My biggest disappointment with the Obama administration by far is that he has turned out to be a conventional (and somewhat effective) campaigner. What I expected from his presidency was the same rhetorical innovation he showed during his campaign. As a candidate, he was adroit as “breaking the third wall” of politics. He used his mix of revivalism and cerebralism to deconstruct the more absurd elements of politics. When an opponent would attack him, he’d say “this is what they’re trying to do….this is how politics is done in Washington.” It was wildly effective, it allowed him to be “in politics” but not “of politics.”
Now that is party is less than a month away from a pretty serious bloodletting in Congress, the president is back on the trail. But instead of returning to his deconstruction of politics theme, he’s decided to campaign as an insider. What’s worse is that he’s pretty much campaigning on the maddeningly erroneous Democratic belief that you can somehow reason with voters. The reason the Republicans were so effective in maintaining power for eight years was because they made no distinction between different types of Democrats…in their rhetoric, the Democrats were all godless liberals who hate America and want it destroyed.
I thought Obama was a candidate that understood the past rhetorical mistakes of the Democrats. I expected that after labor day, President Obama and the Democrats would take a page out of the Republican playbook and tie the Republicans to the Tea Party movement. He’d come out and connect the Republican party to their extremist elements. Perhaps a more sophisticated, less blatant version of Congressman Alan Grayson’s “Taliban Dan” ad against Republican Daniel Webster in a Florida House race.
The ad is incredibly unfair, taken out of context and really just unseemly politics. Perfect! Grayson might not survive, but at least he’s trying to weave a narrative about the other side. They are dangerously illiberal in their beliefs. I expected the Democratic party, under Obama’s leadership, to try to get the county to envision what it would be like to have people like Rand Paul, Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell in the Senate. Instead, the president keeps trotting out this stupid analogy of a car in a ditch and the Republicans doing nothing to help the Democrats get the car out of the ditch. Towards the end of this speech to the DNC here:
This is a poor rhetoric on so many levels. First, it seems like whining. Second, the public already has a low opinion of Republicans. The problem is not that they think Republicans can’t do a good job, the problem (speaking as a Democrat) is that they don’t fear Republicans. The public thinks (and of course I’m generalizing) that Republicans will come in a at least keep their taxes low and won’t be too much of a burden on business. Since politics is screwed up anyway, why not put in place the party that at least won’t harm my bottom line?
As someone who worked in the Democratic party and is still sympathetic to it, it maddens me how god awful the Democrats are at hand-to-hand political combat. It’s not that difficult, Democrats. Stop painting the Republicans as ineffectual do-nothings and paint them as dangerous. Something to be feared. Give Karl Rove credit. In 2002, the Republicans squeezed the Democrats like an anaconda. If you were a Democrat, you couldn’t get out from under the label of “soft on terrorism.” If you’re a Republicans, you can define yourself however you want and you’ll get no real pushback from the Democrats. The president refers to Republicans as “sipping on a slurpee” while the Democrats take action. That doesn’t scare me. Instead, the Republicans have won the rhetorical war by paining the Democrats as scary… (e.g they are running up the national debt). Did you ever stop to think that maybe most of the public is OK with slurpee sippers in Washington? They certainly aren’t going to be afraid of slurpee sippers. They might be scared of gun-toting, fundamentalist, witchcraft practicing, evolution denying, gay bashers.
Comments 10
corinne — October 2, 2010
The ad is incredibly unfair, taken out of context and really just unseemly politics.
Absolutely not. Perhaps you should have done a little research before declaring it "unfair."
Grayson's ad is *very* fair, and underscores Webster's ties to Christian Reconstructionism through his relationship with Bill Gothard, the head of an evangelical group and himself a close ally of R.J. Rushdoony.
This information wasn't hard to find (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2010/9/29/12241/9391) yet for some reason the ad has people clutching their pearls because a Democrat is behaving like a Republican. And because of it, Grayson will survive.
jose — October 3, 2010
Corinne... Whether the ads are unfair or not, if I were a Democrat, these are the kinds of ads I'd want the Democrats to run. I agree with the "pearl clutching" aspects of the Democrats and you're assessment of Grayson's chances.
Jon Smajda — October 4, 2010
I don't usually point out typos, but..."Anal Grayson"? :)
jose — October 4, 2010
Oops...fixed. I'm sure that's what Grayson's opponent things of him :-) Nice job on the podcast BTW...
Jon Smajda — October 4, 2010
Thanks! Teaser: we've got some great politics-oriented Office Hours interviews coming up in the next month...
Jonathan Pfeiffer — October 4, 2010
I don't think the White House is getting the message. Have you seen the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers drawing "eggs" on a whiteboard? This is sure to energize the base.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/29/white-house-white-board-cea-chair-austan-goolsbee-explains-tax-cut-fight
Kenneth M. Kambara — October 8, 2010
I thought we were having fun w/anagrams re: Alan.
Can you expand specifics on the use of fear marketing? One of the issues as I see it is that neither party has much content to deal with, in terms of concrete and credible platforms/messages, particularly when it comes to the economy—the issue du jour. While fear appeals can be effective, I'm not sure the Democrats have that many degrees of freedom, given they need to target moderate/independent votes presumably in play. In light of this, see a vulnerability with the tea party movement with respect to the "less credible" candidates and how libertarianism would work in unchartered economic waters with relatively high unemployment and low growth.
jose — October 8, 2010
Good points Ken. Midterms are low turnout affairs, especially for the president's party. The Bush folks were able to reverse that by painting the democrats as dangerous (and having a good economy to boot). If the Dems have any chance of holding on to the house, they need more salient appeals. The whole "don't give them back the keys" just doesn't move the needle, but I of course defer to your marketing acumen :-)
Don Waisanen — October 9, 2010
Hi Jose, the comment on your post about Democrats needing to take a page out of the Republican playbook has me thinking a lot about Drew Westen's "The Political Brain."
Westen is one of a swath of brain science folks arguing that “a dispassionate mind that makes decisions by weighing the evidence and reasoning to the most valid conclusions—bears no relation to how the mind and brain actually work” (ix,) and "Democrats have stuck passionately to a view of the mind and campaign strategy that emphasizes facts, figures, policy statements, costs and benefits, and appeals to intellect and expertise. They do so, I believe, because of an irrational emotional commitment to rationality” (15). Westen talks a lot about the need for Democrats to activate the kinds of emotional networks and narratives that Republicans have been successful with over the last three decades.
Two questions: a)How ethical is it to take a page out of the Republican playbook, appealing to strategies that may "work" but to many involve merely appealing to humans' basest, perhaps even choiceless drives?; b) between Habermasian critical rationality and Westenian emotionality, is there some middle ground that Democrats could occupy in advocating both for rational norms and emotional motivation in their campaign ads and appeals? (I recognize these don't need to be dichotomies, but am thinking more in terms of if there are new ways of arguing and persuading that Dems and others simply haven't thought about--looking progressively forward rather than conservatively backward).
Jose — October 11, 2010
Hey Don,
This is a great central theme in political philosophy (means vs. ends). I don't have much patience for ethical arguments about the use of more visceral appeals to political power. I think you either appeal to human nature or lose. But maybe that's the older, cynical me talking. It's an intersting question "are they ways to make ethical emotional appeals?" Dems used to be pretty good at using children and the elderly as a cudgel against the Dems. Not so much this time around.