"FWIW, If the
Democrats truly understood the information in
this James Kroeger editorial, I have no doubt they
would have taken both the White House and the
Congress in 2004.
Democrats will
most likely not win again until they do
understand it..."
"Ed N Sted" on
AMERICAblog |
Email To A Friend
Printer Friendly Format
December, 2004
When
historians look back on the current era in American politics it will
likely stand out as the period when Republican
cunning & marketing savvy completely dominated
the political landscape. Obliging Democrats have thrown
themselves into the fray with enthusiasm, armed with idealistic
visions of civil “discourse”, only to be humbled repeatedly by their
political masters. Republican strategists have been able to
blend their astute grasp of marketing principles, human nature, &
social psychology into a formula that delivers almost guaranteed
success at the polls. While Democrats knock themselves
out every election cycle trying to talk to Swing Voters about The
Issues, Republicans have calmly focused their attention
on winning The Image Campaign.
Quite simply: Democrats lose because they don’t understand what
moves their target audience.
The Issues might
actually be important to many Swing Voters early on in a political
campaign, but when both sides start to pick apart each
other’s facts & interpretations, the typical Swing Voter
quickly becomes confused.
As the debate over The Issues
drags on, Swing Voters realize that they don’t understand the
details well enough to make an informed decision, so they end up
relying on their impressions of the candidates. Republican
strategists see this clearly. That is why they continuously try to
create doubts in the minds of the Swing Voters about the
character of the Democratic candidate. They know that it
doesn’t really matter if they can’t find any real flaws in
their Democratic opponents. Accusations, insinuations, &
innuendo will work just fine. They hope to encourage voters to
question the
motivation and dependability of The Democrats.
They try to create the perception that Democrats are “defective” in
a disturbing way. By accusing, the Republicans suggest to
Swing Voters that they are not [defective like the Democrats].
What was the non-existent “defect” in John Kerry’s character that
Republicans alerted Swing Voters to this year? They claimed that he
was an indecisive and shallow “flip-flopper.”
Republican strategists
know they would rarely win if election results were always
determined by a logical discussion of The Issues
and nothing more (they know that most voters would benefit more from
Democratic economic policies than from Republican policies).
They know they must win the Image Campaign to have any chance
of winning. That is why they are committed, now and
forever, to
negative campaigning. Republicans have never forgotten a key
stratagem they perfected during the Reagan Era: DEMONIZING YOUR
OPPONENTS WORKS. It works because Swing Voters are
essentially “headline readers” & “sound byte nibblers.” When
they see in the headlines that Candidate A accused Candidate B of
having a certain personality defect, they tend to believe it. (Unless
it is effectively answered.)
The most important reason why negative
campaigning has worked so well for the Republicans is because their
negative attacks on the Democrats create a positive impression of
Republican candidates, who appear—in contrast—to be individuals
who do not possess the defects that they have accused others
of having. They
define themselves
[positively]
by defining their Democratic opponents [negatively].
On a visceral level, what the Republicans actually “stand for” in
the minds of Swing Voters on election day is that they are
not Democrats—those defective people who seem to have been born
to ruin everything. It’s simple, really. By bashing
Democrats, Republicans present themselves as the desirable
alternative. The negative character attacks also provide the
Republicans with one more benefit. They know that the media
will give priority coverage to their personal attacks and that it will
distract attention away from any of the "substance" blather that
Democrats always like to talk about.
In order for Democrats
to win back the Swing Voters they've lost to the Republicans through
these tactics, they are going to have to "define back." That
doesn't mean that we need to simply bash the Republicans at every
opportunity; that's something we already do. But for all of
our arguing and complaining about the Republicans, we still tend to
subordinate it to the ideals of "civil discourse."
Unfortunately, that instinct is not enough to guide us; not when the
other side has become a master of The Image Campaign. What
Democrats need to do now is create an image of The Republican
Politician that is threatening to Swing Voters, one that
they will not ultimately want to identify with. That
kind of campaign strategy takes some sophistication of thought.
The
Emotional Element
What is it that the
Republicans do
that enables them to manipulate the images of Republican vs.
Democrats in the minds of Swing Voters? George Lakoff says
that the Republicans are especially talented at choosing words &
associations that work for them. True as that may be, it
becomes apparent with a little more reflection that it’s not really
the words or value-associations that matter so much; it’s the
emotions
that are expressed when words are used. How is it, after all,
that the word liberal acquired the negative connotation that
it has today? The Republicans created that negative
connotation by repeatedly expressing scorn and derision
whenever they used the word to describe their Democratic opponents.
They expressed disgust for anyone who would be foolish enough
to be such a person. (Whenever politicians express strongly
felt emotions, Swing Voters tend to grant them a greater measure
of
authenticity. After all, why else would they be so
upset?) Think also of the times when Republicans laugh
at Democrats. They don’t just laugh in a way that shows they
have a good sense of humor; they laugh in a way that communicates
their contempt
for Democrats.
So it’s not the words
we use, Democrats; it’s the emotions we show when we
use particular words. Consider the phony outrage that Lynne &
Dick Cheney expressed after the third debate. At a time when
it was crucial for Kerry to continue to build momentum after a solid
debate performance, his advisors ended up losing the post-debate
spin. They lost it because they didn’t understand how crucial
Kerry’s response would be and they didn’t understand how a candidate
absolutely must respond to an Angry Outrage Performance if she wants
to win. The big story that Swing Voters saw on TV the next day
(those who didn’t watch the debate) was that the Cheneys were really
angry that Kerry had called their daughter a lesbian on national TV.
What turned this into a home run for the Republicans was Kerry’s
unfortunate response; a written statement that sounded a lot like an
apology. The overall impression this gave to Swing Voters was
that Kerry had apparently done some “dirty politicking.” Then,
after the Cheneys apparently called him on it, he offered [what
sounded like] a weak apology and then tried
to change the subject.
Whenever Democratic
candidates are the target of a Republican politician’s expressed
anger, it is crucial that they respond properly if they want to win
The Image Campaign. Impressions formed during such
confrontations are usually remembered on voting day. John
Kerry should have responded emotionally
by calling for a televised press conference, and then using the
spotlight to laugh at the Cheneys’ phony display of
anger. Laughter is the appropriate emotion for a
candidate to feel and express when he is guilty of no wrongdoing
whatsoever. After laughing at the Cheneys, Kerry would then
have been able to focus the media’s attention on the real story,
which was/is the clever manipulations and deceptions that the
Republicans
always use to mislead voters. Anyone remember what Karen Hughes
did to Al Gore in 2000 with the same kind of expressions of
emotion (outrage, indignation)?
With this kind of response, Kerry
would have told Swing Voters how they should respond to the
reports they’re hearing. (Human
Nature 101:
people depend on you to tell them how to perceive you.)
Generating a ‘rapid response’ doesn’t mean much if your response
doesn’t communicate a message that will help your campaign.
Additionally, holding a press conference would have given Kerry an
opportunity to enjoy the humor of the situation with the members
of the media who were present (it encourages the media to have a
favorable impression of you as a candidate). In his initial remarks
to the press, he would have wanted to smile broadly, shake his head,
and express mild but sincere amusement at the Cheneys’ performance.
Then, he would have wanted to review with good-humored stabs of
ridicule the many times that the Cheneys had, themselves,
mentioned their daughter’s lesbianism to the public.
After dismissing the
phony outrage in this way, he should then have seized the
opportunity to get on a soapbox and explain how this incident
illustrates the great threat that The Cunning
Republicans represent to the average American. In a more
serious tone, he could have taken the time to
explain what the Cheneys were doing and why
they were doing it (& how it was a classic example of the conniving sort-of-thing that the Republicans always do to
win elections). He could have turned the whole episode into a
complete disaster for the Republicans by focusing attention—with
first hand evidence—on the characteristic duplicity of Republican
politicians. Swing Voters would have perceived that John
Kerry appeared to be innocent of wrongdoing because he
showed no fear in the face of the Cheneys’ anger. They are
then finally left with the image of Kerry earnestly warning them of
a grave danger that they face. Kerry & The Democrats would have once
again been presented to Swing Voters as their protectors &
defenders
from something that seriously threatens them. Kerry’s advisors should have recognized
that the overreaching Cheneys had actually given them a tremendous opportunity to further
define the Republicans
in the eyes of the Swing Voters as manipulative shysters whom they
should fear.
There are other Image
Campaign lessons to be learned from the 2004 election.
Consider the “image bytes” that swing voters saw when they watched
nightly news reports on the President’s campaign. There was
George Bush doing his standup comic routine, making jokes and
laughing at Kerry & The Democrats, regaling his adoring fans.
This staging was intentional, meant to reinforce particular group
images of The Democrats (pathetic) vs. The Republicans (good).
On a subtle but important level, the Republicans are asking Swing
Voters which group
they’d rather be associated with. When people
instinctively recognize that
they have a choice of group affiliation, certain kinds of visuals
begin to have an impact on them. If they notice that one group
is laughing at another group, their initial instinct is to
disassociate themselves from the group that is being ridiculed.
The same kind of thing happens in politics.
Whenever Bush’s
hand-picked crowd applauded his ridicule of Kerry, it created an
image of The Democrats in the minds of swing voters that was
never effectively answered by the Kerry Campaign (or
by the Gore Campaign or by the Dukakis Campaign…). In
his own image-bytes, Kerry came across as something of a stern
teacher. This was actually not that bad of an idea, but it
lacked some important emotional elements that would have established
Kerry & The Democrats as the group that is superior to the
Republican gang, the one that Swing Voters should want to be
associated with. Kerry could have presented himself as the
wise teacher who has been forced to make fun of the smart-mouthed
kid in front of the whole class because he proposed a truly foolish
idea that, while superficially appealing, would have ended up
hurting everyone in the long run.
Respect
and Fear
Like it or not, the only way
Democrats can win against the modern Republican Party is by
defining them as a group that is [morally] defective and
threatening. (When the Bad Guys do this, we can accurately
describe it as "demonizing" your opponent.) Swing Voters will
vote for the Democrat if they end up with an image of
The Republican Politician that they find
threatening.
Unlike the Republicans, we Democrats do not need to fabricate any
Republican character flaws out of thin air in order to "define" them
effectively. We simply need to point out the truth. Our
goal should be to define The Republican Politician
as a
shrewd,
cunning,
deceiving,
manipulative,
mean-spirited,
Con-Artist
who willfully and gleefully assassinates the character of any
innocent victim who stands in his way. We need to describe
them in this way with palpable emotion. In terms of
basic, overall strategy, Democrats need to constantly remind
themselves that
it's
not the economy, stupid! It's the
IMAGE CAMPAIGN!
Any time a Democratic
candidate speaks out on an issue like the economy, or the
environment, or foreign policy, final comments should be made that
refer to the Republican politician as a scheming manipulator, a
threatening deceiver. We must make our logical points on the
issues, but then we must always bring it back to the image of The
Republicans that we are trying to establish, the scary image that
reflects the truth of who they are. From this perspective, we can
see that Democrats have been showing far too much respect for
Republican politicians. If Democratic nominees always show
respect for their Republican opponents, on some intuitive level
voters will wonder why. “Well, if they really believe
that Republican ideas & actions are worthy of respect, then why are
the Democrats even running against them? Could it be that
Democrats are actually not very authentic
people?”
Swing Voters who have
been voting Republican recently have come to see the Republicans as
deserving respect
partly because of the respect that Democratic politicians
have shown them. Of course, if you are meeting your
opponent face-to-face at a debate, you will want to be courteous to
show that you were “brought up right.” But as soon as you find
yourself addressing others again, you need to make it very
clear—in moderate but detectable ways—that you do not
respect
your opponent because you do not respect her agenda
or her methods. Yes, show graciousness but feel
condescension. Be sure that you intently communicate your
fear of the damage that these people can do to America.
In other words,
Democratic nominees need to learn how to be openly “two-faced.”
It is a tactic that has worked well for the Republicans, one that
we
need to master, as well. It is important that we model
the disrespect that Swing Voters should be showing & feeling for
Republican politicians. Be superficially polite, but make sure
that your fundamental lack of respect shows through. Show your
disrespect more conspicuously whenever you have an opportunity to
address The Audience directly. Yes, it’s true that Swing
Voters are likely to be turned off by a continuous exchange of angry
charges and countercharges between the two parties, but the only other alternative for
Democrats is to allow the Republicans to constantly savage them with
impunity.
Democrats need to
understand the importance of showing Swing Voters that they fear
Republican rule. The more apparent it is to Swing Voters that
a lot of Americans are truly scared of George Bush & The
Republicans, the more they’re going to wonder if maybe they
should also be afraid of him. (Typically, we first learn to fear
things that we didn’t fear previously after seeing fear in the
faces of others.) Some Democrats might think it would be
better for us to emphasize our anger, but we need to be aware
of the ways that this can backfire. We do not want to be
characterized as “Angry People” who are always angry [in a
threatening sort of way]. Voters need to see that behind
our anger is a real fear for the well-being of the American
People and for America’s reputation around the world. We should
never be reluctant to show our fear of Bush, but we need to make it
clear in our tone that our fear is
appropriate and that our anger is controlled & justified.
Think of the many
times when Republicans have accused Democrats of “hating America” or
of “hating George Bush.” They make this charge to
evoke an
image of people who are imagined to be inherently angry and
who are therefore a threat to 'us normal people.' Now
think of how that image changes if—when we are accused of hating—we
point out that people only hate that which they fear.
Whenever we are accused of hating the Republicans, we need to
keep repeating to the media that no, it is fear that we feel.
It’s our best defense. We want the Swing Voters to see us as
people who fear the Republicans, but we also want them to see that
we are also brave enough to take on the threat. Like the sergeant
said to the private in the foxhole, “Everyone’s afraid, son.
But we can’t let that fear stop us. We still have a mission to
carry out.” We are afraid and angry. We just know
that we must oppose evil when we see it. Verbalize fear.
Show courage.
In the final weeks of
the 2004 campaign, many Democrats complained that the Republicans
were using
fear tactics to win the election. It was kind of an odd
criticism to be voicing, given that political campaigns have
always been a contest between competing sets of fears throughout
history. Even when we are motivated by hope,
the key emotion that inspires us to act with a sense of urgency is
our fear of losing the thing we are hoping for. Indeed, people are
optimally motivated to support a political campaign when they
are inspired by fear of a lost
opportunity. Yes, fear is the one emotion that is strong
enough to motivate people to go out and vote who have never voted
before. (If your big thing is getting out the vote, keep this
in mind.) The ultimate
truth of political competition is that Swing Voters always
choose a particular candidate or party because they fear the
consequences of having the other candidate/party in office,
the one they didn’t vote for.
The problem with fear is not that
politicians use it to inspire voters; the problem is that some
politicians create fears that are irrational or
unjustified or exaggerated. When such fears are
used to
intentionally mislead citizens into voting against their own
best interests, then the use of fear is unethical. In
contrast, if the fear that politicians inspire is legitimate—and
their
intention is to alert voters to a danger that they can protect
themselves from—then the use of fear is
virtuous. What Democrats need to understand clearly is
that Swing Voters can be persuaded to fear either party.
Right now, too many of them fear The Democrats more than they fear The
Republicans. They will return to their identification with the
Democratic Party only after they have been persuaded that it is
The Republicans whom they ought to fear, not the Democrats.
It is the Republicans who are not like them, who are simply
looking for yet another opportunity to play them for fools.
James J. Kroeger
More trenchant
political analysis by James Kroeger:
Hillary, Bill, & the DLC
Reclaim the Moral High Ground
Democrat Image Makeover
When
the
Republicans steal an election
Our Soldiers Are Victims
Are You Proud To Be An American?
Economic Analysis...
Unemployment: Our Greatest Enemy
Trade Policy
and Jobs
Universal
Health Care
Government
Bureaucratic Waste vs. Private Sector Efficiency
The Relationship Between Savings &
Investment
Do Tax Cuts Stimulate The Economy?
