tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-71486080363707767022024-03-05T08:40:00.144+00:00Neil StockleyNeil Stockleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11049181290242914014noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-50151280284290610902010-07-11T20:59:00.004+01:002010-07-11T21:08:34.317+01:00Narrativewatch: Sarah Palin releases 'mom awakening' political broadcast<div class="posterous_autopost"><div class="posterous_bookmarklet_entry"> <object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/swflash.cab" height="281" width="500"> <param name="movie" value="/telegraph/template/utils/ooyala/telegraph_player.swf"> <param name="quality" value="high"> <param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"> <param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> <param name="flashvars" value="playerId=TelegraphPlayer-7880948&showTD=true&embedCode=JuZmhqMTq0prUy08y7cK_dXMFm6ZwMwd&me=TelegraphPlayer-7880948&callback=InSkinObject.myInSkin7880948.objContent.eventHandler&autoplay=0&version=2&thruParamDartEnterprise=site%3Dnews%26section%3Dnews%2Fnewsvideo%2Fuspoliticsvideo%26pt%3Dvid%26pg%3D%2Fnews%2Fnewsvideo%2Fus-politics-video%2F7880948%2FSarah-Palin-releases-mom-awakening-political-broadcast.html%26spaceid%3Dvid%26ls%3Df%26transactionID%3D1007111911390113%26psize%3D620x415"> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"> <embed name="TelegraphPlayer-7880948" src="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/template/utils/ooyala/telegraph_player.swf" allowfullscreen="true" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer" allowscriptaccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" flashvars="playerId=TelegraphPlayer-7880948&showTD=true&embedCode=JuZmhqMTq0prUy08y7cK_dXMFm6ZwMwd&me=TelegraphPlayer-7880948&callback=InSkinObject.myInSkin7880948.objContent.eventHandler&autoplay=0&version=2&thruParamDartEnterprise=site%3Dnews%26section%3Dnews%2Fnewsvideo%2Fuspoliticsvideo%26pt%3Dvid%26pg%3D%2Fnews%2Fnewsvideo%2Fus-politics-video%2F7880948%2FSarah-Palin-releases-mom-awakening-political-broadcast.html%26spaceid%3Dvid%26ls%3Df%26transactionID%3D1007111911390113%26psize%3D620x415" quality="high" align="middle" height="281" width="500"></embed> </object><div class="posterous_quote_citation">via <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/us-politics-video/7880948/Sarah-Palin-releases-mom-awakening-political-broadcast.html">telegraph.co.uk</a></div> <p>Sarah Palin's new "mom awakening" TV spot has sparked a fresh round of speculation that she will run for president in 2012. </p><p>The spot is a clever piece of political narrative, based firmly on the "rot at the top" archetype. Palin warns of a "fundamental transformation of America", with her country's children and grandchildren under threat from an unnamed enemy within. </p><p>To ram it all home, she compares America's 'awakening mom' to a grizzly bear protecting her cubs - a cultural story that everyone can understand. </p><p>The spot packs a powerful emotional punch, without saying outright what the threat is. Some images used suggest that the danger comes from the Democrats' healthcare reforms, but you can't be too sure.</p></div> <p style="font-size: 10px;"> <a href="http://posterous.com/">Posted via email</a> from <a href="http://neilstockley.posterous.com/narrativewatch-sarah-palin-releases-mom-awake">Neil Stockley</a> </p> </div>Neil Stockleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11049181290242914014noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-16655413696180405342009-03-17T19:02:00.007+00:002009-03-17T19:14:55.504+00:00Narrativewatch: "Barack Obama has lost focus"<div align="justify">I think it’s safe to say that there is a new narrative on President Obama: that he is trying to do too much when he should be focussing his efforts on stabilising the financial system.<br /><br />Of course, this is not what the president is telling us. But one of the main rules of narratives is that politicians don’t get to decide what they are.<br /><br />Mr Obama is being criticised for trying to act quickly on the wider agenda of healthcare reform, new investment in education and tackling carbon emissions -- and for trying to suggest that are all part of a plan for long-term prosperity.<br /><br />The new narrative is well summarised in <a href="http://http//www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1884630,00.html">a major article in the latest issue of TIME</a>, which starts off:<br /><br /><em><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>"Barack Obama's big reform agenda won't get off the ground unless he fixes the banks first. The case for doing one thing at a time."</em> </p><p align="justify"><br /></p></blockquote></em><a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9925fb0a-118b-11de-87b1-0000779fd2ac.html">Without endorsing it, the FT’s Clive Crook</a> has summed up the new “conventional wisdom” about President Obama: <em>“he has far taken on far too much”</em> and may outstrip the system’s capacity – administrative, legislative and political – to deliver.<br /><br />It should come as no surprise that conservatives are telling this “lack of focus” story. They oppose President Obama and have no truck with his policies. See, for instance, <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/obama_overexposed.html">George Will</a> on the president’s economic plans and <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/criticism_shows_obama_is_losin.html">Michael Barone</a>’s (weird) views about global warming.<br /><br />But some Obama supporters are also calling on the president to focus on the economy – or, in some cases, to avoid embarking on an FDR-style New Deal too quickly, in order to avoid a policy car crash.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5294HH20090310">Warren Buffett</a> has accused the administration of having “muddled messages” on the economy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/opinion/24brooks.html">David Brooks, a “moderate” writer for the New York Times</a>, has said of the Obama administration: <em>“I fear that in trying to do everything at once, they will do nothing well.”</em><br /><br />The <em>Washington Post’s</em> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/04/AR2009030403067.html">David Ignatius</a> has called on the president to avoid “financial giantism” and to focus on “reconstructing our broken financial system.<br /><br />The risks of overload shouldn’t be brushed aside. <a href="http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=7c290026-c0b5-4938-abcb-954f4ad0866a">Michael Galston, writing last week in the liberals’ house journal, the New Republic</a>, made another case for caution. He drew a number of distinctions between the situation faced by Barack Obama and Franklin D. Roosevelt, a previous president facing a depression, and trying to take forward a big political agenda. Galston reminded us that FDR concentrated on fixing the financial system and delayed unrelated structural reforms until he was sure that he had Congress and the public onside. He concluded:<br /><br /><blockquote><em>“In sum, our circumstances are not (yet) as dire as they were in 1933. In part for that reason, the people are not prepared to give the president and his party the degree of deference that Roosevelt and the Democratic congress enjoyed at the start of the New Deal--all the more reason for Obama to distinguish between short- and long-term measures at least as carefully as FDR did.”</em><br /></blockquote><br />And the veteran Washington Post columnist David Broder – usually cast as non-partisan and “centrist” – declared on Sunday that President Obama’s <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031302274.html">honeymoon is over</a>. Broder set out the risks for the administration in having such a sweeping policy agenda; and, in particular, that its health and education programmes will get bogged down in Congress.<br /><br />We shouldn’t forget that the “loss of focus” storyline is a clever political gambit for conservatives to follow. <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/270rbpzy.asp">The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes gave some of the game away</a> when he wrote that the president had a big “grandiose agenda” and that he was right to “go for it now”, while his popularity ratings are still high and the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate remain strong. The longer he waits, this argument runs, the more likely Obama’s personal ratings are to sag, with Democrats in congress becoming more worried about the 2010 elections.<br /><br />Clive Crook explains:<br /><br /><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>“The prospects for Mr Obama’s agenda depend on his ability to marshal political capital and spend it wisely. In the simplest terms, he needs to stay as popular as he can for as long as possible. Once his approval ratings slide – and they show the first signs of doing so – he is sunk. This is why the “overload” critique is so significant: not because it is correct on the merits but because it is plausible and bipartisan and will erode his standing with the electorate.”</em></p></blockquote><br /><br />Even if he doesn’t buy the whole “Obama overload” story, Clive Crook regrets what he sees as the president’s failure to play to his strengths with centrists and to rise above left-right rancour.<br /><br />If the “taking on too much” storyline sticks, his opponents will have succeeded in undermining one of President Obama’s strongest personal narratives: that he’s a positive, new force for real change who can put the “old politics” behind. Another embattled president, suffering falling poll ratings and seeming to play cynical games in order to advance an agenda that is too big and too “radical” can’t do that.<br /><br />Or, as a very tough politician I worked with years ago told me, if you want to destroy your political opponents, you have to destroy their myths. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-83314563417947000012008-11-05T17:51:00.005+00:002008-11-05T17:59:58.339+00:00Yes, he can -- if he wants to. The Obama opportunity<div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRsLx_PJsvgicXnNPvqyyWOLCYS___OwewbSlXy2meqIv4aCW37LrmSC6jnJIehpvMbcndC-FDczkNVT8iQmYxc5CFwXt8G10-zEBo3Zg7YVS2c5zh5zIBnVZDbV819V9OndmmCoexqO-2/s1600-h/shepard-fairey-barack-obama-1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5265234122068359810" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 150px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRsLx_PJsvgicXnNPvqyyWOLCYS___OwewbSlXy2meqIv4aCW37LrmSC6jnJIehpvMbcndC-FDczkNVT8iQmYxc5CFwXt8G10-zEBo3Zg7YVS2c5zh5zIBnVZDbV819V9OndmmCoexqO-2/s200/shepard-fairey-barack-obama-1.jpg" border="0" /></a> Like many people, I was a little bit emotional in the early hours of this morning. It wasn’t just that Barack Obama had made history, and proved what can be done in American politics. Or the sight of scores of African Americans, thrilled and excited at their new sense of opportunity. Or that the world’s eight-year long nightmare, the presidency of George W. Bush, is about to end.<br /><br />There are two reasons I am especially pleased.<br /><br />First, we may now see American leadership – and the promise of real progress - on addressing the climate crisis.<br /><br />President-elect Obama is committed to bringing America – the single biggest source of carbon emissions – back into the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This follows years of denial and intransigence from the Bush Administration. A post-2012 global agreement is now a possibility, at least.<br /><a name="green_and_greener"></a><br />Obama has also said that launching an “Apollo project”, to invest £150 billion over 10 years, to build a new alternative-energy economy, will be his “Number 1 priority” in office. His main priorities will be accelerating the commercialisation of plug-in hybrids, promoting renewable energy, encourage energy efficiency and investing in low emissions coal plants. He would “invest in America’s highly skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centres”, so that they can pioneer green technologies. [For further details click <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf">here</a>.] Obama wants this “new energy” to replace cheap credit as the turbocharger of the economy. (He opposes building more nuclear power stations and, while Obama did not oppose oil drilling, he talked about its drawbacks.) If these changes come off, they will bring massive changes to energy markets and the politics of energy.<br /><br />Obama proposes climate-change legislation centred on a “cap and trade” mechanism that sets a ceiling on emissions that declines over time. Businesses and institutions that cannot hit the targets must buy permits from those that achieve bigger cuts than required. Obama’s proposals are tougher than McCain’s would have been: he proposes to cut emissions by 80 per cent of their 1990 levels by 2050, (McCain said 60 per cent) and to auction off all pollution permits from the start, forcing polluters to pay for the damage they cause. This will help to facilitate a reliable carbon price – the cornerstone of any policy framework on climate change.<br /><br />Of course, there’s a big difference between a promise and action, especially when he the Senate must agree to a new climate change treaty, by a two-thirds majority, as well as approving cap and trade any scheme. Obama’s proposals have their flaws. But this is the impressive energy programme ever produced by a leading US politician.<br /><br />Second, we may see a new kind of politics.<br /><br /><a href="http://neilstockley.blogspot.com/2008/10/if-barack-obama-wins-presidency-he-may.html">What Rick Perlstein calls Nixonland</a>, the ruthless use of culturally-based wedge politics, has been vanquished. The Republicans tried that toxic brand of campaigning against Barack Obama and they failed, miserably. After the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, and the economic turmoil of 2008, Republican tactics were no longer credible. American voters have been more focussed on their wallets, their fuel prices, their jobs, their mortgages - and embraced a political message based on “hope” and “change”.<br /><br />Barack Obama can truly claim to embody and represent real political change. This is partly about his race, his inclusive rhetoric and his personal narrative. All have been well covered on this blog. It’s about his age too. Obama represents a new generation of leadership – the late baby boomers -- "Generation Jones" – who, as <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/107583http:/www.newsweek.com/id/107583">Jonathan Alter</a> says combine residual '60s idealism mixed and the pragmatism and materialism of the '80s. (I am biased here, having been born in 1962) So Obama can credibly promise to “turn the page” from BushClintonBush and from the culture wars of those years.<br /><br />But there’s more to it than that. Late in the campaign, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/21/AR2008102102255.html">Michael Gershon</a>, a former speechwriter to George W. Bush, rejected suggestions that Obama is either a closet radical or a born-again moderate. He sees the new president as something else altogether.<br /><br /><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify"><br /></p><p align="justify"><em>"From his days at Harvard Law School, Obama has combined progressive political views with instincts of reconciliation. . . Obama does not appear to view himself as a lapsed radical. He sees himself as the reconciler of opposites, the seer of merit on both sides, the transcender of stale debates. He is the racial healer who understands racial anger. The peace candidate who prefers a more aggressive war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The outsider who surrounds himself with reassuring establishment figures.<br /></p></em></blockquote><div align="justify"><br /></div><div align="justify"><em></div></em><div align="justify"><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify"><br /></p><p align="justify"><em>“During the presidential debates, Obama reinforced this image as an analyst, not an ideologue -- the </em><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/University+of+Chicago?tid=informline"><em>University of Chicago</em></a><em> professor, not the leftist community organizer. His entire manner douses inflammatory charges of extremism.”</em><br /></p></blockquote><div align="justify"><br /></div><div align="justify"><br />Gerson notes that one of Obama's favorite philosophers is Reinhold Niebuhr, the theologian of conflicted humility. He believes that this might translate into an administration focused on achievable goals, run by seasoned, reasonable professionals reaching out to Republicans in the new Cabinet and avoiding culture war battles when possible.<br /><br />But it’s here that my two main hopes for Obama may crash into each other. Gerson questions whether avoiding culture wars and a sense of conflicted humility will be enough to make a strong, decisive president, who can stand up to his own party. <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/11/the-great-persuader.html">Kevin Drum of Mother Jones</a>, on the other side of politics, has made a similar observation. He asks whether Obama will deploy the skills that have got him into the White House for an even bigger, more demanding purpose: persuading people to support his energy and climate plans.<br /><br />It’s a good point. There’s a big difference between uniting people and building voter coalitions in support of far-reaching and diffficult changes. “Selling” big changes to people, than mean they must change themselves, is always hard. And appealing to a party’s sense of values is different from leading it into a new brave new world, especially when money is involved. Former advisers to Bill Clinton have spoken of the dominance of real-time distractions, the inability of Congress to deal with more than one big issue at a time, and the basic limits of influence even from the White House.<br /><br />The public may be ready for “change” and “green jobs” is a great slogan. But Obama’s energy plan isn’t just about green jobs. His cap and trade legislation would push up fuel prices. Who wants to cope with that, in these tough times?<br /><br />Some of Obama’s energy and climate change measures are technical and detailed. The medium- and long-term benefits will be hard for anyone to explain to people. A host of surveys show that most Americans remain <a href="http://ecoamerica.typepad.com/blog/2008/10/the-american-climate-values-survey-2008.html" target="_blank">doubtful, disengaged</a>, or <a href="http://ecoamerica.typepad.com/blog/2008/10/understanding-complacency-about-climate-change.html" target="_blank">confused about the basic science</a> pointing to human-made climate change. They do not get that stabilising concentrations of emissions mean that emissions have be reduced [see <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/the-presidency-and-the-climate-challenge/">here</a>].<br /><br />That all sounds like a tough sell to US senators and representatives. <a href="http://video.nytimes.com/video/2007/05/17/world/americas/1194817109438/clinton-on-climate-change.html">Bill Clinton has stressed</a> that moving forward on climate policy involves overcoming obstacles in both parties. He sees it as not a Democrat / Republican issue, but a coal-state issue.<br /><br />Obama is going to need a new narrative, aimed at persuading American voters to support the Apollo project for new energy and “send a message” to Washington.<br /><br />It may come down to what the new president really wants to do and the extent to which he is willing to move beyond public opinion, and take the public with him. In short, will he take the risk?<br /><br />But right now, there’s no-one who can tell the new energy story than Barack Obama – if he really wants to, that is. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-35556431638579641802008-10-29T10:16:00.014+00:002008-10-29T22:54:09.700+00:00"Accidental genius" and the secrets of Barack Obama's success<div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw8JwwFooHaoKJ9S5ELV4v82OLrn8gs5eAi1HmrBuKUScJlQ19onszNvTTGJG9vsg6DpWeLfIwq3SbmxCDW_Rs61rqZeIO9np2NzCETYk0n5PsN89ZsXEzaNsoUqm0nLKNhbAyQ3NIiEOH/s1600-h/obama.barack.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5262519965843449026" style="margin: 0px 10px 10px 0px; float: left; width: 200px; height: 148px;" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw8JwwFooHaoKJ9S5ELV4v82OLrn8gs5eAi1HmrBuKUScJlQ19onszNvTTGJG9vsg6DpWeLfIwq3SbmxCDW_Rs61rqZeIO9np2NzCETYk0n5PsN89ZsXEzaNsoUqm0nLKNhbAyQ3NIiEOH/s200/obama.barack.jpg" border="0" /></a> The reasons for Barack Obama’s success – and John McCain’s failure – have been succinctly summed up by, of all people, George W. Bush.<br /><br />[Before you say “yes, but Obama hasn’t won yet”, fear not – I learnt the hard way about the difference between political chickens and eggs, some 25 years ago. My point is, Obama is ahead and is clearly winning the official campaign.]<br /><br />Over the weekend, the New York Times Magazine featured this <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/magazine/26mccain-t.html?_r=1&ei=5070&emc=eta1&oref=slogin">fascinating article, by Robert Draper, on John McCain’s continuing failure to find a compelling narrative for his campaign</a>. It focuses heavily on the role of his chief campaign strategist, Stephen Schmidt. He was in charge of rapid rebuttal on Bush’s 2004 campaign. Schmidt recalls a meeting with Bush at a stage of the campaign, when things weren’t looking too good. Still, the president remained very confident.<br /><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>“There’s an accidental genius to the way Americans pick a president, Schmidt remembers Bush saying that day. By the end of it all, a candidate’s true character is revealed to the American people.”<br /></em></p><em></em></blockquote><div align="justify"><br />A bit later, Draper explains:<br /><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>“What campaigns peddle is not simply character but character as defined by story — a tale of opposing forces that in its telling will memorably establish what a given election is about.”<br /></em></p><em></em></blockquote><div align="justify"><br />The gruelling campaign of 2008 has given both candidates plenty of opportunities to tell and to live their stories, so that the voters can work out or, perhaps more accurately, gain an intuitive sense of whom they want to see in the Oval Office.<br /><br />In promising “change”, Obama has found the ideal narrative for a disgruntled, discontented electorate, whose demographics are changing and shifting. A post-baby boom, biracial first-term Democratic senator certainly represents a new face, a new direction, a new sense of possibilities. (For instance, he promises that an “Apollo project for energy independence” will be his first priority in office.) His “change” story meets the needs of the voters he seeks. Obama has stuck to his story all year.<br /><br />Whatever has been thrown at him, Obama has held his nerve. Time magazine’s Joe Klein, has <a href="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1853025-1,00.html">written an insightful piece</a> on Obama’s campaign and why he is winning. He describes how Obama has developed over this year, becoming more confident and steadier in his gut instincts. Klein concludes:<br /><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>“Obama has . . . remained levelheaded through a season of political insanity. His has been a remarkable campaign, as smoothly run as any I've seen in nine presidential cycles. Even more remarkable, Obama has made race — that perennial, gaping American wound — an afterthought. He has done this by introducing a quality to American politics that we haven't seen in quite some time: maturity. He is undoubtedly as ego-driven as everyone else seeking the highest office — perhaps more so, given his race, his name and his lack of experience. But he has not been childishly egomaniacal, in contrast to our recent baby-boomer Presidents — or petulant, in contrast to his opponent. He does not seem needy. He seems a grown-up, in a nation that badly needs some adult supervision.”<br /></em></p></blockquote><div align="justify"><br />McCain, by contrast, has failed to present a coherent, consistent story. Is he the straight-talking, maverick Republican senator who used to travel outside his party’s comfort zone on issues like taxes and global warming? Or the true conservative, who did a U-turn on Bush’s tax cuts?<br /><br />McCain should have had a better chance when it came to telling a story about “true character”. McCain’s personal story, the reckless flyboy who was a POW and then a courageous patriot, has been part of American folklore for at least a decade. But Draper explains in detail how his campaign has agonized --and failed -- over how to turn the McCain “metanarrative”, into a winning campaign story. Why America should elect (as opposed to simply admiring) McCain?<br /><br /></div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">Draper dissects the five – yes, five - McCain campaign narratives over the last year and says:<br /><br /></div><em><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>“In constantly alternating among story lines in order to respond to changing events and to gain traction with voters, the “true character” of a once-crisply-defined political figure has become increasingly murky.”<br /></em></p></blockquote></em><div align="justify"><br />The campaign has seen some big dramatic set-pieces in which candidates have been able to act out their “true characters” – their integrity, temperament and judgement.<br /><br />First, their choices of vice-presidential running mates. McCain’s hasty choice of Sarah Palin demonstrated his weakness as a potential president. As Draper tells it, McCain’s advisers were looking for a media celebrity; they did not stop to consider her inexperience or lack of knowledge about the issues. McCain met with her only briefly and seems to have fallen into the same traps. By contrast, Obama’s decision to go with Joe Biden was made quietly and carefully.<br /><br />Palin put McCain into the lead in the first two weeks in September. [click <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.htmlhttp:/www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.htmlhttp:/www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/">here</a>]. But she is now a drag on the Republican ticket. <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/Story?id=6071381&page=2">ABC’s pollster Gary Langer reported yesterday</a> that 52 percent of likely voters now say that McCain's selection of Sarah Palin makes them less confident in his judgment.<br /><br />Second, the way the two candidates handled the financial crisis at the end of September. McCain suspended his campaign, threatened to scuttle the first debate and caught a plane back to Washington to work with administration and congressional leaders to resolve the crisis. McCain’s advisers promised that their man would thrash out a solution -- and thereby advance his “character” narrative. But McCain’s contribution was risible. Says Draper:<br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"Scene by scene, McCain failed to deliver the performance that had been promised. ... [Given] a chance to show what kind of president he might be, McCain came off more like a stymied bystander than a leader who could make a difference."</span></blockquote></div><br /><br />To the consternation of some leading Democrats, Obama insisted on debating, as well as participating in the financial talks. McCain demurred. Klein says that:<br /><br /></div><em><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>“Obama’s gut steadiness . . . won the public’s trust and quite possibly the election.”</em></p></blockquote></em><div align="justify"><br /><br />[See my <a href="http://neilstockley.blogspot.com/2008/10/importance-of-personal-heuristics.htmlhttp:/neilstockley.blogspot.com/2008/10/importance-of-personal-heuristics.html">earlier blog</a> on how the cool, calm and disciplined Obama faced up against the “hot” and frenetic McCain]<br /><br />Klein may well be correct. The financial crisis appears to have been a major turning point in the campaign. The <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html">RCP Poll Average</a> of ratings shows that, at the end of September (when the crisis broke), Obama was just 2 percentage points ahead of McCain. This followed a difficult summer and McCain’s brief ascendancy following his convention. Obama’s lead climbed all through the first part of October to reach 7 per cent, dipped a bit in the third week, and is now back to 6 points.<br /><br />RCP also shows that, over summer, <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/obama_favorableunfavorable-643.html#chart">Obama’s net “favourable” rating</a> was between 18 and 21 points. After slumping in the second half of September, it recovered at the end of that month and has been on the up for most of October. His net “favourable” rating now stands at a steady 22 points.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/mccain_favorableunfavorable-642.html#chart">McCain also had a net “favourable” rating</a>, of between 16 and 20 points, over the summer. But at the end of September it collapsed, to 11 points. McCain’s net “favourable” rating has kept on falling and now stands at just 8 points.<br /><br />Last week, the ABC’s Gary Langer also <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=6067150&page=1">showed</a> how voters seem to have become convinced about Obama’s character and competence, whilst McCain’s negative politics has failed to have the desired effect. <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/Story?id=6071381&page=2">Yesterday</a>, he found that likely voters give Obama a 4-point lead on whom they trust more to handle an unexpected crisis, compared to McCain’s 17-point advantage after the Republican convention. Obama also has a big lead for having the best personality and temperament to be president; but then he has had big leads on that one all year.<br /><br />The “accidental genius” works in Westminster-type elections too – even though it may be called “comparative credibility”. And our elections are becoming more “presidential” all the time. In 1992, British voters sensed that Neil Kinnock and Labour were not quite ready to govern. Tony Blair was unpopular in 2005 but still more credible than the main alternative. The same test worked for Australia’s John Howard, at least twice. Howard lost in 2007 when he lost touch with the electorate on the big issues and the Australian Labor Party found a credible leader.<br /><br />Big long list of policies, anyone?<br /><br /></div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">[Thanks to my sister Louise and my friend Redmer for putting me on to the <em>NY Times Magazine</em> article]</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-63211939458611081602008-10-23T19:25:00.006+01:002008-10-23T19:50:49.416+01:00The difference that Sarah Palin makes<div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdsJq1MGUP6_27VSP3o7wutKGPH1Qk7s303ylV5hTIqIEcDpLSgyYyDSGWhyphenhyphenMji5DgMRE-PY9-CE8OzZNs3Au79yeB65OFlCuMAL97160qxv-8iFC7IQxi-X3I8KvtdfU6OrBqbv8FYUez/s1600-h/mccain+palin.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5260422021492143154" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdsJq1MGUP6_27VSP3o7wutKGPH1Qk7s303ylV5hTIqIEcDpLSgyYyDSGWhyphenhyphenMji5DgMRE-PY9-CE8OzZNs3Au79yeB65OFlCuMAL97160qxv-8iFC7IQxi-X3I8KvtdfU6OrBqbv8FYUez/s200/mccain+palin.bmp" border="0" /></a> Sarah Palin has been one of the political phenomena of 2008. On the one hand, she energised the Republican base, for a time. Someone had to do it. On the other, liberals - my side of politics – initially did not know how to respond to the youthful “hockey mom” with kooky views about global warming and much else. Some of the commentaries, from both sides of the Atlantic, were simply embarrassing.
<br />
<br />What the voters think matters more. Today, syndicated columnist <a href="http://http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/palin_drove_stake_into_centris.html">Froma Harrop </a>explains the impact that Sarah Palin has had on her. Ms Harrop is an “independent” -- that’s a non-aligned or floating voter, for those in Westminster-type countries. She supported Hillary Clinton, had doubts about Barack Obama and, over the summer, considered voting for John McCain. Now she’s backing Obama.
<br />
<br /></div><em><div align="justify">
<br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>"What happened [?] Sarah Palin happened.
<br /></p></em></blockquote></em><em><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>"Independents like me wanted two things out of a McCain running mate. (1) A capable leader who could step into the top job should something happen to the not-very-young No. 1. (2) Someone who would temper McCain's recent efforts to woo social conservatives. They got neither in the Alaska governor.</em></p></blockquote><div align="justify"></div><blockquote><p align="justify">"Sure, Palin gave him a bump in the polls right after the Republican convention. She gave a rousing speech, written by a crack speechwriter. But once on her own, she quickly displayed a shocking ignorance of world affairs and a general inability to talk coherently on policy matters. Her habit of dividing America -- even individual states -- into good and not-as-good sectors comes off as downright weird</em>."</em>
<br /></p></blockquote><div align="justify">
<br />Froma Harrop uses <a href="http://http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html">Real Clear Politics poll averages</a> to show that she’s not atypical of voters like herself. The drop in McCain’s ratings started in September, straight after he named Governor Palin as his choice for Veep and before the sharemarket crashed. Ms Harrop says:
<br />
<br /></div><em><div align="justify">
<br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify">
<br /></p><p align="justify"><em>"Independents tend to be fiscally conservative, socially liberal and strong on defense. They were McCain's natural constituency and in mid-September gave him a 13-point margin. That lead has since flipped over to Obama, and Palin is a big reason."
<br /></p></em></blockquote><div align="justify">
<br /></div><div align="justify"></em></div><div align="justify">
<br />Ms Harrop is correct in identifying the Alaska governor as a Republican liability, though the full Palin effect may have taken a little longer than she suggests. According to <a href="http://http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27297013/">MSNBC yesterday</a>, fifty-five percent of respondents say Governor Palin is not qualified to serve as president if the need arises, up five points from the previous poll. For the first time, more voters have a negative opinion of her than a positive one, by a nine point margin. In September, she held a 47 to 27 percent positive rating.
<br />
<br />The Palin effect may be more about competence and credibility than issues. ABC News polling analyst Gary Langer says that, in <a href="http://http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=6067150&page=1">a survey taken on Monday</a>, 52 percent of likely voters said McCain's pick of Palin has made them less confident in the kind of decisions he'd make as president. That’s up 13 points since just after she was picked. Public doubts about Palin's qualifications (well-expressed by former secretary of state Colin Powell on Sunday) have grown. Just 38 percent say it makes them more confident in McCain's judgment, down 12 points.
<br />
<br /><a href="http://http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27297013/">MSNBC</a> found that Sarah Palin’s qualifications to be president rank as voters’ top concern about McCain’s candidacy - ahead of continuing President Bush’s policies, enacting economic policies that only benefit the rich and keeping too high of a troop presence in Iraq!
<br />
<br />And having Sarah Palin on his ticket has clearly not helped McCain to win support from women. Yesterday, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=6087668&page=1">ABC’s Langer reported </a>that 50 per cent of male voters support Obama, compared with 46 per cent for McCain. But women favour Obama by a 57-41 per cent margin.
<br />
<br />What a choice John McCain made. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-20430745900116377052008-10-21T21:49:00.013+01:002008-10-21T22:25:36.365+01:00An end to Nixonland?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7hBucc0LQYqtI6yQ5tZx_33czY1kJMxzBWpQAUS7hBv57zMzI71huOTr0v-KpwdvF2Hot_XQPbs9RhUrWW7HGOpGYcbfWin553kLkutJLAR0h8ODHSPS483BcWE2B7xwDJ44ER6ufGmYA/s1600-h/68-campaign.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7hBucc0LQYqtI6yQ5tZx_33czY1kJMxzBWpQAUS7hBv57zMzI71huOTr0v-KpwdvF2Hot_XQPbs9RhUrWW7HGOpGYcbfWin553kLkutJLAR0h8ODHSPS483BcWE2B7xwDJ44ER6ufGmYA/s200/68-campaign.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5259721011833050770" /></a><div style="text-align: justify;">If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he may put an end to one of the most significant and malevolent political phenomena of our lifetime.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In his brilliant book, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">Nixonland</span>, Rick Perlstein explains how Richard Nixon came "to power by using the anger, anxieties, and resentments produced by the cultural chaos of the 1960s." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">He defines Nixonland as the state of total political warfare over class and cultural conflicts.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">A disgraced Richard Nixon left the White House in 1974. But Nixonland, pitting the “silent majority” vs. the “liberal elites”, ramming racial and cultural wedges through the electorate, remained a staple of American politics for thirty-odd years. Ronald Reagan told stories about welfare queens. In 1988, George H.W. Bush used convicted rapist Willie Horton as a metaphor to depict his Democratic rival as soft on crime. John Kerry was swiftboated in 2004. In each of those cases, Nixonland worked. And conservatives have set the American political agenda for the last four decades. Democrats have occupied the White House only three times since 1968. Bill Clinton worked with this grain, not against it, especially on big policy issues like welfare reform.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Let’s not be too morally superior over the Americans. Nixonland has also oozed its way into the politics of other countries with which I am familiar. Margaret Thatcher shrewdly played the immigration card in the late 1970s. Later, she used crime and defence as wedge issues. (The Conservatives’ 2005 campaign was a case study in dog whistle politics.) </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Another long-serving prime minister, John Howard, tapped into Australia’s cultural divides. These tactics came to a head with the Tampa election of 2001. False reports that asylum seekers were throwing their children overboard in an attempt to blackmail their way into Australia, prompted Howard's notorious campaign slogan: "We decide who will come into this country." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">New Zealand readers may recall the National Party’s 1975 election campaign. For part of their tv ad on the cities (really about immigration), click <a href="http://www.teara.govt.nz/NewZealanders/NewZealandPeoples/HistoryOfImmigration/16/ENZ-Resources/Stand">here</a>. The Nats’ (narrowly unsuccessful) 2005 campaign was also made in Nixonland.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Back to the US election. Obama’s victory over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries marked another signpost. Nixonland cannot be separated from the politics of her 1960s baby boomer generation. It takes two sides to fight a culture war, after all. And Hillary Clinton played with the fire. She told <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">60 Minutes</span> that Obama was not a Muslim, “as far as I know”. Her “3 a.m. phone call” ad reframed the Texas primary as being about national security. <br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now Obama gets to take on the real thing. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">The New Republic’s</span> <a href="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_flack/archive/2008/10/18/the-end-of-nixonland.aspx">Howard Wolfson </a>says:<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"></span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">"John McCain, raised in Nixonland, calls Senator Obama a socialist, trots out a plumber to stoke class and cultural resentments, and employs his Vice-President [sic] to question Obama's patriotism by linking him to terrorists. Nixonland 101 -- and if its rules still applied, Senator Obama would be in trouble."</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"></span> <br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Wolfson argues that the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, and the economic turmoil have shattered the foundations of Republican dominance. America’s demographics are very different from Nixon’s time. <br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><blockquote>"The old tactics aren't working and the American public is ready for change. Senator McCain seems old, and tired, as if he is speaking an ancient language."</blockquote></span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">With American conservatism in retreat and the baby boomers seeing their time passing, Barack Obama could have a unique opportunity to change the face of American politics. His speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention gave some early clues as to what his new politics may be about:<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><blockquote>"there's not a liberal America and a conservative America — there's the United States of America." </blockquote></span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So did his m<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html">ajor speech on race</a> in March. Writing during the summer about Obama’s victory over Senator Clinton, <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/clinton200808?currentPage=1">Gail Sheehy</a> said:<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><blockquote>"Hillary’s campaign had failed to understand that America was in the midst of a national passage from the old-style confrontational politics of the boomer generation—a divisiveness perfected by both the Clinton and Bush administrations—into a new style of Netroots politics, open-sourced and inclusive, multi-racial and multicultural."</blockquote></span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">We can but hope.<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-36600371874151434442008-10-15T22:25:00.003+01:002008-10-16T11:42:53.251+01:00McCain vs. his narrative - a quick update<div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Here’s a quick update on John McCain’s sterling efforts to wreck his own brand. To use the lingo, he no longer embodies his narrative – and he’s done it all by himself. <br /></div><br /><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify">McCain was the meant to be the straight-talking, non-partisan breath of fresh air. Lately, he's looked more like a risk-taking, negative-campaigning Republican.<br /></div><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><br /></div><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify">The original, "good" McCain seemed to turn up for most of the second tv debate. The <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100702438.html">Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne jr.</a> asked:<br /></div><br /><blockquote style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-STYLE: italic">"Who is the real John McCain? Is he the man who used to tout himself as a problem-solver, or is he the desperate candidate who lurches from attack to attack?"</span></blockquote><br /><br /><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify">But since then <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/10/attack-blowback.html">ABC’s pollster Gary Langer h</a>as found that voters, by a 24-point margin, say that McCain is more focused on attacking his opponent rather than addressing the issues. In August, that margin was just 3 points. And voters, by a 42-point margin, think that Obama is mainly addressing the issues, rather than going negative. Rasmussen Reports has found that <a href="http://http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/favorable_ratings_for_presidential_candidates">Obama is seen more favourably than McCain.</a><br /></div><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><br /></div><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify">The new figures follow McCain’s harsher attacks on Barack Obama and Sarah Palin’s accusations that the Democratic nominee has been “palling around with terrorists”.<br /></div><br /><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><a href="http://jafapete.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/where-is-john-mccain/">Jafapete</a> summed it up earlier this week when he invited the embattled Republican nominee to take a reality check.<br /></div><br /><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-STYLE: italic"></span></div><blockquote><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-STYLE: italic">"You’ve managed to screw your own brand, without so much as smudging your opponent’s. You were supposed to be the straight-talking, independent-minded, tough, honourable one, remember? The war hero who could keep a cool head in times of crisis. When people are losing their jobs, homes and pension savings, they expect a little more than vague fear mongering about rather tenuous associations with a couple who never actually harmed anyone, a long time ago. The voters think that you’re more interested in personality attacks than policies. And they’re right."<br /></span></div><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div></blockquote><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-81523316023053487432008-10-05T20:16:00.008+01:002008-10-15T21:55:45.740+01:00Cool Obama, Hot McCainThe importance of personal heuristics (mental short cuts) based on<br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjutaJ1atwgsgutEQQcdX4cQeLJmkfWZz-JmaU429Wm_wfzzI1vyqToGcfmSDW2zuuzTyaAn1hLYvg0GWdXy7cWkmspEKDDh7bzU7-a_qTNbUtZ6J3p3i_3PDrYzMV71eLSBQXGLLUc8Se2/s200/obama_mcain_art_257_20080529173504.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5253752275884927570" border="0" /></div> presidential candidates’ (for which read, party leaders’) character and narratives is being highlighted yet again. Character and narrative are helping to tilt the presidential election contest Barack Obama’s way.<br /><br />Just after the first presidential candidates’ debate – and McCain's abrupt and somewhat weird foray into Washington's negotiations<br /> over a Wall Street bailout bill, followed by his unsuccessful attempt to postpone the debate -- <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/28/AR2008092802233.html">E.J. Dionne jr</a>. observed:<br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">“McCain, once the candidate of tested experience, must now battle the perception that he has become the riskier choice, a man too given to rash moves under pressure. Obama, whose very newness promised change but also raised doubts, has emerged as the cool and unruffled candidate who moves calmly but steadily forward.”</span></div></blockquote></div><br /><br />The <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">New York Times’</span> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/us/politics/29campaign.html">Patrick Healy </a>has explained the two candidates’ actions over the bailout bill like this:<br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">"Mr. McCain, who came of age in a chain-of-command culture, showed once again that he believes that individual leaders can play a catalytic role and should use the bully pulpit to push politicians. Mr. Obama, who came of age as a community organizer, showed once again that he believes several minds are better than one, and that, for all of his oratorical skill, he is wary of too much showmanship."<br /></span></div></blockquote></div><br />Some commentators who are less sympathetic to Obama have reached similar conclusions. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/02/AR2008100203043.html">Charles Krauthammer</a> has noted that, with all the fundamentals favouring the opposition, McCain has little choice but to “throw long”. Each time, it has failed.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">“[McCain’s] frenetic improvisation has perversely (for him) framed the rookie challenger favorably as calm, steady and cool.<br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">“In the primary campaign, Obama was cool as in hip. Now Obama is cool as in collected. He has the discipline to let slow and steady carry him to victory.</span></div></blockquote></div><br /><br />Krauthammer’s key point is that:<br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">“[Obama] understands that this election, like the election of 1980, demands only one thing of the challenger: Make yourself acceptable. Once Ronald Reagan convinced America that he was not menacing, he won in a landslide. If Obama convinces the electorate that he is not too exotic or green or unprepared, he wins as well.”</span><br /></div></blockquote></div><br />Since the convention Obama has altered the tone and style of his campaign, to be moderate in policy and temper; acceptable, be cool, and reassuring.<br /><br />Barack Obama’s new persona carries some risks. For instance, he may not appear to empathise sufficiently with the deep anger and anxiety that many Americans feel about the economy. And McCain’s approach may yet be vindicated. <a href="http://jafapete.wordpress.com/2008/10/04/id-have-to-agree-with-krauthammer-on-this/#more-2659">Jafapete notes</a> that McCain’s campaign director Steve Schmidt, who learnt his dark arts at the feet of Karl Rove, is a believer in the Boyd cycle, an approach to military engagement that seeks to overcome a superior opponent by means of rapid movements that disorient and confuse, and cause him to over-react or under-react. September may have been Obama’s month, but August was McCain’s.<br /><br />There’s still a long way to go. As Jafapete says:<br /><br /><blockquote>"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">Expect to overdose on fear and smear in the coming weeks. The celebrity ad worked a treat, and there’s plenty more negative ads where that came from."</span></blockquote><br /><br />Right now, however, both candidates have shifted the centre of gravity of (but not rewritten) their narratives – John McCain from warrior-in-command towards a feckless risk-taker and Barack Obama from unfamiliar outsider to calm, thoughtful decision-maker.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-14139492964407385632008-10-02T09:53:00.008+01:002008-10-05T19:58:59.974+01:00Myths, legends and why Churchill and Thatcher may be Nick Clegg's biggest challenge<div align="justify">What interesting times we live in! One thing that many voters say they don’t like about Gordon Brown is that he’s been in office too long. Now the PM says that “experience” is a <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTb8Rl655Sktq6HMkPPAcAdzETerMcXjvmQTcK9ezLTVqvIrDaPW4O4PxmqlocLw-fLXlpVqET2lg7ZZRqDqR3fLIwTWkSURh1Iui2GEGXI9cAva1c7Rstr2ozwt-6npS3b7oVISJuJ3a1/s1600-h/thatcher.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5252479699979152290" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTb8Rl655Sktq6HMkPPAcAdzETerMcXjvmQTcK9ezLTVqvIrDaPW4O4PxmqlocLw-fLXlpVqET2lg7ZZRqDqR3fLIwTWkSURh1Iui2GEGXI9cAva1c7Rstr2ozwt-6npS3b7oVISJuJ3a1/s200/thatcher.jpg" border="0" /></a>good reason to trust him and many people seem to agree. David Cameron has spent nearly three years trying to be everyone’s little friend. But in yesterday’s conference speech, he presented himself as a Thatcher-style conviction politician, ready to take tough, unpopular decisions.<br /><br />What’s really going on here is a lot of myth-making and story-telling. Well, it’s more than that. Both the Labour and Tory leaders are trying not to be “out-mythed”. And they are both trying very hard to change their narratives.<br /><br />Check out this <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-gitlin28-2008sep28,0,7896539.story">fascinating article</a> by <a href="http://toddgitlin.net/">Todd Gitlin</a>, professor of journalism and sociology at <a href="http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer/jrn/1165270052340/page/1165270091299/JRNSimplePage2.htm" target="_blank">Columbia University</a>. He writes about America’s “true” election campaign . . .<br /><br /><em><blockquote><br /><p align="justify"><em>“. . . the deep campaign, the subsurface campaign, which concerns not just what the candidates say but who they are and what they represent -- what they<br />symbolize.<br /></em><br /><em>“The candidates become, in a sense, walking archetypes. To warm to a candidate is to align not just with a person but with a myth, an ideal.”</em></p></blockquote></em><em><br /></em>What makes the 2008 contest so intriguing, says Gitlin, is that it pitches against each other two archetypes: one familiar, one unfamiliar. John McCain is the rugged, plain-spoken, straight-shooting; a John Wayne, take-charge, warrior-in-command –type. Republican-leaning voters like that. Remember Ronald Reagan and both Bushes.<br /><br />According to Gitlin, Barack Obama is the quintessential exotic outsider. He hails from exotic Hawaii, foreign Indonesia, “elegant Harvard” and “down-and-dirty Chicago”, all at the same time! He is also, in some respects, an intellectual and, yes, a celebrity. He scrambles the stereotypes, jumbles up the myths and symbols and represents the unfamiliar.<br /><br /><br /><br /><blockquote><em>“So that’s the clash. McCain, the known quantity, the maverick turned lawman, fiery when called on to fight, an icon of the old known American story of standing tall, holding firm, protecting God’s country against the stealthy foe. Obama is the new kid on the block, the immigrant’s child, the recruit, fervent but still preternaturally calm, embodying some complicated future that we haven’t yet mapped, let alone experienced. He is impure — the walking, talking melting pot in person. In his person, the next America is still taking shape.<br /><br />“The warrior turned lawman confronts the community organizer turned law professor. The sheriff (who married the heiress) wrestles with the outsider who rode into town and made a place for himself. No wonder this race is thrilling and tense. America is struggling to fasten a name on its soul.”</em><br /></blockquote><br />British politics may seem more sophisticated, the discourse more party- and policy-oriented and less personal. The voters are probably less credulous than their American cousins, their prevailing myths and legends more subtle and refined. Perhaps: the British sense of shared identity may be clearer, making the “culture wars” less important (amongst the dominant groups) than across the Atlantic.<br /><br />We shouldn’t brush aside the power of archetypes too easily though. Previous prime ministers have evoked mythical symbols. Margaret Thatcher did Elizabeth I and Churchill at different times. John Major morphed from decent guy next door to hapless, almost comedic man-out-of-his-depth. Tony Blair was the charming, youthful, urban family man who would renew Britain; late<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0S7ITA3Oo0atqeK2v0pTAguVBTY3oTonCGdohaIlH-zWYA_RvBsi2XM42AGep1Qvhr-sksy2cXwoCZqk4wJkK2oP6ydm0WpJrR2dFyuHFdRE5zSEtiTR0pH6LDuXzOHafucyqfoCz6tyM/s1600-h/churchill.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5252479453230919762" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0S7ITA3Oo0atqeK2v0pTAguVBTY3oTonCGdohaIlH-zWYA_RvBsi2XM42AGep1Qvhr-sksy2cXwoCZqk4wJkK2oP6ydm0WpJrR2dFyuHFdRE5zSEtiTR0pH6LDuXzOHafucyqfoCz6tyM/s200/churchill.jpg" border="0" /></a>r, he was the doughty war leader, the Christian soldier who would boldly defend his island nation. And leaders are surely now more important than ever before in shaping voter perceptions of the UK parties.<br /><br />If Gordon Brown has evoked any myth over the last year, it’s a dismal one: the stolid, over-serious, long-serving number two and pretender to the throne who finally becomes the king and fails utterly to rally the nation. You are more likely to find his archetype in Greek or Shakespearean tragedies – or perhaps, TV dramas and comedies -- than in the nobler pages of political history. People see it though: why else did Vince Cable’s “from Stalin to Mr Bean” gibe work so well?<br /><br />David Cameron’s personal narrative has been remarkably similar to Blair’s. He has posed as the youthful agent of change who has made over his party and promises to do the same for the country. But many people still don’t see the plan, the end of the story. Nor is there a well-understood story of political struggle. Whereas Blair took on his party and won, with a symbolic triumph -- the end of Clause IV-- Cameron’s old Tory dragon has not been slain so much as chloroformed out of choice.<br /><br />Since the nightmare on Wall Street, Gordon Brown has seized the opportunity to convert his existing narrative into a new archetype: the wise man; stead hand at the tiller, the calm and experienced manager of a crisis. The PM invited people to compare that with the “novice” David Cameron. (What a frame!) <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-given-boost-by-financial-crisis-946108.html">The ComRes poll in Tuesday’s Independent</a> suggested that his new gambit could work, at least for a time.<br /><br />Cameron tried to share some of the neo-Churchillian glow by looking stern and serious and publicly offering to help the government where he can. After all, Tony Blair’s original “have it all ways” brand of politics was born of good times and would be little use in a recession. But if all Cameron does is follow Brown, he risks becoming irrelevant and also closing off his political options for the future. His narrative could leave him behind meaning that a new one was needed. So, in his conference speech, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7647136.stm">Cameron evoked the myth of Margaret Thatcher</a>, claiming that he has the judgment, character and leadership skills to rebuild Britain’s economy and society. The Tories loved it.<br /><br />Whether that works for Cameron or not, Nick Clegg needs to gain a good part in this morality play. When it comes to archetypes and symbols, his options seem pretty limited. Past Liberal heroes? Even if they fitted, the likes of Asquith and Lloyd George wouldn’t be much help. A century on, most voters aren’t familiar with their myths or their rhetoric. Vince Cable, the party’s plain-speaking, well-respected authority on economic matters? Nick Clegg can’t plausibly claim to be someone else who is still very active in politics, though Vince is becoming part of the Lib Dem brand.<br /><br />Nick Clegg’s best (and, I suspect, most likely) persona could be as a kind of outside, independent voice in the system, who looks out for “ordinary people” and demands financial policies that put them first. There is a parallel with Obama, in that’s not a familiar archetype. It could mean taking a few calculated political risks, but without stumbling down the path of cheap, anti-banker populism. What I am suggesting is that the Lib Dems should combine speaking up for ordinary people with sound thinking and straight talk on economic policy.<br /><br />If you think that sounds too clever, remember that <a href="http://neilstockley.blogspot.com/2008/09/meet-nick-clegg-heuristic.html">empathy with “ordinary people” is becoming central to the party’s brand once again</a>. It also seems that <a href="http://neilstockley.blogspot.com/2008/09/meet-nick-clegg-heuristic.html">Nick can embody such a narrative,</a> with Vince Cable doing the same for the party’s economic credibility. And after all, something similar ending up working well for Charles Kennedy on Iraq (though Charles did not know that before he took the position he did). Maybe there’s a Liberal Democrat political myth, an archetype in the making. One vital, positive point is that we believe it.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-79322437714427982192008-09-06T19:37:00.006+01:002008-09-06T19:59:53.795+01:00After all the glitz, US voters don't get the full story<div style="text-align: justify;">So, the Republicans and Democrats have finished their conventions. Which of the candidates, John McCain or Barack Obama, is telling the strongest story?<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The answer is, neither. That may explain why they are, in effect, tied in the latest opinion polls.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Since he first ran for the Republican nomination in 2000 – and got wasted by the Bush-Rove attack machine – McCain’s narrative has been about a straight-talking, maverick Republican who took on his own party, over taxes, campaign finance reform, climate change, environmental regulation, stem cell research and immigration. The message is that he could rise above party and clean up Washington.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">By the beginning of this year, however, McCain had moved back to the right, for instance on oil drilling, to immigration to tax cuts for the wealthy. Hardly surprising, that’s where the votes were in the Republican primaries. Over the summer, the new, conservative McCain took on some of Bush’s team and got nasty, trying to paint Obama as an out-of-touch, elitist, snob – <a href="http://neilstockley.blogspot.com/2008/08/barack-obama-not-one-of-us.html">not “one of us”.</a> This sort of toxic politics oozed through the Republican convention. McCain’s gang continued to play on what they see as voters’ resentment at liberal political elites who seem to look down on them. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/opinion/05krugman.html?em">Paul Krugman has brilliantly dissected</a> the sheer cynicism of this Nixonian ploy.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Then, in his (mediocre) convention speech on Thursday night, Americans mainly saw the old John McCain, speaking with quiet civility about fighting corruption, acknowledging that the Republicans “had lost the trust” of the American people and deploring “the constant partisan rancour that stops us from solving” problems. Senator McCain promised to reach out to “any willing patriot [and] make this government start working for you again” to use "the best ideas from both sides" and "ask Democrats and independents to serve with me.”<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090402842.html">E.J. Dionne jr</a>. points out, the Republican nominee no longer embodies this narrative:<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><blockquote>. . . because McCain has capitulated to the very Washington he condemned [on Thursday] and is employing the very tactics that were used ruthlessly and unfairly against him when he first ran for president eight years ago.</blockquote></span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">McCain is trying to run with these two different narratives by, in the words of the <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/opinion/05fri1.html?em">New York Times,</a></span> “talking loftily of bipartisanship [while] allowing his team to savage his opponent.” The latter will be Sarah Palin’s one of main jobs, with her deliberate distortions of Barack Obama’s policies, eloquence and record. (McCain also questioned his opponents’ patriotism and Obama’s position on energy.) The logic is a bit strained but this gambit worked – just - for George W. Bush. How’s that for cynicism?<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There’s more: McCain and co. will also try to bridge these two narratives by using an even bolder one: “reform”, which became the watchword of the Republican convention, appearing no fewer than 11 times in McCain’s own speech. They are trying to steal Obama’s “change” narrative. <br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Where the story runs aground though is that it’s not exactly clear what McCain’s “reform” means. J<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090403559.html?nav=hcmodule">onathan Weisman of the </a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090403559.html?nav=hcmodule">Washington Post</a></span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090403559.html?nav=hcmodule"> says:</a><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">"In McCain's attempt to fire up the Republican base without losing his "maverick" image, calls for reform have come to mean a pledge to "change" Washington -- with little explanation of what that change would be or how that change would take effect. "</span></blockquote><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Is “reform” in Washington about programmes, systems, or governing style? We haven't been told. And:<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><blockquote>"It does not appear to have much to do with campaign finance reform, immigration reform, reforming the selection and confirmation of judges -- all issues that McCain had something to do with and have helped define his career in the Senate."</blockquote></span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The reason is obvious: these issues would drive wedges between McCain and the conservative voters, lobbies and dollars that he needs. And what would he do for people struggling with rising bills and worried about losing their jobs?<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">That leaves McCain’s story only half built. Successful narratives aren’t just about personal stories and records, which McCain’s speech emphasised. They are also about issues and policies, framed these days as “solutions”. The two need to work together, with the candidate’s (or party’s) persona making the policy narrative more authentic.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Obama should have the edge. His promise of change is more credible. He can embody that narrative. [click<a href="http://neilstockley.blogspot.com/2008/01/senator-barack-obama-has-won-iowa_05.html"> here</a>] He is new to Washington, unlike McCain, and the Democrats have been out of the White House for nearly eight years. But his economic narrative has still not struck a chord with voters.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_battle_of_the_party_themes.html">conservative pundit Michael Barone</a> believes that both candidates have a problem:<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">"The Obama convention contended that the Democratic nominees understood people's woes from personal experience and that their programs would provide economic security. But the substance of those programs -- refundable tax credits (i.e., payments to those who pay no income tax) and a national health insurance option -- are unfamiliar to voters, and their details can be hard to explain.<br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">"The McCain convention's thesis is that higher taxes on high earners in a time of slow growth will squelch the economy (this was Herbert Hoover's policy, after all).<br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">These assertions, too, are unfamiliar to voters. And, up to this point in the campaign, neither party has set out its programs clearly (or characterized the other side's fairly)."</span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">On energy, the other big issue of the campaign so far, this is playing out in the much the same way.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Neither Obama nor McCain will prevail until they have got their narratives together, the policy and the personal.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Still, supporters of political parties in the UK shouldn’t be too judgemental. None of them has got the story mix right. Despite the progress that’s been made on policy stories this year, that includes the Liberal Democrats.<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-26118502407073629792008-09-01T12:56:00.012+01:002008-09-01T13:18:51.719+01:00If you read only one thing about Barack Obama or John McCain or Sarah Palin this week, make it . . .<div align="justify">. . . <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/brand-first-equivocate-la_b_122855.html">this piece </a>by Drew Westen, Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Political-Brain-Emotion-Deciding-Nation/dp/1586484257">The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation</a>.<br /><br />Westen makes some pertinent points about the Democrats' need to create a brand for the McCain and Palin, before the Republicans put their own brand into voters' minds. And he provides some useful expalanations about how narratives and counter-stories change voters' perceptions.<br /><br />Westen describes the 2008 Democratic Convention as “simply stunning, with multiple-base hits by many of the players and triples or homeruns by all its superstars.”</div><div align="justify"><br />At the end of a highly excited summary of what happened in Denver, he says:<br /><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>"In my book, The Political Brain, I argued that if you do exactly what the Democrats did last week--both inspire voters with your vision of what could be and raise legitimate anger or concern about what your opponent and his party have done or likely will do--you win elections. . .<br /></em><br /><em>"The convention reversed the momentum of a dreadful July and August campaign that made every standard Democratic error outlined in the book, starting with the campaign's stubborn refusal to brand McCain before he could brand himself or to respond to his successful efforts to brand Obama--as other, different, empty celebrity, uppity, narcissistic, and elitist."</em></p></blockquote><div align="justify"><br /><br />But then Westen worries that Obama and the Democrats may fail to be tough enough with McCain and co. They need to fight fire with fire.<br /><br /></div><em><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>"We are supposed to be the party of science, yet we constantly practice political creationism.</em> </p></blockquote></em><div align="justify"><br /><br />(Ouch! Does that remind you of anyone you know?)<br /><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>"A case in point is the way the Obama campaign appears poised to respond (or, more accurately, not to respond) to McCain's choice of a running mate, which they need to do immediately, before the start of the GOP Convention. Paul Begala has described how the narratives that sway the electorate are like constellations of stars in the sky. If your opponent picks and chooses just the right stars to place in the sky (and which ones to leave out, because they get in the way of the story he is trying to tell), he can create a constellation that shines like stars on a crystal clear night, whether that constellation is one designed to make his own stars twinkle or your candidate's stars flame out or obscured by cloud cover. </em></p><p align="justify"><em>"It's a campaign's job to put the right stars up in the sky to create the constellations that tell the story it wants to tell about both its own candidate and its opponent. In the language of neuroscience, a campaign needs to connect the dots for voters to create networks of associations--an interconnected set of thoughts, images, ideas, metaphors, and feelings--toward each candidate that tell a compelling story about each, and to repeat that those stories enough times and in enough ways to make them "stick."</em><br /></p></blockquote><div align="justify"><br />Westen explains:<br /><br /></div><em><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>"It is much harder to change an accepted narrative, particularly an emotionally compelling one, than to undercut it before it can take hold in the popular imagination. You don't want to let the other side blaze a neural trail in the wilderness (in this case, defining a political newcomer) that becomes the trail voters' minds naturally follow and then resist deviating from because it is the first and only story being told, without offering a counter-narrative that creates very different associations and activates very different feelings toward the candidates (in this case, toward both McCain and Palin).<br /><br />"The constellation McCain would like to project this week is that this was a bold move of a maverick reformer, an effort to break the glass ceiling for women, an effort to bring executive experience to his team, and the elevation to prominence of a young, socially conservative reformer with a moving story of her commitment to the crusade against all abortions."</em> </p></blockquote></em><div align="justify"><br /><br />Westen offers three, hard-edged counter-stories to break McCain's constellation. And then comes the hard stuff.<br /><br /></div><em><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>"Palin may be a woman, but she does not share the agenda of any woman who voted for Hillary Clinton (and Democrats should speak out against the implication that she is picking up where Hillary Clinton, a woman of tremendous stature who could have assumed the role of commander-in-chief in a heartbeat, left off). Rather, the position she and others on the right have articulated [on abortion] gives every rapist the right to pick the mother of his child. That position is tantamount to a Rapist's Bill of Rights, which privileges the rights of rapists and child molesters over the rights of their victims. Those are McCain-Palin's "family values," and they are not mainstream American values. "</em></p></blockquote></em><div align="justify"><br /><br />Later, he concludes:<br /><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>"Palin's nomination is one that should put the nails in the coffin of McCain's candidacy in the wake of the extraordinary success of the Democratic Convention. It exposes both a poverty of judgment and a surfeit of hypocrisy and pandering to both the religious right and to the female center. But if the Democrats do not act before the GOP Convention, McCain's reckless move could become transformed by the media and then the public into the bold move of a straight-talking maverick with the foresight to catch a rising star.<br /><br />"That's a story that should never be allowed to reach the moment of conception.”</em></p><p align="justify"><em></em></p></blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-33568341964011520562008-08-23T19:39:00.015+01:002008-08-23T21:45:17.192+01:00Personal stories, truth and the art of political war<div style="text-align: justify;">Leading Liberal Democrats heading to Denver, Colorado for the Democratic National Convention will be able to see how Barack Obama uses his personal story to present himself as the man of destiny, part of America’s unfolding history and, importantly, the man with a vision for America’s future.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The American political pundit <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/the_chosen_obama_narrative.html">Michael Barone</a> notes Gallup poll data showing that nominees got a 5 percent or better opinion poll bounce from 14 of the 16 national conventions between 1976 and 2004. Bill Clinton got the biggest bounce (30 points) in 1992, but John “reporting for duty” Kerry actually lost ground in 2004.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">No, personal stories aren’t just a schmaltzy American thing. Remember Margaret Thatcher, the grocer’s daughter from Grantham and then John “the boy from Brixton” Major, in the run-up to the 1992 election.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The interesting thing is how the stories will stand up under heavy fire. Barone thinks that:<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><blockquote>"The Democrats can usually depend on the mainstream media accepting their narratives uncritically, while the Republicans can expect them to punch holes in their storylines."</blockquote></span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">He goes on to list aspects of the Obama narrative that the media may like to scrutinise.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Fair enough. But they also may like to take a more careful look at the personal story being spun by John McCain, whom the New York Times columnist <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/opinion/17rich.html">Frank Rich has dubbed “the candidate we still don’t know”. </a><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">McCain’s story is that, on Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, the religious right and sleazy influence peddlers, the hero who survived the Hanoi Hilton has stood up as rebelliously in Washington as he did to his Vietnamese captors.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But Rich says that with the exception of his imprisonment in North Vietnam, “every aspect of [McCain’s] profile in courage is inaccurate or defunct”. This extends from McCain’s carefully assembled image of the Republican maverick who criticises the Bush Administration to his links to the intolerant religious right and to the fact that “McCain’s top officials and fund-raisers have past financial ties to nearly every domestic and foreign flashpoint, from Fannie Mae to Blackwater to Ahmad Chalabi to the government of Georgia.”<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So far, McCain is getting away with it, with very little media scrutiny.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Let's assume that Michael Barone is correct and Obama is also getting a free pass. Don’t worry, the Republican attack machine will not be so generous. In a brilliant piece in the <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">Washington Post</span>, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/22/AR2008082202354.html">Michael Kinsley shows how they do it:</a><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">"Most amazing among the principles of the Republican Way of War is: Don't waste much time and energy probing the enemy's weaknesses. Go directly to his biggest strength. "</span></blockquote><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In 1988, the Republicans turned Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis, who came from humble beginnings, into an elitist and George H.W. Bush, a privileged, preppie Ivy Leaguer, into a “good old boy”. In 2004, they attacked John Kerry’s war service in Vietnam, despite the fact that George W. Bush, not only had avoided Vietnam by joining the National Guard but had avoided much of the National Guard. In both cases, the media helped, if only through negligence in some case.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Kinsley suggests that in 2008, they will turn their guns on Barack Obama’s charisma and eloquence:<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><blockquote>". . . as if popularity itself were a disqualifying factor and whoever draws the larger crowds is by definition the lesser candidate. "</blockquote></span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This type of counter-story telling happens in the UK too. The Liberal Democrats are often accused of being “all things to all people”, lacking in real beliefs, and worse. The Lib Dems have been unequivocal on big issues – see Iraq, ID cards and nuclear power – and opinion leaders in others, such as Europe and climate change. The “wishy washy” tag often comes from Labour, who have been all over the place on nuclear power and the Conservatives, whose behaviour on Iraq gives cynical politics a bad name. But it works.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Obama’s fate may well depend on how well he responds to the attempts to cut down the centre pole of his personal narrative. Perhaps Nick Clegg and co might pick up some tips from Obama’s advisers?<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One more thing: McCain machine is better than Obama’s at telling lies. If you don’t believe me, take a look at <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/">factcheck.org</a>, sponsored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Hey, why don’t we have something like that it in the UK?<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-90751484295742230272008-08-11T12:39:00.007+01:002008-08-11T14:21:55.981+01:00Wanted: not one political story, but four<div align="justify"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">There’s a lot more talk about the art of political story-telling at the moment. For instance, CNN.com has an article by Paul Willis, who says that the US presidential election will boil down to whose story voters prefer, even more than where the candidates stand on the issues. And within the Liberal Democrats, there is more interest. A few local parties are inviting me to speak to them and run workshops on narratives and storytelling.<br /><br />Two questions keep coming up. I suggest that both are really false dilemmas.<br /><br />Paul Willis asks:<br /><br /></div><em><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>"Do you think you could be persuaded by a politician's story over their policies?"</em></p></blockquote></em><div align="justify"><br />I don’t agree that’s the choice you need to make. If it works, a politician’s (or party’s) own story should work with their stances on issues (or policies), to engage both the heads and the hearts of the public. The personal story will make the policies seem real and authentic; the policies (framed correctly) will provide the substance and exemplify the story.<br /><br />That’s what Margaret Thatcher succeeded when telling her political story. She argued that the solution to Britain’s economic problems was based on hard work and thrift, with government limiting its own spending and borrowing; England’s middle classes would thrive when freed from the bonds imposed by state socialism and the trade unions. The grocer’s daughter from Grantham worked all hours and played the frugal housewife.<br /><br />For all his strengths as a personal storyteller, this is what Barack Obama is not doing now. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/why-voters-say-they-dont_b_117238.html">Drew Westen</a>, author of the acclaimed book The Political Brain, says:<br /><br /></div><em><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>"Barack Obama has told one story: that he will bring change and hope. Many have argued, from early in the Democratic primary season, that his was a campaign of soaring rhetoric and words without substance. That charge has "stuck" in the minds of many voters, who say they don't really know who Obama is and where he stands. It's a peculiar charge for a candidate who has laid out detailed plans for every issue of our time. Try going to his website or listening to his wonkish policy addresses.</em></p></blockquote><div align="justify"><br /><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify">"But whereas the standard Democratic response is to throw more plans and positions against the wall and hope that they'll stick, that's missing the point: that Obama hasn't yet told a coherent, consistent narrative of who he is that weaves together the themes of his campaign with his own life history. The result is that he has left his race, his exotic history, and the smear campaigns aimed at defining him as "not one of us" to resonate with voters."</p></blockquote></em><div align="justify"><br /></div><div align="justify"><br />The other false choice is: whether to tell a positive story about yourself or a negative one about your opponents.<br /><br />Drew Westen’s brilliant article explains why this is a blind alley. He discusses why many American voters still have an uneasy feeling about Obama and says: </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>"His campaign needs to understand why that happened, because it's the same thing that happened to Al Gore and John Kerry. It's about narratives.</em><br /></p></blockquote><br /><em><blockquote><em>"There is a simple fact about elections that has eluded Democrats in every presidential campaign they have lost in the last 40 years: that as a candidate, you have to focus first and foremost not on a litany of "issues" but on four stories: the story you tell about yourself, the story your opponent is telling about himself, the story your opponent is telling about you, and the story you are telling about your opponent. Candidates who offer compelling stories in all four quadrants of this "message grid" win, and those who leave any of them to chance generally lose."<br /></em></blockquote></em><br />Westen argues that Al Gore didn't tell any of the four; John Kerry told just one and lost when he failed to respond to the two major stories told about him: that he was a flipflopper and a fake war hero. Neither campaign told a coherent story about George W. Bush.<br /><br />He goes on:<br /><br /><em><blockquote><em>"John McCain is telling a story about himself--that he's a man of courage and conviction who loves his country. He is telling a story about Obama--that he's a man of none of those things . . . After watching Obama enthrall the rest of the world and the troops McCain claims Obama doesn't support last week, he is now in full attack mode, trying to tell a story about his opponent's greatest strength (that Obama is someone who can inspire people, and can even do so on a world stage, where McCain's master narrative had claimed a decided advantage). So now he is telling the story of Obama as an arrogant, uppity, empty celebrity."<br /></em></blockquote></em><br />Westen says that, like Kerry, Obama has offered American voters one story (“change and hope”) when he should have offered four. And he wants Obama’s team to be much faster and more forceful when in making a counter-response and to do more to define McCain so as to drive up his negatives (that is, tell a story about him).<br /><br />Westen’s story quadrants apply in British politics. In 2005, for instance, Tony Blair told a story about himself and his government: that the economy was strong, public services were getting better and it was no time to risk a change. He had a story about the Liberal Democrats: that we were irresponsible and unrealistic in our spending promises. When we took Blair to task over Iraq, he told stories based on his personal courage (“the right thing to do”) and fears about world security. And when we called ourselves “the real alternative”, he claimed that, in voting for the Lib Dems, people could let the Tories in. All of these worked, to various degrees.<br /><br />Now, two (related) questions:<br /><br />Do the Liberal Democrats (nationally or in your area) have stories for all four quadrants of Drew Westen’s message grid?<br /><br />And do our story about the party (and Nick Clegg) and our policy stories match with and embody one another?<br /><br />More on that soon.<br /></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-22112652004625489492008-08-05T18:47:00.003+01:002008-08-05T18:52:04.947+01:00Barack Obama: not "one of us"<div align="justify">During the primary season, Barack Obama gave us an object lesson in how political narratives work, engaging both the heart and the head.<br /><br />Now, after a slow start, the McCain campaign shows us how counter-stories really work; in the process, they might be proving something thoroughly unpleasant about American politics.<br /><br />McCain’s latest slogan, “country first,” implies that Obama puts something else (himself? his race?) ahead of the nation. McCain charges that Obama “would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.” His “Troops” spot claims that Obama, while in Germany, “made time to go the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops—seems the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring cameras.” Then there’s the “Celeb”spot, with its intercut images of Obama in Berlin, Paris Hilton, and Britney Spears. Framing Science has put up a McCain ad suggesting that <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2008/08/new_mccain_ad_portrays_obama_a.php">Obama is the anti Christ!</a><br /><br /><a href="http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/48928/">New York magazine’s John Heileman</a> explains it like this:<br /><br /><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>"The strategy behind all this isn’t hard to discern: Drive up Obama’s negatives and render him unacceptable to pivotal voting blocs. Thus the depiction of him as too young, too feckless, and too pampered to be president . . . the portrayal of him as precious, self-infatuated, and effete [and] the emphasis on Obama’s rock-star persona, designed to engender envy and contempt among the swath of Middle America for which hipness is no virtue but a sign of pretension."</em></p></blockquote><br /><br />In portraying Obama as a self-centred, elitist meritocrat, the Republican campaign has seized on lingering concerns about him. This is much more about emotions and instincts than words and policies.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.leader-vindicator.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19882820&BRD=2758&PAG=461&dept_id=572980&rfi=6http://www.leader-vindicator.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19882820&BRD=2758&PAG=461&dept_id=572980&rfi=6">Steve and Cokie Roberts</a> say that the election will be decided over how Americans answer the question, is Obama one of us?<br /><br /><em><blockquote><em>"As Peter Hart, a Democrat who conducts the Wall Street Journal poll with Republican Neil Newhouse, puts it: "Voters want to answer a simple question: Is Barack Obama safe?" The answer to that question draws on more evidence than years served, jobs held and positions taken. Voters want to know about a candidate's character, judgment and temperament. They want to sense his scars and his seasoning. And they learn these things through narrative, the stories leaders tell about their lives and troubles.”<br /></em></blockquote></em><br />They also point out that:<br /><br /><em><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>". . . to many Americans, Obama is still a stranger, an exotic and mysterious stranger with an odd name, a dark face, a weird pastor, a cheeky wife and a brief past."</em></p></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><br /></em><br /><a href="vhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/opinion/05brooks.html?hp">The right-wing pundit David Brooks</a> says that American voters cannot “place” Obama in any familiar social context. He paints Obama as a man who has always “lived apart” from American society. His <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/david-brooks-magical-myst_b_116734.html">advice</a> to the McCain campaign:<br /><br /><em><blockquote><em>"In the short term they have to try to define him [Barack Obama] as someone who thinks he's above everyone else."</em></blockquote></em><br /><br />So, the McCain people are saying that Obama isn’t “one of us”. That’s a powerful frame in politics: “us”. Normal. Acceptable. Part of the “mainstream”. Having the correct values. Patriotic. Like me. Not like “them” who are none of these things. And, yes, white. The notion of “us” can’t be separated from race.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/03/gergen-mccain-is-using-co_n_116605.htmlhttp:/www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/03/gergen-mccain-is-using-co_n_116605.html">David Gergen</a> a spin doctor who has worked for Republican and Democrat presidents, from Nixon to Clinton, says:<br /><br /><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>"There has been a very intentional effort to paint him as somebody outside the mainstream, other, 'he's not one of us,'<br /><br />"I think the McCain campaign has been scrupulous about not directly saying it, but it's the subtext of this campaign. Everybody knows that. There are certain kinds of signals. As a native of the south, I can tell you, when you see this ad, 'The One,' that's code for, 'he's uppity, he ought to stay in his place.'</em> "<br /></p></blockquote><br />Last week, Democratic strategists were worried that Obama didn’t have a big enough lead over McCain. Now, they are worried that the election is a dead heat. (<a href="http://jafapete.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/dirty-politics-pays-off-for-mccain/">Jafapete has more det</a>ails)<br /><br />Obama urgently needs to take back control of his narrative. Part of the answer lies in re-telling his personal story, just like Bill Clinton, the “boy from hope”, did in 1992. Obama would do well to emulate Clinton’s mix of economic populism and embracing change.<br /><br />But Obama has undermined his own story too. In the words of <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902068.html?nav=emailpagehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902068.html?nav=emailpage">Dana Milbank, he has seemed more like a presumptuous nominee than a presumptive nominee</a> over recent weeks. Obama connects best when he promises change and a fresh start and looks and sounds like both. New narratives on the economy and energy would help to show what change would mean. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-4627020022614374022008-07-13T16:09:00.006+01:002011-11-11T10:35:47.372+00:00Getting American politics: The Age of Reagan<div style="text-align: justify;">
Every so often, people ask me for suggestions for the best books to read about modern American politics. For what it’s worth, I usually refer them to the efforts by E.J. Dionne jr. and Godfrey Hodgson to explain the crisis of American liberalism and other big themes in US politics over the last 40 years. Then there is another suggestion, that usually takes people by surprise: to read just about anything that is well-written about Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Following my own advice, I am currently reading <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">Nixonland,</span> a brilliant new work by Rick Perlstein. He explains the secret of Nixon’s electoral success, articulating the resentments and rages of the "silent majority", and describes his toxic political legacy. In bringing the America of the late 1960s and early 1970s to life, Perlstein provides a stark insight into the underlying divisions of modern US politics. He traces the brutal, vindictive and over-personalised nature of much of its political discourse back to Nixon’s campaigning. We should also remember that over the last forty years, forms of this cynical brand of wedge politics has oozed across to the UK, Australia and New Zealand. (Remember the 2005 Conservative campaign? The 2005 NZ National Party campaign? John Howard?) Still, Americans do not live in the age of Nixon: Watergate saw to that. And the politics of race and gender have moved on significantly.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, on to my other suggestion: the importance of Ronald Reagan and what he achieved. In the almost-twenty years since he left the White House, most analysis of Reagan has been heavily partisan. Now a liberal historian and active Democrat, Sean Wilentz, has produced <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008.</span> This marvellous, incisive book focuses on presidential politics and argues -- convincingly in my view – that, Reagan is the dominant, defining figure of modern American politics. The main contours of policy - tax breaks for corporations, a “unitary executive” theory of presidential power, welfare cuts, a federal judiciary heading rightward –date from the Reagan years. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Wilentz says that Reagan "cemented the alliance between social conservatives and economic libertarian conservatives" and thereby completed the enlargement of the conservative movement. Such was the basis of his two landslide victories. The same movement enabled both Bushes to win the White House. Bill Clinton won two elections but from 1994 on, he faced a conservative Republican Congress, which made for a presidency that was very different from the one he may have planned. Clinton had to duck, weave and, yes, triangulate with this new conservatism. He did not fundamentally alter Reagan’s legacy and in some ways managed and extended it. (See: Welfare Reform Act 1996). The right has also consolidated its power by politicising the process for appointing federal judges. B This year, John McCain, along with all the contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, claimed to be the true heir of Reagan.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Wilentz explains in detail how and why Reagan cast aside the old wisdoms regarding nuclear warfare and the Soviet Union and began to end the cold war. Along the way, the book demolishes some conservative myths. America's renewed militarism after 1981 did not bring about the end of communism. The Soviet economy was already collapsing and could not pay the massive defence bills that the cold war demanded. Reagan had high ideals that the nuclear arms race had to end (partly fostered by films like <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">The Day The Earth Stood Stil</span>l!) and, when Gorbachev arrived on he scene, he seized the opportunity to act on them. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
UK readers, who live in the Age of Thatcher, will see some familiar parallels in the way Reagan reshaped the guiding assumptions of economic policy. (So will NZ readers, living in the Age of Douglas.) For example, thanks to largely to Reagan, the idea that reducing taxes on the rich will cure all economic ills has moved to the mainstream of American political thinking; so has the theory of economic deregulation. His abilities as a communicator enabled Reagan to win elections and prevail in the battle of ideas. Yet he was not a popular president by historical standards. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Wilentz puts Reagan’s success down to his "distinctive blend of dogma, pragmatism, and, above all, mythology". His conservative followers have carried on telling and building on these stories, thereby keeping control of the political debate. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On top of that, the right have played hardball politics. Another theme in Wilentz’s book is the number of politically-charged constitutional confrontations that America has seen since Watergate. In the Iran-Contra affair (in which, he is sure, the president was always a key conspirator) Reagan’s henchmen threatened to launch "an ambitious, permanent secret military operation, which would allow the White House to pursue every variety of covert operation completely free of congressional scrutiny or any constitutional constraint" [Oliver North]. In the fight against “communism”, the ends would justify the means. But Reagan ultimately got away it, partly because of blunders by Senate Democrats.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The right’s ruthless determination to win, if not to change the political order was also seen with the Clinton impeachment and the Supreme Court’s highly dubious decision to halt the effort to learn who won the 2000 election. In neither case was Reagan present and Wilentz may be going a little far in claiming that the right’s zeal had its roots in Reagan’s triumphs. Also, the age of Reagan has not seen liberalism routed altogether; the truth is that Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes all faced big shifts in their political fortunes. So have their causes. Wiltentz shows how on the Clinton impeachment, Newt Gingrich and co over-reached and lost both the trial and the political battle. Yes, in 2000, Republican justices effectively handed the White House to George W. Bush. But Bush II has revived liberals’ political fervor. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The reasons for Reagan’s ultimate victory were about economics as much as politics. Wilentz is less strong on economic, financial and social policies than on other areas. Still, he shows how Reagan’s drive to cut taxes (for the wealthy) while massively increasing military spending came at the expense of social programs. The American economy revived under Reagan but that was mainly due to the policies of Paul Volcker, chairman of the Federal Reserve (appointed by Jimmy Carter). And the wealthiest Americans benefited most from the new prosperity. Meanwhile, most of Reagan’s deregulation policies ended in tears, especially in the banking sector. His successors had to deal with the savings and loan disaster.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Above all, Reagan left behind massive fiscal deficits. Wilentz argues that “Reagan’s fiscal policies left an enduring legacy to future lawmakers” that is, Democrats – “who might wish to build any new social programs even remotely resembling those of the New Deal or the Great Society”. Sure enough, George H.W. Bush had to raise taxes, which arguably cost him the 1992 election. Bill Clinton’s record in social policy was severely constricted by Reagan’s fiscal legacy. And Barack Obama hardly promises an FDR-style New Deal.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Wilentz discusses the domestic policies of George W. Bush only briefly and depicts them as a reheated, radicalised form of Reaganism. They may also be the last gasp of an old new order. With his own massive deficits, failures on social security reform, scandals, mishandling of Hurricane Katrina and, of course, the credit crunch, Bush has disgraced Reagan’s legacy and placed it in real danger. OK, Wilentz shows how the legacy started to unravel in the 1990s and I have seen many predictions that the age of Reagan is about to end. (I recall some from 1982!) For all the Republicans’ problems, the 2008 election is still up for grabs, the way ahead unclear. But as <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071002264.html">E.J. Dionne jr. argued on Friday</a>, the core assumptions that have dominated economic and financial policy debates for thirty years are falling away in the wake of the Great Panic -- even if the media don’t fully realise it. The script is about to be rewritten. But who will write it and what will they say? I wonder what Barack Obama thinks about that. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
T<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">he Age of Reagan A History, 1974-2008</span>. By Sean Wilentz.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Illustrated. 564 pp. Harper/HarperCollins Publishers. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-50500514216098316732008-06-09T18:04:00.007+01:002008-06-09T18:19:13.648+01:00Yes, you can have a political narrative but no, you can't own it<div align="justify">So the US presidential election moves from the gruelling primary election campaigns to a no doubt brutal general election campaign. A lot of the analysis about the Democratic contest boils down to one question: who created Barack Obama and who destroyed “frontrunner” Hillary Clinton? Looking ahead, the underyling question is: whose narrative is winning out: Barack Obama’s or John McCain’s?</div><div align="justify"><br />Most of the debate around “what is our narrative?” still tends to gloss over one brutal truth: we don’t control our story. Nobody controls their story. One story can be drowned out by counter-stories, especially if the latter are simpler and more deeply rooted in the audiences values or prejudices. Most importantly, it is the political audiences who decide their brand perception of any politician or party. Whether it’s Labour, the Tories or the Lib Dems, the voters decide how they perceive us. Their brand perception is set when they think we have(n’t) satisfied their wishes or needs.</div><div align="justify"><br />Those perceptions are influenced by a number of factors, including media coverage. That’s what makes <a href="http://www.journalism.org/node/11266">a new study of the US primary elections</a> by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University especially interesting. For the third time, they are examining the “master narratives” about the candidates’ character: personality, history, leadership, and appeal. The master narratives are important. The notion that Al Gore tended to lie and exaggerate or that George Bush was a compassionate conservative proved to be powerful messages. They shaped how the press covered the 2000 race and possibly influenced the outcome. </div><div align="justify"><br />The study suggests that Senator Obama has not an especially easy ride, nor Senator Clinton a much tougher one, from the media: </div><div align="justify"><br /><em><blockquote><div align="justify"><em>"From January 1, just before the Iowa caucuses, through March 9, following the Texas and Ohio contests, the height of the primary season, the dominant personal narratives in the media about Obama and Clinton were almost identical in tone, and were both twice as positive as negative, according to the study, which examined the coverage of the candidates’ character, history, leadership and appeal—apart from the electoral results and the tactics of their campaigns. </em></div><div align="justify"><br /><em>"The trajectory of the coverage, however, began to turn against Obama, and did so well before questions surfaced about his pastor Jeremiah Wright. Shortly after Clinton criticized the media for being soft on Obama during a debate, the narrative about him began to turn more skeptical—and indeed became more negative than the coverage of Clinton herself. What’s more, an additional analysis of more general campaign topics suggests the Obama narrative became even more negative later in March, April and May."</em></div></blockquote></em><br />Still, Senator Obama succeeded in projecting his desired narrative:</div><div align="justify"><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify">"The dominant personal narratives for Obama were ones he tried hardest to project, a sign that he largely succeeded in controlling his media message, particularly early on. The most common of all was the notion that he represents hope and change. This was followed by the idea that he is a charismatic leader and powerful communicator. Obama has also succeeded in getting substantial coverage that refutes one of his greatest possible vulnerabilities, the idea that his appeal is too narrow or limited to blacks and elites. These three impressions permeated the coverage of his candidacy. "</p></blockquote><div align="justify"><br />There was a catch though -- and we’ll hear a lot more about it over the coming months.<br /></div><div align="justify"><em><blockquote><em>"The most prominent negative theme in the coverage about Obama was the claim that he is inexperienced."</em></blockquote></em></div><div align="justify"><br />Hillary Clinton got much or her desired narrative across too:</div><div align="justify"><br /><em><blockquote><em>"Clinton had just as much success as Obama in projecting one of her most important themes in the media, the idea that she is prepared to lead the country on “Day One.” She has also had substantial success in rebutting the idea that she is difficult to like or is cold or distant, and much of that rebuttal came directly from journalists offering the rebuttal."</em> </blockquote></em></div><div align="justify"><br />But her campaign had one big failing:</div><div align="justify"><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>"The most prominent negative theme about Clinton was the idea that she represents the politics of the past."</em></p></blockquote><div align="justify"><br />Perhaps she faced an insurmountable obstacle as well:</div><div align="justify"><br /><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>"With Hillary Clinton . . . the public seemed to have developed opinions about her that ran counter to the media coverage, perhaps based on a pre-existing negative disposition to her that unfolded over the course of the campaign. "</em></p></blockquote><br />I have previously blogged about <a href="http://neilstockley.blogspot.com/2008/04/mccain-vs-mccain-quick-update_09.html">the “two John McCains”. </a>Sure enough:</div><div align="justify"><br /><em><blockquote><em>"For McCain, one master narrative stands out above all in the coverage—that he is not a true or reliable conservative. More than five in 10 of all the assertions studied about McCain conveyed that idea, about six times as many as the number of assertions rebutting it. While this narrative—not conservative enough—might have been a problem for him in the primary race, it is harder to evaluate its implications for the general election. If McCain is seen as a maverick, someone not tied to President Bush, it will likely enhance his standing among independents and moderate swing Democrats. Yet lack of conservative credentials could also dampen turnout among some of the GOP base."</em></blockquote></em></div><div align="justify"><br />Now for the big question: in the Obama / McCain contest, when it comes to the voters, who’s winning the battle of the narratives? The answer is, neither of them.</div><div align="justify"><br /><em><blockquote><em>"The analysis suggests that both Obama and McCain are heading into the general election battle with less control over their personal messages than they might like. In many ways, the coverage of the campaign has been dominated by a series of small storylines or boomlets of coverage that so far have raised unresolved questions but not yet framed an overall storyline—Obama’s friendships and core ideology, the meaning of his promise of change, McCain’s core ideology, his relationship with lobbyists, and a looming battle, largely quiet during the primaries, over the direction of the conduct of the war in Iraq. "</em></blockquote></em></div><div align="justify">Now, hang on to your seat and watch the narratives and counter-stories fly.</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">[Thanks to <a href="http://jafapete.wordpress.com/">Jafapete</a> for the reference to this study.]</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-62895791126917857632008-06-01T13:00:00.007+01:002016-08-24T20:31:02.080+01:00Still story time for the Liberal Democrats<div style="text-align: justify;">
Last Wednesday night, I was pleased to be the guest speaker at the Islington Liberal Democrats’ pizza and politics evening. The subject was political narratives and how they work. This is the second time in six months I have spoken at such an event, so this storytelling thing may be catching on.<br />
<br />
We had an interesting discussion, albeit with one or two diversions. Just as with the Lewisham and Beckenham North event in December, I was left with two major conclusions: (i) local party activists and campaigners seem to understand political narratives better and faster than some of the big wheels at Westminster and (ii) women seem to “get it” better and faster than men. (If I’m right, why might this be?)<br />
<br />
Anyway, below is a slightly edited version of my speech. This serves a quick quide to my views about what makes a compelling political narrative. It’s also an update of the “Story Time for the Liberal Democrats” paper that I wrote for the Meeting the Challenge exercise in February 2006.<br />
<br />
Neil Stockley<br />
Edited speech notes for Islington Liberal Democrats’ Pizza and Politics evening<br />
Wednesday, 28 May 2008<br />
<br />
<br />
Tonight, I have a challenge for all of us.<br />
<br />
The Liberal Democrats – the party of change – need to change ourselves.<br />
<br />
We need to change.<br />
<br />
We need to change the way we campaign.<br />
<br />
We need to change the way that we speak to the voters.<br />
<br />
I want to say to you that, as a party, we need a political narrative – or, to put it another way, a compelling storyline that encourages people to vote for us.<br />
<br />
Too often, we give people lists of issues and policies, acting like the town criers in the square. “Fairer taxes”. “Invest an extra £2 billion for a universal personal care grant “ “Scrap tuition fees”. And, yes, “carbon neutral Britain”.<br />
<br />
We keep describing our philosophies or values – “liberalism”, “empowerment”, “opportunity”, “freedom”, “fairness”. More lists. More rhetoric.<br />
<br />
And, sure enough, most people keep telling the pollsters that the “Liberal Democrats are decent people but their policies probably don’t add up”, “basically a protest party with no real chance of ever winning” or “a bit of a nothing party”.<br />
<br />
The lists and the litanies may all be valid but they aren’t helping us to get our message across.<br />
<br />
We need to start telling people stories.<br />
<br />
Like Labour used to.<br />
<br />
Like the Tories are starting to.<br />
<br />
The Liberal Democrats need what any good story has – set up, characters, a series of happenings, a plot, a drama or conflict, emotional content, resolution.<br />
<br />
In truth, we are telling and listening to stories all the time – in the media, on TV, in our homes, our workplaces and communities.<br />
<br />
People have used stories to communicate with each other for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
If you don’t believe that they work in politics, look at how Senator Barack Obama has come from being the underdog to almost winning the Democratic presidential nomination.<br />
<br />
I first noticed Barack Obama when he gave the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.<br />
<br />
He told the story of how a black man born in Hawaii to an immigrant father – who himself was born and raised in a small village in Kenya and “went to school in a tin- roof shack” - and a white, single mother struggled with a multiracial background and a broken home, gained a world-class education and went on to become the first black man to edit the Harvard Law Review.<br />
<br />
This is a uniquely American story of identity and hope – it plays to the way that most American people see themselves and their country. Senator Obama personally embodies the notion that new things - change – can happen in America.<br />
<br />
He understands that you convince people, persuade people by telling a story that generates particular emotions; you do that by tapping into familiar archetypes and genres. That’s how you convey a sense of genuine feeling about the values that people hold dear. Senator Obama tells stories that engage both the heart and the head.<br />
<br />
His are stories of hope, aspiration and opportunity – “yes, we can.”<br />
<br />
Another, closely linked archetype is a transformation, a cleansing by rejecting the "old" and tarnished (in this case, politics) in favour of the “new”.<br />
<br />
“There’s not a black America and a white America . . . a liberal America and a conservative America . . . there’s a United States of America”)<br />
<br />
Senator Obama’s story is that he can end the bitter culture wars, as embodied by the Bushes and Clintons, and unite the nation around a common purpose. He promises to “make change happen” by building a "bottom-up" movement to create a momentum for reform that would draw in even Republicans.<br />
<br />
His rhetoric uses Biblical archetypes, of salvation and liberation.<br />
<br />
By telling stories, of change, of a different kind of politics, of “yes, we can”, Senator Obama has tapped into the values and sense of identity of the Democratic Party and, I think, the American people.<br />
<br />
He has started where the voters are – what they think of their country and its values - and understood their stories.<br />
<br />
Senator Obama tells stories, about widening opportunities in education, expanding access to healthcare, about cutting taxes for low income people, to explain out his vision : “with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all”.<br />
<br />
Senator Hillary Clinton, by contrast, has emphasised her experience, her policies, her political pragmatism. By failing to tell a story, or engage with voters’ emotions, she has lost control of her story, her brand.<br />
<br />
Now, I have some idea what you are thinking! All this talk about archetypes and embodiment is just a bit too American.<br />
<br />
But the most successful British leaders have done them all. Churchill. Thatcher. Blair. And now, Boris Johnson! I know of no politician who has succeeded without telling a compelling story.<br />
<br />
Let’s stick with Margaret Thatcher, for a moment. [There was a sharp intake of breath from the audience at this point]<br />
<br />
In 1979, she came to power promising to roll back the frontiers of the state, curb the power of the unions and better reward personal endeavour and hard work. Mrs Thatcher’s story, further developed throughout her years in office, was that after the Second World War, Britain had gone into a steep decline, in which successive “weak” Conservative and “socialist” Labour governments were complicit.<br />
<br />
By the 1970s, this story went, declining respect for institutions and traditional values, runaway inflation and state expenditure and out of control trade unions were all symptoms of the rot. But she would make Britain great again – the “great island nation” - by personally confronting these challenges and ensuring that individual effort, thrift and success were encouraged.<br />
<br />
Mrs Thatcher saluted small businesses and indeed all private enterprise and was adamant that people had to work hard and save in order to succeed; the role of government was to ensure they could do so. Her story contained powerful appeals to the aspiring, law-abiding individuals and families, symbols of values that are rooted in the Victorian era and took hold in the middle classes during the inter-war and postwar years. These celebrate the doughty Englishman and woman who simply want to lead a quiet, prosperous life with their families, in a strong, secure community where the law is obeyed.<br />
<br />
For eleven years, this story enabled Mrs Thatcher to gain support for her ‘big ideas’ – cutting government spending and taxes, massive changes to industrial relations and privatising state-owned businesses. Hers was a bold, optimistic story and people, especially the middle class people whose support she needed, could identify with it and see where they fitted in.<br />
<br />
Just like Winston Churchill before her, she saw enemies abroad who had to be resisted: the Soviet Union (at least until Gorbachev came along), the Argentinean generals who invaded the Falkland Islands and, as her premiership progressed, the bureaucrats, socialists and integrationists who were supposedly rampant in the European Community.<br />
<br />
There were enemies within, too: the trade union leaders who had brought the country to its knees in the 1970s, the Tory “wets”, Arthur Scargill and the miners and, of course, the Labour Party and the SDP-Liberal Alliance who did not share her economic and social outlook. In this way, Mrs Thatcher’s story played on another narrative that is well-worn in English society – “it’s time to stop the rot”, which may be immigrants, asylum seekers, scroungers, fat cat businessmen, dishonest politicians, yobs or delinquent teenagers. Mrs Thatcher was never in any doubt where the rot was coming from.<br />
<br />
We can see why this story worked.<br />
<br />
Mrs Thatcher explicitly stood by some of the deepest-held, shared values of the British people – pride in Britain and its achievements, the ability to resist external threats, individual achievement and aspiration and reward for hard work.<br />
<br />
By standing up for Britain, against its enemies, she helped their target audiences to develop (or confirm) a sense of who they were; they could reframe their thoughts and plans for the future: the need to reverse national decline.<br />
<br />
Her story was very easy for people to understand – there was black and white, good guys and bad guys, villains behind every problem.<br />
<br />
In every sense, she understood her audience’s story, its way of making sense of the world.<br />
<br />
Just like Senator Obama, Margaret Thatcher embodied her story. She came from the very ‘little England’ she so revered. The grocer’s daughter from Grantham was very industrious. Her language and rhetoric often reflected Mrs Thatcher’s ‘black-and-white’, ‘us-and-them’ way of seeing the world.<br />
<br />
Ok, maybe Liberal Democrats don’t want to emulate Margaret Thatcher.<br />
<br />
But no one can deny that Mrs Thatcher’s story, however flawed and divisive it was, proved to be a vital ingredient in her long-term political success, just as it was in Winston Churchill’s inspirational leadership during the Battle of Britain. The reality is that what Margaret Thatcher achieved provides some clear lessons to show what kinds of stories will strike a chord with the public. Just like Winston Churchill in 1940; Tony Blair in 1997 and, yes, Boris Johnson in 2008.<br />
<br />
Liberal Democrats need their own story that speaks to the narrative structures – the archetypes and myths - that people already use. Bill Clinton’s former labor secretary Robert Reich has described how these work in the American setting; I have described some of what I think the UK versions are. As Mr Reich might say, if Liberal Democrats don’t tick these boxes, someone else will.<br />
<br />
The stories don’t have to exclusionary. Tony Blair started out by practising the politics of the “big tent”. Nor are the stories inherently conservative or self in nature: during World War II, Winston Churchill played another tune – that of the strong and purposeful community.<br />
<br />
Liberal Democrats and our predecessors have used many of these stories before. For example, in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s successive Liberal leaders strongly criticised the way Labour and Conservative governments had run the country and decried both their failure to rectify Britain’s long-term economic problems. In their narrative, the threat to the nation (the rot that had to be stopped) came from the top, the two major parties.<br />
<br />
In 1983, the SDP/Liberal Alliance pledged to defend the post-war national consensus on economic management (shared national values) against the extremist threats from both major parties – the ‘monetarist’ policies of Mrs Thatcher and a Labour Party that was firmly in the grip of Tony Benn and his followers (the enemy within). David Steel and Roy Jenkins spoke in inclusive language and looked and sounded moderate, the tribunes of centrist politics.<br />
<br />
In 1997, Paddy Ashdown and his colleagues slammed the Major government in its dying days for being mired in political sleaze. Ashdown’s pledge to “clean up the mess in politics” was really a fresh take on “stop the rot” - at the top.<br />
<br />
The Liberals and Liberal Democrats have often used “Punch and Judy” glove puppets to represent squabbling Labour and Conservative politicians.<br />
<br />
If the opposition party always says that “it’s time for a change” and the governing party says “not yet” and asks for more time, the third party invites voters to cast a plague on both their houses. The difference with the Liberal Democrats is that we add in particular policies and issues. Remember in 1997 how Paddy Ashdown told people that every vote we received, every seat we won was a vote for real change. He told people what those changes were and looked and sounded like a man of action.<br />
<br />
None of these stories meant that we forgot our principles or betrayed our values.<br />
<br />
Likewise, I think that Nick Clegg is now starting to build on the best features of the old archetypes to build a new Liberal Democrat narrative. Remember his speech to the spring conference in March when Nick deplored:<br />
<blockquote style="font-style: italic;">
<br />
“a (political) system that swings like a pendulum between two establishment parties . . . tired of the same old politicians, the same old fake choices, the same old feeling that nothing ever changes.”</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
He asked:<br />
<blockquote style="font-style: italic;">
<br />
“. . . . Gordon Cameron. David Brown. What's the difference any more? . . .”</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Just like Grimond, Steel and Ashdown, his theme - his archetype - was “stopping the rot” – the rot at the top of politics, Labour and Conservative.<br />
<br />
This leads into a powerful message: Labour may have failed, but a switch to the Conservatives would make no real difference. That needs to be stated more directly. But the end to the story must be that the best way to secure real change is to elect more Liberal Democrats to the House of Commons. This is an updated version of our 1997 campaign narrative, but with a Labour government apparently on the way out.<br />
<br />
So: how do we tell a distinctive Liberal Democrat story about making the difference?<br />
<br />
Part of it is Nick’s promise to clean up politics and work for a “a new political system for the 21st century.”<br />
<br />
As a communications theme, that’s OK, as far as it goes. But in talking about political reform, Nick is really talking about process not results. People are more interested in results, what happens.<br />
<br />
Nick may be on stronger ground when he promises public services that are “human-sized, personal in nature, and designed for real people.” A liberal take on stopping the rot at the top can also be used to frame innovative new proposals on localism and decentralisation of power, particularly in the public services. But we need to clearer about what those are.<br />
<br />
Then there’s Vince Cable’s promise to make “the very well off pay a bit more in capital gains and income tax so that low and middle income families get a tax cut – 4p in the pound of national income tax” and to make the green tax switch, raising revenue for our package of tax cuts elsewhere . . .<br />
<br />
We can tie both of those into the narratives of the strong and purposeful community and the aspiring individual.<br />
<br />
We should also tell people stories about the economy. I suspect that fiscal prudence, whilst very important, is old hat now, the last that voters expect. In a time of growing economic anxiety, and a desire for a fresh start, with new, younger leadership, Liberal Democrats should tell stories – before David Cameron does – about securing Britain’s economic future – “the great Island nation”. For instance, how we would promote the new clean and energy-saving technologies can create new jobs and wealth whilst also saving the planet.<br />
<br />
There has been progress this year- but there is a long way to go. As well as formulating a story, we need to look at how Nick Clegg can embody it.<br />
<br />
I want to leave you with three, closely connected points about the sorts of stories Liberal Democrats should tell.<br />
<br />
We need to tell stories about how Labour has failed and the Conservatives would do little better (“flaky” on policies, as Vince Cable would say); the Liberal Democrats are uniquely placed to offer real change.<br />
<br />
We need to be sure that we are telling stories about the sorts of change that people are interested in; understanding their stories, where they are coming from.<br />
<br />
Above all, we should always tell people stories about the future.<br />
<br />
Thank you for listening to me.<br />
<br />
Sources<br />
<br />
John Campbell, <span style="font-style: italic;">Margaret Thatcher; Volume One: The Grocer's Daughter</span>. (Pimlico, 2000)<br />
<br />
John Campbell, <span style="font-style: italic;">Margaret Thatcher; Volume Two: The Iron Lady. </span>(Pimlico, 2003)<br />
<br />
Stephen Denning, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Secret Language of Leadership: How Leaders Inspire Action Through Narrative</span> (John Wiley & Sons, 2007)<br />
<br />
Howard Gardner, <span style="font-style: italic;">Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership</span> (Basic Books, 1995)<br />
<br />
Jon Johansson, <span style="font-style: italic;">Two Titans: Muldoon, Lange & Leadership.</span> (Dunmore Press, 2005)<br />
<br />
Geoffrey Nunberg,<span style="font-style: italic;"> Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte Drinking, Sushi Eating, New York Times Reading. Body -Piercing, Hollywood Loving, Left-Wing Freakshow</span> (Public Affairs, 2006)<br />
<br />
Robert Reich, “The Lost Art of Democratic Narrative," <span style="font-style: italic;">The New Republic,</span> March 21, 2005<br />
<br />
Annette Simmonds, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Story Factor: Inspiration, Influence, and Persuasion Through the Art of Storytelling</span> (Basic Books, 2006)</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-22578005008201973792008-05-28T18:35:00.005+01:002008-06-02T09:09:52.594+01:00Sick politics<div align="justify">How many times have you heard the Liberal Democrats patronised or mocked as: a bit loopy; or well-meaning-but-not-quite-serious; or “limp wrested”? Remember the cartoons of Ming Campbell with a zimmer frame? There are epithets for Nick Clegg now too; I don’t need to repeat them here. And you must have noticed how Gordon Brown constantly refers to the Liberal Democrats as “the liberals”. Somehow, I don’t think he’s helpfully trying to analyse our party philosophy. </div><div align="justify"><br />In subtle and not so subtle ways, our opponents keep trying to ridicule and undermine us. By using language and clever framing, they try to make us seem less valid, less real and less authentic – in short, not legitimate in politics. </div><div align="justify"><br />This technique is as old as politics itself. In my experience though, the right do it better. I used to belong to the New Zealand Labour Party. Many years ago, it was led by a decent man but he had a high voice and minimal charisma. Popularly known as "Bill" Rowling, he was mocked by his main opponent as “Wallace”. In one general election campaign, a band of tories paid for newspaper adverts with cartoons showing a mouse-like caricature of Rowling caught in a trap. </div><div align="justify"><br />The past masters at this type of politics must be the US Republicans. In the late 1980s, Newt Gingrich (later Speaker of the House) ran a political action committee that mailed a pamphlet called Language, A Key Mechanism of Control to Republicans all over the country. The booklet offered rhetorical advice to Republican candidates who wanted to “speak like Newt.” </div><div align="justify"><br />Republicans were told to describe their opponents as “sick”, “shallow”, “pathetic” and “corrupt”. There were some generalities for Republicans to apply to themselves and their policies. These included “change”, “choice”, “commitment”, “hard work”, “moral” and “common sense”. In 1990, the pamphlet was awarded a Doublespeak Award by the National Conference of Teachers of English. But the Republicans finally won control of both Houses of Congress in 1994 and held on until after the 2006 elections. </div><div align="justify"><br />The same tactics were later used in what <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/assassination-chatter-and_b_103619.html">David Bromwich of The Huffington Post </a>calls the delegitimation of President Bill Clinton. It started with Whitewater and ended with the then president’s impeachment trial. The whole thing left Bill and Hillary Clinton, understandably, very bitter. </div><div align="justify"><br /><a href="http://http//www.amazon.co.uk/Talking-Right-Conservatives-Latte-drinking-Hollywood-loving/dp/1586485091/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211979754&sr=1-2">Geoffrey Nunberg</a> has shown how George W. Bush’s presidential victories in 2000 and 2004 were a result of the Republicans’ superior skill at political framing. Nunberg and <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dont-Think-Elephant-Values-Debate/dp/1931498717/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211979827&sr=1-2">George Lakoff </a>have shown how Republicans high-jacked the language of politics to push liberals and their values seem outside the political mainstream. </div><div align="justify"><br />The same tactics are now being used against Senator Barack Obama. The negative frame being used is race. David Bromwich condemns none other than Bill and Hillary Clinton for joining in with the extreme Republican right. He traces what he sees as attempts by the Clintons to delegitimate Obama and then says:</div><div align="justify"><em><br /></em><blockquote><div align="justify"><em>"Hillary Clinton's recent careless-careful mention of the assassination of Robert Kennedy, in answer to a question about why she would stay in the Democratic race when all the numbers are against her, raised the tactics of delegitimation to a pitch as weird as anything the Clintons can have seen in the years 1997-98. </em></div><div align="justify"><br /><em>"The most disturbing element of her remark was this: that it chose to treat assassination as just one more political possibility, one of the things that happen in our politics, like hecklers, lobbyists, and forced resignations. The slovenly morale and callousness of such a released fantasy is catching. So when, a few days later, the Fox News contributor Liz Trotta was asked her opinion of Senator Clinton's statement, Trotta said: "some are reading [it] as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama...Obama. Well...both if we could!" Liz Trotta laughed as she said that. Later, she apologized, as Senator Clinton also has apologized."</em></div></blockquote></div><div align="justify"><br />Bromwich is horrified by this apparent acceptance of political violence and worries where it all will lead. </div><div align="justify"><br />His final comments might be just a little alarmist. I’d like to think so. But make no mistake: Senator Obama will struggle against vicious attempts to frame him as too liberal and, yes, too black to be president. As with his rise from underdog to near-certain nominee, Senator Obama’s general election campaign – and the campaign to stop him - will provide a once-in-a-generation case study of how political frames and story-telling really work. Let’s hope there’s a happy ending this time. </div><div align="justify"><br />As for what the Liberal Democrats should do about the on-going efforts to attack our legitimacy, the obvious answer is to make the charges less credible. More tough choices, fewer wish lists. More focus on results, less talk about process. More narrative, fewer litanies. Otherwise, I’m all for fighting fire with fire. Once again, Vince Cable offered up one of our best attack lines when he called Gordon Brown’s fall from grace “from Stalin to Mr Bean”. More recently, he slated the Tories as “a bit flaky” on key policy areas. We need some more of that. </div><div align="justify"><br />(With thanks to <a href="http://jafapete.wordpress.com/">Jafapete</a> for the Bromwich reference.) </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-26390693480667702602008-04-29T23:58:00.006+01:002008-04-30T07:48:25.640+01:00OK, "it's the economy, stupid". But what's the story?<div style="text-align: justify;">Happy days were here again. Now the global economy is heading south. For the first time in years, politics is about money, or lack of it. But the way that politicians and voters are responding has raised some interesting questions.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Take the US elections. The credit crunch started over there and is biting. So it’s very odd that the economy has not been a big factor in the primary campaign. <br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Here’s an even bigger mystery. On the Democratic side, Barack Obama is in the lead, largely because he is telling a compelling, personal story based on hope and a promise of change. He is often criticised, however, for having too few specific policies. <br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">On the economy, it’s a different matter. Look what <a href="http://http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/46226/">John Hellemann of </a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/46226/">New York</a></span><a href="http://http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/46226/"> magazine has to say</a> about Obama’s campaign:<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">"Now, the knock on Obama for months has been that he’s guilty of a maddening policy vagueness. That whereas Clinton has trafficked in specificity and substance, he’s stuck to vaporous theme and inspiration. But Obama’s recent economic shtick has been anything but nebulous. In fact, it has been nearly as laundry-listy as Hillary’s patented spiel. The proposals pile up, the numbers tumble out—$60 billion for infrastructure, $80 billion for middle-class tax cuts, $150 billion for green technologies—and the mind begins to reel.<br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">“Something is better than nothing, to be sure, and many of Obama’s plans strike me as perfectly sensible. What’s missing, however, is an overriding theory of the case—a powerful narrative that both frames and makes sense of the changes whipping through the economy like a Bengali typhoon. Obama may not need such a narrative to win the Democratic nomination. But without one, he’ll find himself fighting in the fall without the gnarliest club at his disposal for the bludgeoning of John McCain—and for beating back Republican charges that, just below the surface, he’s a reflexive, old-school liberal."</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Senator Obama has often fallen back on protectionist political rhetoric. Hellemann says that he should drop that and instead use an updated version of the economic narrative that worked for Bill Clinton in 1992. <br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">“What everyone remembers about Bill Clinton’s race in 1992, of course, is that he focused on the economy “like a laser beam,” as he put it. They remember “It’s the economy, stupid.” What they often forget is how cohesive, compelling, and even daring was the story he told about the source of the insecurity so many voters were feeling: the story of an economy in the throes of a profound, irreversible structural transformation, driven by technology and globalization. Clinton made no bones about the pain all this would cause. He didn’t hesitate to inform workers in old-line industries that many of the jobs that had disappeared were never coming back. But Clinton also laid out an ambitious agenda to upgrade the nation’s store of human capital, enabling anyone willing to make the effort to “make change their friend.”</span></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"></span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">“. . . Though it’s easy (and fun!) to bash Beijing and Gucci Gulch, they pale in importance beside other forces—information technology primary among them—in affecting the prosperity of working- and middle-class voters.<br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">“For Obama, the challenge, which Clinton met so effectively in 1992, is to fashion a narrative that acknowle</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">dges and even embraces those forces and then describes how they can be channeled.”</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As a liberal and a romantic (in thinking that politics should be informed by ideas and at least some intellectual honesty), I’ll buy that. But let’s not forget that in 1992 Bill Clinton had a populist story too. The core of it was: “I’m tired of seeing the people who work hard and play by the rules get the shaft.”<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Back to this side of the pond. Tom McNally argues in <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">Liberal Democrat News </span>this week that the party should move the economy centre stage. He calls for a political appeal rooted in our commitment to fair taxes and genuine social mobility. <br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This is, of course, what Vince Cable is saying, along with a lot more on fiscal and monetary policy, which has given the Lib Dems a new credibility on economic policy. I would add two caveats. First, a platform of “making change our friend”, is no less valid than it was in the mid-1990s, when both Labour and the Liberal Democrats adapted Bill Clinton’s themes into pledges of greater investment in education. <br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Second, whilst it is the basis of a sound, liberal policy platform, what Vince Cable and Tom McNally are putting forward is not a political story, with good and bad characters, a narrative flow and, crucially, a central myth and morality. To help project that, we need a new, fit-for-Britain version of Bill Clinton’s “feel your pain” rhetoric.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One such story is starting to be told but the wrong politician is telling it. Speaking at the weekend about the abolition of the 10p tax rate, David Cameron said.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"></span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">"[Traditional Labour supporters] have been let down by Labour and those are the people I want to stand up for."<br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">"People on low pay, families who struggle often to make ends meet, who have seen the cost of living rising and have seen their tax bill go up under Labour, those people who thought 'The Labour Party is for me'. I think they feel desperately let down.<br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">"What I want to say to people like that is we are there for you."</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"></span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Yes, it’s hypocritical, cynical and opportunistic. For all that, there is an uncomfortable truth: Labour’s perfect political storm is helping the Tories to find their narratives. Slowly, but surely.<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-89154318134995671662008-04-20T11:16:00.017+01:002008-04-20T12:22:34.206+01:00Learning from Barack Obama's original sin<div style="text-align: justify;">Here’s another reason why the US Democratic presidential primaries are so closely fought and why just a few points separate either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton from John McCain.<br /><br />OK, it’s all about narratives, the candidates telling their stories. It’s more than that – the contest is about how America wants to see itself.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/opinion/17cohen.html">Roger Cohen of <span style="font-style: italic;">The New York Times</span></a> says that the US may now be ready to confront one of the darkest chapters in its history, its central conflict; what Barack Obama has called America’s “original sin” – slavery and segregation.<br /><br />In so doing, Cohen reinforces an invaluable insight into what makes a political narrative work.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><blockquote>“It’s striking how the three contenders for the presidency offer different self-images for America. John McCain comforts the classic heroic narrative. Hillary Clinton breaks the male hold on that narrative and so transforms it. Obama transfigures it in another way by personifying America’s victory over its most visceral blemish.”</blockquote></span></div><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br />In <span style="font-style: italic;">Leading Minds</span> (1995), Howard Gardner showed how great leaders’ stories have addressed “issues of personal and group identity” for their audiences. He showed how providing audiences with a way of reframing their thoughts and plans for the future, “where they have been and where they would like to go”, is fundamental to the effectiveness of any leader’s story.<br /><br />Recent political history offers some good examples. During World War II, Winston Churchill told the British people how and why they would prevail against Nazi Germany. Margaret Thatcher told a story of reversing national economic decline and “making Britain great again”. Tony Blair talked in 1997 about a national renewal, a “new Britain”.<br /><br />Gordon Brown delivers sermons about “Britishness” but he does not tell stories that connect people with his ideas and, most importantly, a vision for the future. David Cameron avoids stories about identity, doubtless recognising that his party may want to live in little England but the voters do not. <a href="http://neilstockley.blogspot.com/2008/03/liberal-democrats-glimpse-their.html">Nick Clegg has started to tell the story of a “better Britain”,</a> in which government leads the way in enhancing individual opportunities. That’s a welcome move. The next step is to play that into the stories that Liberal Democrat inclined voters believe already about their country. We need to understand what Roger Cohen calls their self-image of the nation.<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-26642021763634584562008-04-09T09:23:00.004+01:002008-04-09T09:28:35.891+01:00McCain vs. McCain - a quick update<div align="justify">I have previously blogged that one of Senator John McCain’s big challenges is to decide <a href="http://neilstockley.blogspot.com/search/label/John%20McCain">which story he is going to tell about himself</a> – the maverick or the true conservative. I argued that he couldn’t win by telling both and that he would try to, in effect, fuse the two stories, running as a straight-talking problem solver, better qualified and stronger on national security than Senator Barack Obama.<br /><br />So far, McCain is hardly trying to shut down the maverick story. Also, he is telling <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/us/politics/06notebook.html?scp=4&sq=john+mccain&st=nyt">a personal tale of honour and national service</a>, to show that he is an American warrior who can be trusted on national security.<br /><br />It’s working rather well. The latest <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/us/04poll.html?ref=politics">New York Times / CBS</a> poll says that 81 per cent of Americans – yes, four out of five, think the country is on the wrong track. Yet McCain, the candidate of a Republican Party badly tarnished by the Bush presidency, <a href="http://www.pollster.com/blogs/">leads Barack Obama by one point and Hillary Clinton by three poin</a>ts.<br /><br />One explanation is that nobody is showing up the basic conflict between McCain’s stories.<br /><br />The Economist’s <a href="http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10961825">Lexington columnist</a> contends that the Democrats’ “demolition derby”, Obama vs. Clinton, is ruining their chances of victory in November. S/he says:<br /><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>“. . . rather than defining Mr McCain the Democrats are letting Mr McCain define himself.<br /></em><br /><em>"This might not matter so much if the senator from Arizona were a mere Bush clone. But he is more than that—a spunky maverick who has frequently broken with the Republican machine and earned admiration from moderates and independents. He is also using his time wisely. He has tried to look presidential by touring the Middle East and Europe (not without mishap, as when he managed to confuse Sunni and Shia extremists in Iraq). And he has tried to distance himself from George Bush's foreign policy by stressing the importance of global co-operation, calling for a reduction in stockpiles of nuclear weapons and pledging that he will do more to deal with global warming and malaria.”</em></p></blockquote><div align="justify"><br /><br />And let’s not forget the crucial role of media narrative. Paul Krugman has previously written about <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html">Clinton rules</a>, under which large sections of the media attribute sinister motives to just about anything the Clintons say or do. Now he talks about <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/understanding-the-rules/?scp=1-b&sq=clinton+rules&st=nyt">McCain rules</a>:<br /><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>". . . under which anything John McCain says, no matter how craven or dishonest, becomes proof of his straight-talking maverickness (mavericity?).”</em></p></blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-41685434166998053232008-03-31T15:06:00.010+01:002008-03-31T15:20:55.551+01:00Come see about me<div align="justify">Which matters most – personal stories or policies and issues?</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">It's a false choice.<br /><br />Exhibit A. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/weekinreview/16bai.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=matt+bai&st=nyt&oref=slogin">Matt Bai of the New York Times</a> has tidily explained the main difference between the strategies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. He relates it all back to their top campaign strategists.<br /><br />Senator Obama is advised by David Axelrod:<br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>". . . an advertising guy . . . who perfected the craft of encapsulating an entire life in 30 seconds, he has a gift for telling personal stories in ways that people can understand. Axelrod’s essential insight — the idea that has made him successful where others might have failed — is that the modern campaign really isn’t about the policy arcana or the candidate’s record; it’s about a more visceral, more personal narrative.<br /><br />"This is probably a big reason why Mr. Obama has, from the start, focused almost exclusively on broad themes of “hope” and “change.”"</em></p></blockquote><div align="justify"><br /><br />Senator Clinton is advised by Mark Penn:</div><div align="justify"><br /><em><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>". . . a pollster, and pollsters tend to look at campaigns as a series of dissectible data points that either attract voters or drive them away. Get a health care plan and an economic plan that 70 percent of people say they view favorably. Pay attention to words that move the dial in focus groups, like “real solutions for America” or “ready to lead on Day 1.” "<br /><br />"Mrs. Clinton’s relentless focus on pragmatism and specificity, as well as her willingness to shift slogans, are not simply a result of her own personality but also of Mr. Penn’s strategic outlook, which values testable ideas and phrases over more sweeping imagery and themes."</em></p></blockquote></em><br /><br />Of course, Mr Obama does polls and Mrs Clinton has tried to convey a story. But their respective strengths leave no room for wonder that the campaign has been so closely fought. Matt Bai concludes:<br /><br /><em><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>"Mr. Axelrod’s storytelling has created a dynamic hero who sometimes seems estranged from the practicalities of governing; Mr. Penn’s data has created a credible platform put forth by a candidate whose theory of leadership can seem small. What voters love in one they crave in the other. "<br /></p></em></blockquote></em>Exhibit B. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/us/politics/p31caucus.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26scpQ3D4Q26sqQ3DmccainQ26stQ3Dnyt&OP=9d703e3Q2FX)Y6XTimdriivKXKbbpXbPXPHXQ27dXSiQ25Q5EvQ5EmdXSPHmQ5BQ27mQ27dQ20BvwQ25">The New York Times reports this morning</a> that the near-certain Republican nominee, Senator John McCain plans to use his life story and military experience to connect with voters. He is starting a Service to America tour, taking in key stops from his and his family’s careers in the forces, in an effort to introduce Senator McCain to a wider audience.<br /><br />But Republican pundit William Kristol warns convincingly that “biography isn’t enough” because the American electorate doesn’t always show due gratitude to war heroes. He adds that this may reflect “a healthy hard headedness” and “a sensible pragmatism”.<br /><br />He then argues that:<br /><br /><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>"Candidate McCain should be working overtime on a broad reform agenda — education reform, health insurance reform, tax reform, government reform, Wall Street reform. He could start by outlining an up-to-date, capitalism-friendly and transparency-requiring approach to regulating the credit markets. (He might also suggest taxing “carried interest” as ordinary income, if only to watch the fur fly among hedge-fund fat cats.)"</em><br /></p></blockquote><br />I think that a candidate needs both “personal stories” and “issues”; they need have to work in tandem.<br /><br />OK, so that’s all about America and people on this side of the Atlantic tend to be more reserved. Politicians aren’t expected to spill their personal stories to the same extent. The conventional wisdom is that British elections are decided mostly on competence, party images and issues.<br /><br />But UK party leaders still need to embody their parties' narratives. They need to tell personal stories, to make the narratives appear more authentic.<br /><br />Remember John Major’s televised trip back to Brixton in 1992, which brought home the politics of opportunity and aspiration.<br /><br />Or the youthful Tony Blair’s 1997 promise of a new Britain under New Labour. His physical appearance, a young man with a young family, sent a subliminal message. Labour's pledge card tapped into the concerns of his target voters.<br /><br />Today, the leaders’ failure to tell powerful personal stories illustrate the weaknesses of their respective parties’ narratives.<br /><br />Gordon Brown has not told a personal story that enables him to connect with the electorate. He thinks Labour’s narrative is about “opportunity for all” but nobody seems to have noticed.<br /><br />David Cameron has told of his own family’s experiences of the NHS. But that doesn’t – yet – amount to the personal story. The vision and substance of the Conservative narrative is still a work in progress. But he’s a new face for an electorate that wants change.<br /><br />Nick Clegg opened his speech to the spring conference in Liverpool by mentioning his grandmother, a Russian exile and his mother, who spent part of her childhood in a Japanese prisoner of war camp in Indonesia. “They found a home in Britain because ours is a nation of tolerance, of freedom, and of compassion.” But these stories aren’t about him. <a href="http://neilstockley.blogspot.com/2008/03/liberal-democrats-glimpse-their.html">And the narrative that Nick Clegg is gradually building</a> is about creating a better politics; and this co-exists alongside another about fighting for a more equal Britain, “the people versus the powerful”.<br /><br />Let’s see who gets there first.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-7746772670167877282008-03-27T18:53:00.010+00:002008-03-27T19:04:23.900+00:00Groupthink and the story that really matters<div align="justify">It isn’t just the Liberal Democrats who beat themselves up about their dearth of compelling narratives and storylines. Having plummeted in the polls, Labour are hard at it too (more on this soon).<br /><br />But no politician should imagine that the stories that they tell about themselves will transform their political fortunes. The winners are always who do the best job of understanding the stories that are in the voters’ minds and then adapt their own messages.<br /><br />At the same time, the public’s view of the world will be strongly influenced by the stories that the media are telling. Their stories chop and change and the media follow the herd.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=101&aid=140228">Patrick Coolican of the Nevada Sun</a> neatly sums up how this has worked so far in the U.S. Democratic primaries.<br /><br /></div><em><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>"The vogue word in journalism for groupthink is "narrative." A bunch of reporters and editors read one another's dispatches, talk at events and on planes, and come to a rough consensus about where things stand and what's important:<br /><br /></em>"<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/02/campaign.money.schneider/index.html"><em>Barack Obama is viable</em></a><em>. Obama is a weak debater and not "tough enough." He has </em><a href="http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/59236/"><em>committed "missteps" on foreign policy</em></a><em>. Latinos won't vote for a black man. Yes, they will. Jeremiah Wright has dealt the Obama campaign </em><a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9095.html"><em>a game-changing crisis</em></a><em>. Obama </em><a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88481121"><em>parried with the most significant speech on race</em></a><em> since Martin Luther King Jr.<br /><br />"Hillary Clinton </em><a href="http://politics.lasvegassun.com/2007/07/strong-negative.html"><em>isn't electable</em></a><em>. Clinton is unflappable and </em><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/25/politics/main3294647.shtml"><em>unstoppable</em></a><em>. </em><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3891128&page=1"><em>Clinton isn't connecting</em></a><em> with Iowa voters. Clinton is finished. </em><a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/91795"><em>Clinton found her voice</em></a><em>. Clinton is unstoppable. Clinton is finished. </em><a href="http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/is_clinton_inevitable_again.html"><em>Clinton may win it</em></a><em>."<br /></p></em></blockquote><div align="justify"></em></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Patrick Coolican confuses “political narrative” with “media narrative” but he makes a valid point. Whilst there is still a range of quality commentary across the UK media, I am sure that it applies to the bulk of reportage in this country. This time last year, Gordon Brown was set to be a disastrous, unpopular prime minister. For his first twelve weeks, he walked on water. After he finally said there would be no snap election in the autumn, Brown wasn’t very good. There was a brief respite over the New Year. Now he is an unmitigated disaster, in deep trouble, heading for defeat.<br /><br />Last summer, David Cameron was cast as a lightweight, disliked by his own party. By the turn of the year, he was firing on all cylinders. A few weeks ago, he should have being doing better in the polls. Now he is.<br /><br />Sir Menzies Campbell was too old – no, “seen as too old” – to be a party leader.<br /><br />In the space of just three months, Nick Clegg has been depicted as a waffler who then mishandled the Lisbon Treaty vote and endangered his authority but may now be doing quite well.<br /><br />Media bashing is an easy alibi for politicians. But I am sure that there is still too little understanding - and detailed analysis - of the power of the media and its prevailing narratives and how those stories are formed.<br /><br />Back to Mr Coolican. After being self-critical for, on one occasion, helping to turn a notion into a conventional wisdom, he makes a call for change:<br /><br /></div><em><blockquote><p align="justify"><em>"When we [journalists] thought for ourselves, out in the hinterlands, we did some quality work. For instance, in the spring of 2007, when the D.C. and New York media began its inevitable pushback on Obama with a raft of stories about him being all fluff and no substance, we examined this narrative and reported on a new element: </em><a href="http://politics.lasvegassun.com/2007/03/gears_turn_chew.html"><em>blogger pushback to the pushback</em></a><em>. . . .<br /><br />". . . Here's the important question: How do we avoid false narratives and get at more salient and fundamental issues?<br /><br />"Or more plainly: What should we political reporters be doing with our time? When is our supposed "analysis" simply a rehashing of the campaign machinery's narrative?<br /><br />"I'm pretty sure we do too much shorthand, guesswork "analysis," which often amounts merely to repeating groupthink we've read or heard elsewhere.<br /><br />"We ought to be analyzing what the candidates propose and whether they possess the skills and character traits to get it done.<br /><br />The rest should be left to voters. It's their groupthink that matters."</em></p></blockquote></em><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">Anyone disagree? </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-57030443657694354742008-03-16T15:17:00.014+00:002008-03-17T15:10:10.468+00:00McCain vs. McCain<p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB">Let’s face facts: <span style="font-size:0;"></span>John McCain could win the White House in November. Latest polls show him at level pegging with either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB"><?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB">First though Senator McCain must decide which story he is going to tell people.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>There are at least two McCain narratives right now.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>One is about the maverick Republican senator who moved well outside his party’s comfort zone on taxes, campaign finance reform, climate change, environmental regulation, stem cell research and immigration.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>As <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/10/AR2008031002247.html">E.J. Dionne jr. argues,</a> this has presented some liberals with a big dilemma.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>They might even for vote for him. <span style="font-size:0;"></span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB">It’s also a story that is uncomfortable to some Republican ears: one of McCain’s main challenges in the primaries has been to win over committed conservatives. <span style="font-size:0;"></span>One example of tough conservative bagging of Senator McCain came last month from <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24771#continueA">Jed Babbin, a former office-holder in the George W. Bush administration who now writes for Human Events</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span style="font-size:0;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB">Conservative criticism of McCain has since been more muted, especially since mid February when he emerged as the near certain Republican frontrunner and was endorsed by George W. Bush.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>This leads into another story <span style="font-size:0;"></span>– McCain the conservative president who would carry on the occupation of Iraq indefinitely, has done a U-turn on Bush’s tax cuts and opposes government-sponsored universal health coverage.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>Says Dionne:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><blockquote style="FONT-STYLE: italic"><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB">All this points to what is maddening about McCain. At times, he has acted with courage and honor. At other times, he behaves like a crafty politician. There is an independent side to McCain that has made him an authentic maverick. But on so many issues, he is nothing more (or less) than a thoroughly conventional conservative politician. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB">. . . So what's the path of integrity for one-time McCain fans in the center and on the left? It would be to base our judgments on the extent to which the rebellious McCain we admired has given way to the McCain who is as conservative as he always said he was -- even if many liberals (and, for different reasons, many conservatives) didn't want to believe him.</span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB">Anyone can tell two or more stories.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>But in politics you can’t let yourself be defined with stories that clash at a basic level with each other and then expect to win.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>Remember John Kerry, the Democratic nominee in 2004, who said that:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB"><blockquote><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">“I actually did vote for the $87 billion [for funding the Iraq war] before I voted against it.”</span><span style="font-size:0;"></span></blockquote></span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-size:0;"></span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p><br />This and other changes of mind enabled opponents to tag him as a <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml">“flip flopper”.</a><span style="font-size:0;"> </span>The first requirement for a story to be successful is to be simple.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>The second is to be consistent.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB">A <a href="http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4a65fb2f-7752-493f-a8d3-7fa4aa5e55d0">recent article</a> by Jonathan Chait, The New Republic, a liberal house journal, forensically exposes McCain's shift from left to right.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="articletext" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span style="font-size:0;"></span></p><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify;font-family:trebuchet ms;" ><blockquote style="FONT-STYLE: italic"><p class="articletext" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span style="font-size:11;">The prevalent view of McCain is that he is a generally conservative figure with a few maverick stances and an unwavering authenticity. . .<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="articletext" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span style="font-size:11;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="articletext" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span style="font-size:11;">Actually, this assessment gets McCain almost totally backward. He has diverged wildly and repeatedly from conservative orthodoxy, but he has also reinvented himself so completely that it has become nearly impossible to figure out what he really believes . . .</span></p></blockquote></div><p class="articletext" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span style="font-size:0;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB">As to which story voters will finally believe, we need to remember Howard Gardner’s conclusion in <em>Leading Minds</em> (1995), that when different stories come into competition, more often than not, the one that is less sophisticated and has stronger affective, mass appeal will become dominant.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>The “conservative” McCain story should eventually prevail.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>But it may confuse or even drive away liberal and independent voters. </span><span style="font-size:0;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span style="font-size:0;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB">So McCain’s campaign will, I think, try to fuse the two existing stories as he tries to hold the Republican base and reach out from it.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>He will run as a straight-talking problem solver, better qualified and stronger on national security than Senator Barack Obama (his most likely opponent); <span style="font-size:0;"></span>a change from the Bush years, but a change that carries fewer risks than a “left wing” first-term senator. <span style="font-size:0;"></span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB">McCain’s stances on domestic policy issues present the Democrats with many opportunities.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>But I suspect the man from the New Republic is closer to the mark: maybe you just don’t know what Senator McCain thinks; an electorate that wants real change can’t be sure that he would deliver it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB">At the 2004 Republican convention, delegates stood up and flapped giant flip-flops in front of the TV cameras, to mock Senator Kerry.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>Maybe these props are sitting in a warehouse somewhere, waiting for the Democrats to buy them up later this year.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>But will they get the story? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148608036370776702.post-84836514078701831502008-03-01T17:22:00.010+00:002008-11-05T09:26:06.657+00:00Waiting for the Obama-a-likes<p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify;font-family:trebuchet ms;" ><span lang="EN-GB">The rise and rise of Senator Barack Obama is an epic event in the history of political marketing. Politicos everywhere should watch and learn.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify;font-family:trebuchet ms;" ><br />Why?<br /><span lang="EN-GB"><br />Because a party 's appeal - its brand and narrative - sinks or swims with its leader.<?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="FONT-FAMILY: trebuchet ms; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify;font-family:trebuchet ms;" ><span lang="EN-GB">And that's because it comes down to telling a story that clicks with what the people listening to it – the voters – are thinking and feeling.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Engaging the emotions, especially hope and fear, are what it’s really about.<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify;font-family:trebuchet ms;" ><span lang="EN-GB">Someone has to tell the story and make the connection. That's usually the party leader. It all comes together when s/he embodies it and lends the story a sense of authenticity.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="FONT-FAMILY: trebuchet ms; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify;font-family:trebuchet ms;" ><span lang="EN-GB">During World War II, Winston Churchill called on the British people to have courage and make sacrifices.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>He stayed in London during the blitz and exposed himself to the risk of physical danger.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>He visited bombsites in east London and elsewhere.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="FONT-FAMILY: trebuchet ms; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify;font-family:trebuchet ms;" ><span lang="EN-GB">Margaret Thatcher spoke to England’s aspirational and provincial middle classes and preached the values of hard work and personal discipline as the path to national recovery.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>The grocer’s daughter from Grantham worked all hours <o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="FONT-FAMILY: trebuchet ms; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify;font-family:trebuchet ms;" ><span lang="EN-GB">In the mid-1990s, Tony Blair offered middle England a fresh start, a clear break from the Conservatives and Old Labour.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>He looked and dressed just like the people he was speaking to.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="FONT-FAMILY: trebuchet ms; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify;font-family:trebuchet ms;" ><span lang="EN-GB">So too with Senator Obama, the candidate of “hope” and change”.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>As I have said before, he offers Democratic voters the promise of renewal, a break from the past. Through his personal story, he embodies the notion that positive change can happen in America.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Yesterday, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022803316.html">E.J. Dionne jr. argued</a> that Senator Obama is a “yes, we can” candidate who is so powerful because, just like Ronald Reagan in 1980, he gives all sorts of voters a sense of historic opportunity. They can change the political weather.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="FONT-FAMILY: trebuchet ms; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify;font-family:trebuchet ms;" ><span lang="EN-GB">The Obama story is catching on.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="FONT-FAMILY: trebuchet ms; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify;font-family:trebuchet ms;" ><span lang="EN-GB">Try <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/4420569a1861.html">this</a> from New Zealand’s left-wing political pundit Chris Trotter.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>This week, he catalogued what he sees as the NZ public’s anxieties this election year and then said:<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="FONT-FAMILY: trebuchet ms; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify;font-family:trebuchet ms;" ><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><blockquote style="FONT-STYLE: italic;font-family:trebuchet ms;" ><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB">For months they’ve been waiting for [Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark] to acknowledge their unease, and, if possible, offer an accurate diagnosis of it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB">They have waited in vain.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB">Miss Clark is no Bill Clinton: she cannot look her supporters in the eye and say, "I feel your pain".<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB">At heart, the prime minister is a diligent and rather uninspiring policy wonk, who has never really understood that politics is not about the head, but the heart.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB">The voters are simply not in the market for "tonnes of policy". What they're in the market for are tonnes of empathy.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB">. . . <o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB">In their affinity for political managerialism, Helen and Hillary[Clinton] are alike. But, do [National Party leader John] Key's speeches echo our own electorate's hunger for "Hope" and "Change" in the way Barack Obama's echo America's?<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB">Yes, in a strange way they do. Mr Key may not be as effective a speaker as Mr Obama, but his personal political narrative (poor boy raised by a solo mum, who transcends his humble origins to achieve remarkable success) is strikingly similar – and so is the way voters have loaded their deep longing for fresh explanations and new beginnings on to the young challenger's shoulders.</span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify;font-family:trebuchet ms;" ><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="FONT-FAMILY: trebuchet ms; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify;font-family:trebuchet ms;" ><span lang="EN-GB">Chris Trotter may be a bit hard on Helen Clark, who has led her party for fourteen years and read the public mood well enough to win three general elections.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>The NZ electorate may want to see some policy substance from the opposition.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>So, I am sure, will the British.<span style="font-size:+0;"> (Not as lists, though.) </span>Both may be really after some new, younger faces at the top rather than a rendezvous with destiny.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="FONT-FAMILY: trebuchet ms; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify;font-family:trebuchet ms;" ><span lang="EN-GB">The interesting point he makes is that a party of the centre-right may be about to take over the powerful themes of “hope” and “change”. It's easier when you have been out of power for nearly nine years, The NZ National Party also has a leader with a compelling personal story that could make their promise of an aspirational, centrist politics seem more real to floating voters.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="FONT-FAMILY: trebuchet ms; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify;font-family:trebuchet ms;" ><span lang="EN-GB">Will it work in the UK?<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>For “Helen Clark” in the piece above, you can easily read “Gordon Brown”.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>The Conservatives know that the public are deeply disgruntled after ten years of Labour and are talk about “change” at every available opportunity.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>(The Tory pamphlets coming through my door are even called “Change”.)<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>But David Cameron is no Barack Obama and his origins were far from humble.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Athough he is their most appealing leader in years, the Conservatives cannot quite define what David Cameron embodies and how it will click with the public mood. That's one reason they don't have a compelling narrative. Not yet.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="FONT-FAMILY: trebuchet ms; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><o:p></o:p></span> </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1