structure" yesterday, in an article about that Julia Roberts ad: "Trump Says He Thinks Julia Roberts Will Regret Ad Supporting Harris/Ms. Roberts narrated an ad suggesting that women could privately vote for Vice President Kamala Harris without letting their husbands know." I love the way the headline seems to want us to worry that Trump is threatening dear Julia. Anyway, here's the usage of "permission structure":
Some conservatives have latched onto the ad as a sign of decaying family ties. But Democrats, who believe that Mr. Trump’s behavior toward women and the overturning of Roe v. Wade could galvanize more women to vote, hope to give moderate Republican and independent women a permission structure to vote for her, even if surrounded by vocal Trump supporters.
Where does that internal link go? Ah! This pre-dates the Ms. piece about the Julia Roberts ad. It's from October 31 and it begins with a discussion of a pro-Trump ad — a NYT article by Adam Nagourney in the NYT, "Surprise Hit of the Campaign TV Ad Season: Giving Voters Permission to Go Rogue":
Both parties are running ads that tell voters it’s OK to break from their party. “You can vote any way you want. And no one will ever know,” one says."
The advertisement opens with three older women sitting around a table in a diner, talking about threats to Israel and American Jews and Donald J. Trump. One admits she “never cared for” the former president. “But at least he’ll keep us safe,” she says.
The advertisement, produced by the Republican Jewish Coalition Victory Fund, is an example of one of the most striking advertising tactics of this campaign.
Going after their skeptics, both Democrats and Republicans are highlighting relatable characters offering measured testimonials — even acknowledgments of the shortcomings of the candidates they are pitching — to coax voters into crossing party lines....
It is intended to “create a permission structure,” said Todd Harris, a Republican consultant....
Now, where does that internal link go? It goes to an October 24 NYT article, "Oy, This Ad: Jewish Stereotypes in Service of Trump as a Safer Option/A new commercial from the Republican Jewish Coalition tries to give Jewish voters a rationale for voting for the former president, based on fear."
The ad is... meant to appeal to Jewish Democrats, offering a rationale — or permission — for people who have “never voted Republican” to make an exception this time around.
Like Mr. Trump, the ad plays on fear, invoking antisemitism on college campuses and Israel’s multi-front war as threats to Jewish voters. While it allows that Mr. Trump may not be Jewish voters’ ideal choice for president, it argues he is the safest option.
Here's that ad. What do you see? Offensive stereotyping or an inviting permission structure:
I also found this from October 7, 2024: "October 7 Created a Permission Structure for Anti-Semitism/What American Jews have experienced in the past year is both a pattern and a warning," by Dara Horn in The Atlantic.
That is not about advertising technique, but it is about anti-Semitism, making it a possible source of the use of the term in the October 24 article "Oy, This Ad."
From The Atlantic article:
[F]or centuries, both Christian and Islamic societies also used the Jews’ failure to accept their “universal” values as permission to ostracize, discriminate against, and periodically slaughter them.... [A] supposed grounding in science gave enlightened Germans a new form of permission to persecute Jews based on “universal” values....
Around the world, endless Soviet-sponsored publications and broadcasts proclaimed, without evidence, that Zionism is Nazism, Zionism is racism, Zionism is apartheid, Zionism is colonialism, and Zionism is genocide....
This is the permission structure for anti-Semitism: claim whatever has happened to the Jews as one’s own experience, announce a “universal” ideal that all good people must accept, and then redefine Jewish collective identity as lying beyond it. Hating Jews thus becomes a demonstration of righteousness. The key is to define, and redefine, and redefine again, the shiny new moral reasoning for why the Jews have failed the universal test of humanity....
[The] consequences for non-Jews are incalculable... because this permission structure devours human potential....
The permission structure is here, alive and vivid. It always is....
Posts
82 comments:
Nothing new. When the talking points from the creepy power-obsessed left go out- the daily buzz-word is attached.
To your last question, I see a hope that a confused nation may finally be coming to its sense. But it's an ad -- someone's creation for a more specific purpose. You have to start somewhere, and here is hoping it reflects some reality at its core. If not -- Annie, get your gun!
Tomorrow's Jewish voters have a stark choice before them. There's the non-anti-Semetic candidate, Donald John Trump, and the slightly less-anti-Semetic-than-Hamas candidate, Kamala Harris.
In America, I don’t need anyone’s permission to vote for anyone or say anything.
Who are these fuckheads who cook up this stuff? I’ll tell you. Modern day Don Drapers.
I resent all of this. WE HAVE AN OPEN BORDER. There’s your real permission structure.
I added some material to the end of this post. Please don't miss it. It goes beyond the advertising context.
Well that does it for me. I only needed some celebrity's permission to vote against my core beliefs, well-being and financial interests, and now that I have it, I'm all in for the Bimbo and her running mate, Goofus. I only wish someone had done this before I voted for Trump/Vance last week. It would have saved me so much time and self doubt.
Oh, well...
Permission structure s an interesting concept. I doubt if white women need much permission to vote their choice. Applied to black men and Muslims in general it is far more interesting and impactful. Trump has done a good job of gathering black influencers. The endorsement of Muslim leaders in Dearborn was truly shocking. If Muslim voters feel like they can vote Trump without social repercussions it may be a Katie bar the door event in Michigan and with Somali citizens in Minnesota.
The "permission structure" concept is weird. The whole point of the secret ballot is that nobody knows what you do when you are in the voting booth. You don't need anybody's permission. Of course, since we are doing away with the secret ballot, maybe we need new terms for campaign advertising strategies. But "permission structure"? Ick.
The most striking thing to me is how the woman who speaks first--the one who sits alone opposite the other 2--talks like Trump. She has his cadences.
A permission structure is needed if you are unable to think for yourself, make your own choices, decide for yourself. Permission structures are for slaves, serfs, servants, not citizens.
Unconscionable, that these people may come and go and vote their conscience without so much as a "by your leave, milord". How are their liege lords to know whether their fealty is sound? How shall liege lords garner appropriate homage? How wonderfully feudal.
“Permission structure” appeared frequently for a while, and then I got the sense people were trying to dial it back because it had become a cliche.
Where is the Polycule version of the ad?
I’ll add: “permission structure” is often used to label a preference cascade the speaker does not like.
I just got the big OK from the zoning board for my three story permission structure.
Shows how deep and calculated their Orwellian propaganda strategy is. What they fail to realize is that it's only those people who already confer their decisions to their accepted group authority that need such permission. A free people who think for themselves don't seek or psychologically need such permission.
Even worse, they're discovering that we free people recognize what they're trying to do and develop memes to take their permission structures and ram them back up their ass.
It's true.
It's like Mad Men, but without the fun!
*THIS* alert.
The strange dot in the Kamala/Walz box on the ballot.
For Caliunicornians, Prop.36 will recriminalize the theft and other activities that have helped ruin the state. Harris was asked several times if she supported this legislation: Harris basically responded that she didn’t wish to weigh in on that. She wouldn’t even give her usual weak-suck “I will follow the law”.
A difference between the ads suggests that the Democrats are fighting a rearguard action.
The Clooney ad does not specify a substantive reason for the men to vote for Harris. The coffee shop ad does specify a substantive reason for the women to vote for Trump.
That suggests the Clooney ad is targeting existing male Democrats to stay on the team despite peer pressure. The diner ad is aimed at persuading women to switch their vote to Trump this time despite peer pressure.
Same fuckheads who think the 1st Amendment is a "notion" as Bill Gates called it. Same fuckheads like Hillary Clinton who actually believes that she can live in a country that gets rid of the First Amendment. She won't be living here if she gets what she claims she wants.
Any man who would require a "permission structure" to vote for Kamala Harris is the kind of man who would sidle right up next to you in a bathroom full of empty urinals.
Notice with that dot if you vote Harris there will be no stray mark to invalidated the ballot. Vote for anyone else, and it may.
@Cappy, you mean without the busty redhead.
She literally bonded out rapists, murderers and arsonists. There is no question that she doesn't support this (or she would have said so.)
Permission to come aboard, ma’am?
The Presidential election 2024 was too close to call. Neither Donald Trump nor Harris had enough votes to win. There was much talk about ballot recounting, court challenges, etc., but it was decided that there should be an ice fishing contest between the two candidates to determine the winner. A week-long ice fishing competition seemed to be a sportsmanlike way to settle things, and the candidate that caught the most fish at the end of the week would win the election.
After much back-and-forth discussion, it was decided that the contest would take place on a remote frozen lake in northern Wisconsin . There were to be no observers present, and both politicians were to be sent out separately on this isolated lake and return at 5 P.M. with their catch for the day to be counted and verified by a team of neutral parties.
At the end of the first day, Trump returned to the starting line, and he had 10 fish. Soon, Harris returned and had no fish. Well, everyone assumed she was just having a bad day or something and hopefully, she would catch up the next day.
At the end of the 2nd day Trump came in with 20 fish and Harris came in again with none.
That evening, the Democrats got together secretly and said to Harris, we think Trump is a low-life, cheatin' son-of-a-gun. Tomorrow, don't even bother fishing. Just spy on him and see just how he is cheating.
The next night (after Trump returns with 50 fish), the Democrats got together for the report of how the Republicans were cheating.
Harris shook her head and said, "You are not going to believe this, he's cutting holes in the ice."
It really just boils down to stupid word games that appeal to the lizard brain - I think it's that simple. 'Permission' means you are held harmless, and 'Structure' makes it official. I never saw the White Dude ad version before, man bun and all. Another 'Unintentionally Completely Gay' ad from the Democrat's Top Talent, comes with Eye Contact!
I don't see the Trump ad as stereotypical at all, the Jewish ladies could be either AWFL or latino if you turned the sound off. And the with the sound on, it could be NYC or Miami, easily. And I wouldn't exactly classify this as a permission structure, either, since
Just Democrats, givin' away stuff that you didn't know you had, anyway, and making it sound like they've saved your life!
and they lied about it.
If there is a dot - you must get a new ballot.
Amazing. Democrats: ABC Always Be Cheating
...since they are talking about extant Antisemitism that is popping up in many different news stories, many different places. You never need permission for defensive acts - at least not yet.
There's that "without evidence" trope again. Whenever I see that now, I automatically question the quality of whatever moral soap the writer is selling.
They’ve been running “permission ads” on local channels for months already. The ads start with people staring into the camera to say that they voted twice for Larry Hogan for governor (of Maryland) but cannot bring themselves to vote for him for senator. Reasons include (1) his election would give control of the Senate to Republicans (no it wouldn’t — Justice in West Virginia and Sheehy in Montana will be the 50th and 51st Republican senators) and (2) Republicans would then enact a “national ban on abortion” (because Dobbs took the issue away from the states and gave it to the US Senate.
Hogan’s opponent, Angela Alsobrooks cheated on her taxes, but it’s not as though being a tax cheat is anything new for a Democrat politicians.
They're high-schoolers. If they do anything that's not approved by the cool kids they hate themselves for it, and they assume everyone else is the same way.
I don't know how many Jewish Voters you know, but I know a few, and not one of them wholeheartedly, or even guardedly, approves of Israel's actions in Gaza, and not one of them plans to vote for Trump, and the accusation of "anti-semitism" carries little weight with them.
And now I read that Casey in Pennsylvania is running ads touting his ability to work with Donald Trump, and that Tammy Baldwin has an ad up where she mentions how she work with then-President Trump to get something passed. True? That maybe suggests that they know something about their states that pollsters don’t.
I think that the reason that people seem to put so much effort into crapping all over this blog is because they see it as giving permission to vote for Trump. Vance is a problem too, since he obviously is an intelligent and reasonable and compassionate guy, he must be destroyed for this too.
I think it's also pretty clear from Trump's statements on it, that he thinks that Israel has hurt itself greatly in the court of public opinion, not just in the global south, but in the US, with its actions in Gaza.
The vast majority of men will find the "you can vote for Kamala" either insulting or laughable. Telling men they "have permission" to do something? Ridiculous.
I always found it hilarious that the Jewish ads has 3 women who don't really look sterotypically Jewish. If you're going to have a "Jewish ad" why not have someone who looks like Babs Striesand? Or Rosanne (pre-plastic surgery?)
BTW, I think this ad was filmed in a famous Jewish Deli in Philly and got the Owner in trouble. He's not a trump supporter, but y'know how the left is.
Lets face it Democracy, one man one vote, doesn't work and never has. Somehow the franchise either has to be limited again, or certain groups need to be given extra votes. Personally, I think every man who's married and has children under 18 should be given one extra vote. These are men who are making society work, and its future. They should be recognized as such. And its incentive to have kids and get married. Will it ever be done? Never in a million years. The USA will go down in flames, before the dummies ever change things for the good.
They will change things for the bad: Blue states are already letting foreigners vote. And blue cities are letting 17-16 year olds do the same. Why not? Its easier for the Democrat elite to rule that way.
Permission structure. Why not just "permission"? It reminds me of 'life style" when people can just say "Life". Or "fan base" when they can just write "Fans".
Someone like Bich.
Exactly.
They are professors of political science at universities, and you are paying them.
The "This white man is voting for Harris" signs say one thing to me, "If you are a white man not voting Harris, you are a racist nazi."
Good one Iman. That could've been an old "blonde" joke.
I perfer "permission garage"
I have a neighbor who keeps all his virtue signals in a permission structure.
Was Covid the biggest "permission structure" since 9/11?
Or, don't I have a permission to even ask that?
How Rham Emanuel might put it. 'Never let a permission structure go to waste.'
you can vote but what can you do about what the machine does with it?
It's curious how Democrats urge their voting blocs to vote as blocs (African-Americans, Latinos, suburban college-educated women), yet want to give others (married women, working class men) "permission" to break with their group. One could distinguish between these ads which are heavily centered on group identity and ads where generic voters say, "I voted for this person last time, but I have reasons not to vote the same way this time." That's giving "permission" in a way, but it's been pretty standard in political advertising for some time.
A new commercial from the Republican Jewish Coalition tries to give Jewish voters a rationale for voting for the former president, based on fear.
Can we just finally admit that every political campaign relies to some extent on "fear." This year Democrats have been much more involved in fearmongering than in Republicans. The media has to keep repeating that Trump's rhetoric is "dark" to avoid facing the fact that in comparison Trump is the candidate of hope and change.
This is the permission structure for anti-Semitism: claim whatever has happened to the Jews as one’s own experience, announce a “universal” ideal that all good people must accept, and then redefine Jewish collective identity as lying beyond it.
There is some truth in that and it's chilling, but turn it around: over the years, Zionists and Israel have also created a "permission structure" for approving of things that one wouldn't approve of in other cases.
^this. It's an alternate framing of the preference, adding a context that may or may not be valid, but works to the speakers advantage, or at least the speaker hopes it might.
The Pro-Choice religion adopted in progressive sects exercise liberal license to leverage principles of selective, opportunistic, politically congruent permissive structures. Walz"n Kamala, etc. Throw another "burden" on the barbie, it's over.
It's better to ask for a forgiveness structure than a permission structure.
it is neologism for 'moral code' by nominalists.
israel exists under UN permission structure
[F]or centuries, both Christian and Islamic societies also used the Jews’ failure to accept their “universal” values as permission to ostracize, discriminate against, and periodically slaughter them.... [
Does this mean the author thinks the default, innate desires of members of these Christian and Islamic societies is to be anti-Semitic? That it is only exogenous, social forces that contain these desires? If so, that is a pretty hateful estimation of Christians and Muslims. By drawing out this theory in the article, does the author create a permission structure too? I wonder what sort of beliefs and actions this sort of permission structure unleashes?
As far as voting in this election goes, I do think that people can be influenced their perceptions of what their peer groups want. However, I think this type of voting behavior is more prominent on the Left than the Right, and more prominent in women than men. The idea of people voting differently than others may have estimated them to have sounds an awful lot like the Shy Tory effect, and this was something observed across the pond as well as here.
I find the concept of a 'permission structure' being advanced by the crowd that calls everyone they don't like Fascists to be disgustingly ironic.
Funny...and believable. But my all-time favorite "blonde" joke was the "BlondeStar" parody commercial (of the OnStar ad) where the blonde is calling for help because she has locked herself inside the car and wants to know how to get out. At least I thought that was funny until I rented my first EV (a Tesla from Hertz, on a "manager's special"). Sadly, I found out that it is possible to lock yourself inside one of those and not be able to get yourself out the previously obvious way.
On the flip-side, the name-calling, ostracizing, and cancelling performed folks on the Left creates a Proscription Structure against voicing support for, or voting for non-approved views and candidates. Female bullying tactics work.
---I don't know how many Jewish Voters you know, but I know a few, and not one of them wholeheartedly, or even guardedly, approves of Israel's actions in Gaza, and not one of them plans to vote for Trump,
Wow. Not my experience at all. Maybe the common demonitator among your Jews is Vermont, Tim. Those I know are rooting Netanyahu on and want it to go more quickly and thoroughly than it has so far. Gaza is a dirty word to them. As it should be. Stand with liberty and civilization over ignorance and barbarity. It feels better and it is better.
I'm not budging until they release the "Simon says you may vote for Harris" ad.
Permissive or liberal structures refers to progressive legislation of queer sexual orientations, including: pedophilia, sadomasochism, neighbors with "benefits", casting couches, grooming, etc.
The fatal flaw in this logic is the belief conservatives, Republican voters are conformist, peer-pressured ninnies the way Democrat voters are. All they’re accomplishing at best is scraping the bottom of the jar for the last few Democrats but you’re really just making Democrats who have been getting their smug wiped off their face all election season feel good…
One of our sons had a fun experience with a rental down in San Diego. Rental company only had a Polestar. He spent more time looking for a working charger than time spent enjoying the visit.
Prof, thank you for doing the etymological research most Americans won't.
I know you hate taking requests, but could you entertain doing a post on "religiosity?"
I first noticed this abortion of a word about eight years ago. I don't know where it came from. I don't know why people don't use existing words such as "piety," "devotion," "belief," "observance," or, in extremis, "religiousness" instead.
It's the sort of construction my high school teachers would have dropped me half a letter grade for using.
JSM
It actually says something bad about your candidate when you keep telling people that they can vote for your candidate and none of their friends have to know about it. If your candidate is the best choice, you should be proud of that decision. There is a veiled threat that if you don't vote for Harris that you will be ostracized by compassionate left. The thing that they don't see about this argument is that it automatically goes both ways. If none of your liberal friends know that you voted for Trump, you won't have to worry about them getting angry with you.
Seriously, who is going to be more upset with someone for not voting for their candidate, a liberal or a conservative? In my experience the liberals are the ones who get more angry and judgmental when friends vote conservative.
As I've repeatedly said, I always vote third party when possible. In October of 2016 an old, liberal, friend of mine (Who was a very accomplished lawyer who has actually argued before the Supreme Court) asked me point blank on facebook what I thought about the situation at the border. I said that I supported a very generous legal immigration system but didn't think that we should have this free for all at the border where people are allowed to cross illegally and bypass the rules. She responded, "Thank you. That's good to know." and instantly unfriended me.
Burn Hollywood, Burn
I actually have a gay, Jewish friend on facebook who supports Israel and supports Trump. His friend's list has gotten much shorter this year.
It's a veiled threat against your social relationships. "That's a nice group of friends you have there. It's be a real shame if you voted for someone who will alienate them."
"claim whatever has happened to the Jews as one’s own experience, announce a “universal” ideal that all good people must accept, and then redefine Jewish collective identity as lying beyond it"
Hard to follow but I think this mostly happens inside Dara Horn's head.
George Clooney's voice in this sad came off as very unimpressive. I wonder if his voice has benefited from sound engineering care in his movies. Or perhaps it is a bit of a halo effect for his voice in conjunction with his appearance.
+1
The difference between the Dem ads and the Republican ad is that the women in the Republican ad are seeking to persuade through discussion. There is no jerk in the group.
The Dem ads supply an overbearing Republican male boob as the villain of the piece. Thus offending all non-overbearing boob male Republicans.
Their contempt for us is overwhelming. They don't even see it.
bingo! nobody says bingo anymore.
I couldn't have said it better, Dave.
I have a few Jewish friends and all of them understand the necessity of what Israel is doing in Gaza and Lebanon both.
Post a Comment