For those of us who think that this election about the issues, George Lakoff has got some news for you: running on the issues is no way to run a campaign. And Barack Obama's attempt to run on the issues instead of campaigning with the inspirational fervor he ran on in the primary may end up costing us the election. More over the fold...
In an article he penned for Huffington Post, Lakoff argues that the Obama campaign risks running into the same rhetorical trap that has confounded many a Democratic campaign before:
Throughout the nomination campaign I was struck by how well the Obama campaign was being run, especially how sophisticated the framing was... But recently I have begun to wonder. It looks like, in certain respects, the Obama campaign is making some of the same mistakes of the Hillary campaign and the Kerry and Gore campaigns.
Now, anybody who reads Daily Kos will point out that there are about a billion diaries a day on framing arguments. But I'd suggest that we don't listen to our own advice. Almost every diary on the rec list lately has been pointed in some way to Sarah Palin, who-- like it or not-- is an energizing strength to Republicans. Instead of talking about McCain's weaknesses-- his links to Bush, his hypocrisy and flip-flops on the culture wars, and his complete lack of an economic plan-- we're talking about a hockey mom who has done absolutely nothing but rally the wingnut base. So we're guilty of it too. Lakoff points out that the Obama campaign appears to have given up framing the debate, allowing the McCain camp to effectively dictate the terms and field of battle.
The Obama campaign just put out an ad called "No Maverick". The basic idea was right. The Maverick Frame is central to the McCain campaign, and as the ad points out, it's a lie. But negating the Maverick Frame just activates that frame and helps McCain. You have to substitute a different frame that characterizes McCain as he really is... If the question is, is McCain a maverick?, you are thinking about him as a maverick, even when you are trying to find ways in which he isn't. McCain wins.
Whether it's Palin, being a "maverick," fighting charges of "being a Muslim," or whatever, the Obama campaign has allowed the McCain campaign to decide what it is the American people get to hear about that week. Even when the McCain campaign appropriates themes from the Obama camp wholesale and lies about it, the media doesn't talk about that in terms of McCain's lack of new ideas-- instead, it talks about how awesome and radical this notion of change is. Even Obama's counterpunches-- that the Republicans aren't "mavericks" or change masters or what have you-- play into this Republican frame. It's quite a nasty little trick, and I'm not going to pretend that I have a way to fix it.
But the biggest issue, Lakoff points out, isn't just framing-- though framing is certainly big. The biggest issue with the Obama campaign is that they have gotten too bogged down in policy details, and have allowed the Republicans to gain the upper hand in the narrative of character.
[V]oters vote for president not primarily on the issues, but on five other factors -- "character" factors: Values; Authenticity; Communication and connection; Trust; and Identity...
...Since they don't know what the situation will be in a couple of years, it is rational to ask if a candidate shares your values, if he's saying what he believes, if he connects with you, if you trust him, and if you identify with him. That is a rational thing to do. Not just a matter of personality.
Think about that for a second. Why did voters connect with Obama so well early in the primary? Was it because of his keen grasp of policy details? Or was it more for his ability to connect forcefully with the hitherto unvoiced desires of a downtrodden, fired up Democratic base? And to take it further: how did Hillary nearly stage a comeback? It wasn't just by reciting details of her healthcare plan. No, it was by pounding on her working class appeal, her (very justifiable) image as a pitbull fighting on behalf of blue-collar guys and gals. That personal connection matters.
So what's happened? We've allowed the Republicans to take the stage when it comes to forming personal connections, and allowed them to deny us one of our candidate's greatest strengths. By allowing the Repugs to cow us with the "celebrity" bull-crap, we gave up on Obama's practically terrifying ability to fire up humongous crowds like few inspirational leaders can do. That connection he could form with you in his rhetoric, that could send chills down my spine, has been replaced with policy wonkery. Even his convention speech, as good as it was, paled in comparison to what he used to do in the primary. We've allowed the Republicans to stymie us on one of our most awesome advantages.
Moreover, by focusing on issue wonkery, we are denying ourselves the ability to attack one of the fundamental problems facing us liberals in this day and age: the meta-narrative of so-called "liberal elitism." Lakoff points out:
Conservative populism is a cultural, not an economic, phenomenon. These are folks who often vote against their economic self-interest and instead vote on their identity as conservatives and on their antipathy to liberals, who they see as elitists who look down on them. Simply giving conservative populists facts and figures won't work.
They tend to vote for people they identify with and against people who they see as looking down on them. The job for the Obama campaign is to reverse the present mindset that the Republicans have constructed, to reveal the conservatives as elitist Washington insiders who cynically manipulate them, to get conservative populists to identify with Obama and Biden on the basis of values and character, and to have them see realities through Obama's leadership capacities. Not an easy job. But it's the real job.
There's more to the article, which I highly suggest you read. But in summary, what Lakoff writes should be something that someone very high up in the Obama campaign needs to read and that the campaign itself should take to heart. Between now and Nov 4, the goal isn't to tell the American people every jot and tittle about our proposals, which for right now they're just as prone to dismiss as liberal elitism anyway. No, the goal is to get the American people to listen and attend to what we say. Once we have their attention, then we can be successful. Until then, we're just whistling past the graveyard.