Can a billionaire win over California’s left? Tom Steyer’s betting on it
Analysis Summary
This article tries to convince you that rich candidates, especially billionaires, can't truly represent progressive ideas. It uses strong emotional language and highlights divisions between wealthy candidates and regular people to make you believe that a billionaire's past financial activities make them untrustworthy, even if they say they're progressive. While it gives examples of criticism against Tom Steyer's past, it doesn't really explore how his current stances might appeal to progressives, leaving out details that could offer a more balanced view.
FATE Analysis
Four dimensions of psychological manipulation: how content captures Focus, exploits Authority, triggers Tribal identity, and engineers Emotion.
Focus signals
"Steyer is testing the bounds of left-wing populism."
This phrase frames the situation as a novel and potentially challenging political experiment, drawing the reader's attention to an unfolding narrative.
Authority signals
"said Garry South, a Democratic consultant who ran former Gov. Gray Davis’ 1998 primary campaign"
The article introduces Garry South with his professional background and experience, lending weight and perceived expertise to his quote.
"In a statement to POLITICO, Porter campaign spokesperson Peter Opitz accused Steyer"
Referring to 'POLITICO' as the recipient of the statement adds a layer of journalistic credibility and institutional weight to the campaign's accusations.
"said longtime Sacramento consultant Andrew Acosta, who is not working for any of the candidates."
The article presents Andrew Acosta as a 'longtime Sacramento consultant,' establishing his expert perspective. The additional detail that he is 'not working for any of the candidates' attempts to bolster his credibility and impartiality.
Tribe signals
"Americans increasingly blame billionaires for their financial strain."
This statement creates a clear 'us' (Americans) versus 'them' (billionaires) dynamic, setting up a tribal divide around economic issues.
"Sanders, a standard-bearer for progressive populism, railed against billionaires"
This weaponizes the 'progressive populism' identity against billionaires, framing an ideological stance as a tribal marker.
"calling billionaires “oligarchs” whose “greed and arrogance and moral turpitude” threaten American society."
This language demonizes billionaires, creating a strong 'us vs. them' narrative by portraying them as a threat to society due to negative moral qualities.
"Does that mean that we are just buying elections? Is that who we are? Are we a state where our democracy can be bought?"
These rhetorical questions used by Porter’s video create an 'us vs. them' dynamic, implying a threat to 'our' democracy if certain candidates (like Steyer) are allowed to self-fund, aiming to turn voters against that method due to perceived corruption.
Emotion signals
"calling billionaires “oligarchs” whose “greed and arrogance and moral turpitude” threaten American society."
The strong, negative language used by Sanders is designed to provoke outrage and moral indignation against billionaires.
"accused Steyer of trying to “lie about his record and buy an election” using “the billions he made from expanding private prisons and immigration detention centers and producing fossil fuels.”"
This quote from the Porter campaign uses highly charged terms ('lie', 'buy an election') and links Steyer to controversial industries (private prisons, immigration detention, fossil fuels) to generate outrage and disgust.
"“Steyer’s scam would make Donald Trump blush,” Opitz said. “Democrats won’t be fooled by another billionaire fraud seeking high office — Katie’s the one with a real record delivering progressive victories.”"
This statement attempts to associate Steyer with Trump (a figure often inducing strong negative emotions in Democrats) and positions Porter as having moral and ideological superiority, appealing to a sense of intellectual and moral high ground for progressives.
"The San Jose mayor is widely seen as a threat to labor interests and has received support from tech titans, like Google’s Sergey Brin and Palantir’s Joe Lonsdale, who are spending unprecedented sums on state candidates and ballot initiatives."
This statement attempts to evoke fear among labor supporters by framing the mayor as a 'threat to labor interests' and highlighting 'unprecedented spending' by tech titans, implying a powerful, unchecked force.
Narrative Analysis (PCP)
How the article reshapes thinking: Perception (what beliefs are targeted), Context (what information is shifted or omitted), and Permission (what behavior is being encouraged).
The article aims to instill the belief that wealthy individuals, particularly billionaires, face inherent and often insurmountable challenges in genuinely representing populist or progressive interests, especially when their past financial activities conflict with those values. It targets the belief that financial success disqualifies one from certain political stances.
The article shifts the context of political candidacy from evaluating a candidate solely on their stated policies and current actions to primarily scrutinizing the source and accumulation of their personal wealth. This shift frames a candidate's financial history as a primary determinant of their authenticity and electability, particularly in a progressive landscape. It also shifts the perception of a self-funded campaign from financial independence to potential corruption or an attempt to bypass genuine grassroots support.
The article extensively details negative perceptions and criticisms of Tom Steyer's wealth and past investments, but largely omits details of the specific 'progressives' he is courting or how they are actually evaluating his platform beyond their general skepticism of billionaires. While some endorsements are mentioned, the article doesn't provide detailed insights into the specific policy positions that might attract progressive support, beyond vague mentions of climate advocacy and tax promises, which could balance the narrative of his wealth as a disqualifier.
The reader is nudged to view candidates whose personal wealth was accumulated through means perceived as ethically questionable or non-progressive, especially billionaires, with skepticism and distrust, despite their current political rhetoric or stated intentions. It encourages a critical assessment of a political candidate's past financial activities as a primary indicator of their suitability for progressive office.
SMRP Pattern
Four manipulation maintenance tactics: Socializing the idea as normal, Minimizing concerns, Rationalizing with logic, and Projecting blame.
Red Flags
High-severity indicators: silencing dissent, coordinated messaging, or weaponizing identity to shut down debate.
""Trying to pose yourself as a populist billionaire is, to the typical voter, a contradiction," said Garry South, a Democratic consultant..."It’s on Tom to show that he’s different," said Anthony York, a Steyer campaign strategist..."You’re trying to sell people the idea that somehow, despite your circumstances and being a billionaire with unlimited money, you identify with the average guy," South said."
""Trying to pose yourself as a populist billionaire is, to the typical voter, a contradiction." This implies that believing a billionaire can be a populist is a flawed or irrational perspective for a 'typical voter'."
Techniques Found(7)
Specific propaganda techniques identified using the SemEval-2023 academic taxonomy of 23 techniques across 6 categories.
"calling billionaires “oligarchs” whose “greed and arrogance and moral turpitude” threaten American society."
The words 'oligarchs,' 'greed,' 'arrogance,' and 'moral turpitude' are emotionally charged and designed to evoke strong negative feelings towards billionaires, framing them as a threat to society.
"Is that who we are? Are we a state where our democracy can be bought?"
This rhetorical question presents a false dilemma, implying that the only two options are either to accept the influence of wealthy donors (democracy can be bought) or to reject it, without acknowledging that there might be various degrees of influence or other factors at play in a democratic process.
"accused Steyer of trying to “lie about his record and buy an election” using “the billions he made from expanding private prisons and immigration detention centers and producing fossil fuels.”"
The spokesperson uses disparaging labels like 'lie about his record' and 'buy an election' to discredit Steyer and his campaign. Additionally, associating his wealth's origins with 'private prisons and immigration detention centers and producing fossil fuels' serves as a negative label.
"Steyer’s scam would make Donald Trump blush,” Opitz said. “Democrats won’t be fooled by another billionaire fraud seeking high office — Katie’s the one with a real record delivering progressive victories.”"
The words 'scam' and 'fraud' are highly negative and emotionally charged, intended to evoke strong disapproval and discredit Steyer. Comparing his actions to something that would 'make Donald Trump blush' further amplifies the negative perception by associating him with a controversial political figure.
"Steyer’s scam would make Donald Trump blush,” Opitz said."
This statement attempts to discredit Steyer by associating his actions, labeled as a 'scam,' with Donald Trump, a figure often viewed negatively by the target audience (Democrats), implying that if Trump would blush, Steyer's actions are exceptionally egregious.
"Will labor leaders and progressive activists trust a billionaire in the end?"
This question directly attacks Steyer's credibility and trustworthiness as a billionaire in the eyes of labor leaders and progressive activists, without providing concrete evidence against his character, aiming to sow doubt about his motives and suitability.
"He has the funding to see this through.”"
This quote oversimplifies the complex process of running a successful political campaign by reducing the primary consequence of having funding to simply 'seeing it through,' implying that sufficient money alone guarantees success or efficacy, while numerous other factors are at play.