Also included: Why the Republicans really hated Bill Clinton, McCain's real reasons for choosing Sarah Palin, and why that 3-minute video clip of Joe Biden on the campaign trail is so very good, and so very important
I was just chatting with a friend who wrote the following: "I can't believe any self-respecting woman would ever vote for Sarah Palin."
Here's why she might be wrong.
The Obama campaign is right to keep the focus on John McCain, but I feel like there's something about Sarah Palin--the bigger picture--that we're all collectively missing.
So I responded to my friend, telling her that narratives and tribalism might play a role. She asked me to explain, since she was confused. Sometimes I confuse people. :)
Here's a summation of tribalism & narratives. (This will be very familiar to anyone who's read Rick Perlstein's Nixonland, digby or George Lakoff, but not so much if you haven't.)
We keep thinking people will care about troopergate, or her creationist stance, or the fact that she might be a racist. And maybe some people do care. And Hillary voters were definitely turned off--CNN, no lefty source, had a report the very day Palin was picked about how her female supporters were "insulted" and "offended" by the pick--and good for them. (And it was a clear play from them (else why include "18 million cracks" in your speech?)
But we need to remember narratives and tribalism, which point us to the bigger picture of the Palin pick.
Remember, most people don't think about politics a lot. It's something in the background that becomes important every two or four years. (C.f. Chris Hayes' wonderful, groundbreaking article in "In These Times" at some point: "Decision Makers."
Our brains are hard-wired to respond to stories. This is why Ronald Reagan used anecdotes so much, why local TV stations are always more interested in "human-interest" stories, why dry statistics turn us off but people turn us on.
Tribalism, is the basic US VS. THEM, which is why likeability is so over-rated.
People didn't like Nixon. And yet, at the height of the Vietnam war, they re-elected him. (Most of this was due to McGovern's poor vetting of Eagleton, but I predict Nixon still would've won, even if McGovern had been able to convince, say, Ted Kennedy to join the ticket.) Nixon's line was something like this:
You may not like me. But THEY are out to get you. THEY are the MEDIA. THEY are ELITES. They LAUGH at you. They SNEER at you.
They don't like you. And They don't like me. We're on the same team.
You don't have to like me. In fact, you don't want to like me. You want me to be a mean, nasty son-of-a-bitch, so that when I take on the ELITES--the ones who LAUGH at you--I will be mean, nasty, and show no mercy.
It sounds absurdly simple, but it's the way our brains our hard-wired. Fox News is 24-7 tribalism. Look at those stupid, weak, liberal elites on the "coasts" who laugh at you, because you're different from them.
Bill Clinton did not win because he was a Southern governor. Bill Clinton would have won if he was a five-term Senator from Massachusetts, or a state senator from California.
Unlike many other Democrats, Bill Clinton spoke "Narratives" and "Tribalism" fluently.
This was Bill Clinton's narrative:
*****
I was dirt-poor. I had a single mom and a stepdad I hated who beat me. I worked hard--incredibly hard--became a lawyer & a governor, but I never forgot where I came from.
I am like you.
You've been voting for these people for 12 years or longer. Are you better off? No? Why is that?
Because they screw you over. They tricked you. They are wildly out of touch--look at George H.W. Bush and that supermarket scanner. Vote for me--someone who's really like you.
******
See the tribalism? Subtle, not present enough to scare the media, but close enough for trained practitioners--99% of whom were Republicans--to see.
This is why Bill Clinton had to be destroyed at all cost. Because he understood narratives and tribalism better than anyone since Reagan. And because he disrupted the dominant Republican narrative about the Presidency, which was this:
Let those silly, weak liberals have their House. We have the Presidency. When the Democrats nominate a Southern governor, they get one term, screw things up, and then we come back in. This is the way it will always be.
*****
And for a while, things looked pretty good for the Republicans. But Clinton moved to the center, and continued to work his narratives & tribalism. He was re-elected in 1996 in a landslide.
Thus ended the Republicans' presidency narrative.
People are angry at Clinton over Lewinsky, but if it hadn't been Lewinsky, it would have been something else, I guarantee you. People aren't perfect. Presidents aren't perfect. But that's a narrative that has yet to take hold.
*****
This is why complaints about W's intelligence never worked. W is, by the way, very smart, at least when it comes to campaigning and, crucially, narratives/tribalism. He knows how to work the tribalism better than anyone since Reagan. This is W's narrative:
W: They're laughing at me because they think I'm stupid. They laugh at you too, don't they? Yeah, I may be in a little over my head, but I work hard. And I'm like you. They don't have to laugh at me like that; I'm doing the best I can.
Let's show them. Let's make them pay for laughing at us.
*****
This is primarily why Bush won in 2004. (Stolen 2000 election may be discussed later, if there's interest. Just read Greg Palast's Best Democracy Money Can Buy for now.) John Kerry, like Al Gore, would have made an excellent President, but he failed, like Gore, to understand narrative & tribalism on a fundamental level. (he also couldn't speak soundbite. 8 seconds, sixth grade level. 8 seconds, six grade level. Rinse & repeat, for God's sake.) Kerry did very, very well against an incumbent at a time of war, and got more votes than any other Democrat in history. To lose by only 51%-48%, against a collossall propaganda machine, at a time of war, is impressive. But it was not enough.
*******
Now the narrative has been replaced by a new narrative. Bush = fuckup. Bush = Republican.
THEREFORE REPUBLICAN = FUCKUP.
And Obama knows narrative.
Obama: I am different. I have skinny ears & a funny name (notice how perfectly this defuses the Black = different & scary narrative? Skinny ears, funny name = different BUT NOT SCARY.) I'm product of American dream.
Because I'm so unusual, I've got a different take on things. I want to work with everyone, Republicans included (existing narrative: Bush doesn't play with others) , to fix all these problems.
And here comes McCain, and for whatever reasons--probably because Obama is so very good at the narrative part--his narratives don't take hold.
McCain: I'm a war hero. I'm a maverick!
(Public remembers: McCain hugging Bush.)
McCain: I work with both sides.
(Public remembers: Bush = fuckup. Republicans = Fuckup. McCain = Republicans.
REJECT: MCCAIN.)
McCain looks at polls. They don't change. McCain sees something bigger, a bigger difference than the polls show. I don't know what he sses. It is OBama's ground game? Is it how well Obama is known, making it far more difficult to install negative narrative? I don't know.
Now for the VPs.
Pawlenty = boring. No narrative disruption.
Romney = rich, like Bush. Romney = no narrative disruption; worse, NEGATIVE Republican reenforcement.
Lieberman = former Democrat. Lieberman = reenforce "different" theme, "independent theme."
WAIT WAIT WAIT say FUNDIES.
LIEBERMAN = PRO-CHOICE
LIEBERMAN = PRO-STEM-CELL
EPIC FAIL
Okay okay, says McCain. I pick Tom Ridge.
WAIT WAIT WAIT say FUNDIES.
RIDGE = PRO-CHOICE
EPIC FAIL.
McCain says: But: Experience! But: National Security! But: Pennsylvania!
RIDGE = PRo-CHOICE
EPIC FAIL
And Ridge would not have disrupted the narrative.
So this is the plan, from the Republicans, who might be stupid, but then might be smart.
Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin's narrative:
I'm different. I'm not from Washington. I'm a hockey Mom.
Public thinks: Hmmmmm.
McCain has completely abandoned his experience beats change narrative, but this may have been on purpose. At the very least, it was a conscious trade-off.
This is what happens: Media does lots of stories on little negative bits of Sarah Palin.
Public thinks: SARAH PALIN = HOCKEY MOM
SARAH PALIN = LIKE ME
MEDIA ATTACKING SARAH PALIN
=
MEDIA ATTACKING ME!
Public thinks: REJECT ALL MEDIA.
MCain thinks: TOTAL PWNAGE! WHITE HOUSE IS MINE!
Sarah Palin says: THEY are lying to you. THEY are COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS. What's a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER? It's DIFFERENT, SCARY, and WEIRD (read: Black.)
Sarah Palin says: I will fight for you against THEM, the MEDIA ELITES who are ATTACKING MY FAMILY.
Sarah Palin says: I like John McCain.
Public thinks: Hmmm. Maybe I should give that McCain guy a second look. Sarah Palin = not from Washington. Sarah Palin = NOT FUCKUP. Sarah Palin = trustworthy source.
Think it can't work? Think again. Her speech hit the narratives well enough to completely disable troopergate for a different, moderate friend of mine--extremely intelligent--works as a fundraiser for a theatre.
Sarah Palin said: They're coming after my family because they don't like me. I was trying to defend my family for a creep.
And this is good enough for my moderate friend. Troopergate doesn't have a simple narrative that comes from a reliable source. So it is disabled.
My first friend, Alix, pointed out after this explanation that she was looking for a candidate who appealed to the best of us. Which Obama does. He tells that story well, and that's part of his appeal.
But how do we deal with the Palin narrative? If we attack her, we play into the
THEY'RE ATTACKING ME
I AM LIKE YOU
THEREFORE THEY'RE ATTACKING YOU TWO.
Joe Biden has already solved this problem in that video yesterday, making this diary something of anti-climax, but coming as a relief to those who lived through the last two Presidential elections.
Take a listen to this again, particularly at 1:57 in:
Joe Biden says:
SARAH PALIN NOT = HOCKEY MOM
SARAH PALIN = POPULAR MEAN GIRL IN SCHOOL WHO PICKED ON YOU
evidence: SARAH PALIN MEAN DURING HER BIG SPEECH
Public thinks: Oh yeah.
HOCKEY MOM Narrative = DISRUPTED.
REPLACE WITH:
MEAN GIRL narrative.
Rinse, repeat, rinse repeat, rinse, repeat.
The question is whether the Obama campaign knows how important that clip is. I think they do. But, for those of you running for office, or who might run for office some day, or working on campaigns, remember this.
Sarah Palin, even if McCain/Palin loses--possibly particularly if she loses--will be around for a while.
Republicans think:
MCCAIN LAME
PALIN COOL
PALIN ONE OF US
IF PALIN TOP OF TICKET, PALIN WIN
STUPID MCCAIN
NOMINATE PALIN INSTEAD
NOW SHE GOVERNOR SIX/TEN YEARS NOT TWO YEARS
VOTE PALIN!
Make no mistake: Sarah Palin knows how to work tribalism, and narratives, very well. Yes, she has a number of--so far--minor scandals. But she & the McCain campaign may just have innoculated her against the media.
Remember,
MEDIA = ELITE
MEDIA = THEM
MEDIA = NO LIKE
SARAH PALIN = LIKE ME
SARAH PALIN = LIKE.
The trick is to make the narrative stick and to start to build other narratives, to make Palin one of them, and to make sure these narratives come from sources people trust. And we'll have to this if Obama wins.
Maybe especially if he wins.
Remember narratives. Remember tribalism.
They work.
Next diary: Why Obama is deliberately not using tribalism (a big risk, with a potentially big reward)