Analysis behind “Pitchforks and Torches,” as a Call to Action in Political Communication

Republican candidate for governor in Wisconsin, Tim Michels

A headline that reads, “Wisconsin GOP candidate calls for 'pitchforks and torches’” is going to gain reader attention and immediately invite scrutiny and negativity. The questions was the particular language and imagery used a wise decision and effective?

Tim Michels, a candidate for governor, was upset that media coverage led to anger and criticism after a story was published about his giving to, “anti-abortion groups, churches and others,” reports Scott Bauer of the Associated Press.

Bauer reported on Michels’ comments.

“I believe people should just, just be ready to get out on the streets with pitchforks and torches with how low the liberal media has become,” Michels said on a talk radio show.

“People need to decide ‘Am I going to put up with this? Am I going to tolerate this, taking somebody that gives money to churches or cancer research and use that as a hit piece in the media?’ I’m appalled. It’s disgusting.”

Michels was hurt and criticized the “corrupt media” of turning his charitable giving and faith “into something malicious,” Bauer reported.

“I will never, ever apologize for giving to charitable causes, or for being a Christian,” Michels said. “However, the Journal Sentinel should be ashamed of their anti-religious bigotry.”

A geopolitical analyst and reputation management specialist says there is nothing new happening here.

“Negative imagery and personal attacks have a long and storied history in U.S. politics and governance,” says Irina Tsukerman, the president at Scarab Rising. “John Adams and Thomas Jefferson started the art of negative campaigning, which included highly personalized and colorful language from major publications battling it out on behalf of the candidates.”

Michels use of the phrase, “pitchforks and torches,” however is likely to prove to be a sign of strength to his supporters, in response to what may seem to be unjust treatment.

“Failure to use strong colorful evocative language would make the candidate look weak and insufficiently outraged by that particular audience,” says Tsukerman.

“Politicians have caught on that dark emotions, such as fear, elicit strong emotional response, particularly in group context. ‘Witch hunts’ work for that reason. It is an effective form of psychological manipulation, and may work better than positive campaigning or exclusively positive campaigning, because very often Americans vote against particular candidates or policies, and not necessarily in support.”

Michels wanted voters to doubt and react aggressively towards the media and felt he was asking a legitimate question of himself and voters when he communicated, “Am I going to tolerate this, taking somebody that gives money to churches or cancer research and use that as a hit piece in the media?’ I’m appalled. It’s disgusting.”

To many this could be a reasonable assessment and to others, it might be seen as deflection and manipulation.

“This part of the statement is attempting to reframe the discussion by showing the candidate himself being the victim of unfair attacks, in other words, his record on other issues — giving aid to religious institutions and medical charities — is being used against him,” Tsukerman says.

“The candidate conflates two separate lines of inquiry — the specific attacks on his support for anti-abortion clinics, with his support for other types of institutions; in other words, the original attack, despite his claims, did not necessarily also include all those other things that he is now including to claim that he is being attacked for all those things,” she adds.

Irina Tsukerman, president of Scarab Rising

In fact, she claims, “You could say it's a bit of a strawman argument,” because, “It is deceptive and intellectually dishonest, and most likely will be transparently seen as such for sure with his opponents who will point out that they did not make that particular argument at all.

“But in the context of his audience, which his base of support he is looking to engage in his defense, it will likely be effective because they will not necessarily argue with him and say ‘Now wait a minute; this is a bit unfair, they did not attack all of your character and all these things they were doing, they only attacked that one thing.’”

Supporters could take all this in and be emotionally triggered to strengthen their allegiance to him.

“They will likely think of it this way: ‘This is a great guy who not only agrees with us on that one issue but also has a general record of positive action - and he is being attacked,’” Tsukerman says.

If that does end up being the thinking and response, Michels will have achieved his possible objective, she asserts.

“So even though he is not being attacked for all those things, the fact that he is being attacked even for one thing thing that his audience finds particularly important will mean they are most likely into perceiving the attack as general character attacked as opposed to an attack on a specific policy or position,” Tsukerman reasons.

“And it is absolutely true that the candidate is aware that what he is trying to do is create a perception of a generalized character attack because his supporters will rally more if they feel he is being attacked personally, as opposed to for some specific position.”

Michels' campaign spokesperson, Anna Kelly, found the critics and media reactions to Michels comments overblown.

“Only political hacks and media accomplices would freak out about Tim using a figure of speech to emphasize the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s ridiculous characterization of his donations to churches, nuns, and charitable causes as ‘radical,’” she said.

This approach, whether driven in the subconscious or being planned, could win agreement yet it is going to be questioned.

“Kelly is employing a logical fallacy on top of rehashing the strawman argument which mischaracterizes the line of the attack called, ‘poisoning the well,’ by describing all critics of the candidate as ‘hacks and media accomplices,’ and also by describing all efforts to call out inaccuracies in his response as ‘freaking out,’” Tsukerman says.

“The speaker attacks the credibility of a person before they speak to bias listeners against the speaker,” she points out.

“This fallacy is based on the belief that the enemy used to put tainted meat down into the town well so all the water that would come out of the well would be tainted and make people sick. The idea is that if a speaker taints a person’s credibility, then everything that comes out of their mouth is something harmful.”

She explains why this approach towards opposing candidates and the media is preferable for many campaigns and often ends up the go-to strategy.

“Positive campaigning is more difficult. Positive campaigns generally include some level of positive emotional appeal by the candidate, but also include fact-based evaluation of the candidate's role and policies,” Tsukerman says.

“Still with the rise of highly emotional appeal and polarization in recent decades, the appeal of demonizing the opponents have become a default setting, not because the public is incapable of evaluating different policies fairly, but because the underlying assumptions among candidates often is that they should not,” she says.

The end game — winning — dictates a certain game plan to be carried out.

“The default is to delegitimize the appeal of the other side, so that the constituents would not reach the point of evaluation by assuming from the get go, that the position of the other side will be extreme and unconscionable,” Tsukerman says.

“That's what makes negative campaigning particularly effective.”