Working Theory on Obama's "movement"
Just a working theory of sorts:
One of the reasons the Obama campaign has evoked such a crazy level of support is that the Obama campaign figured out a way to tap into the anti-Bush sentiment in the Democratic party through a positive frame. Instead of negatively attacking the Bush administration, as we're all fairly tired of hearing, they've successfully framed a vision of America where George Bush and all the attendant negativity no longer exists.
In a very strange way, this message allows a release of all the anti-Bush negativity in the people who follow Obama. Maybe a shorter version would be, "After all these years, I'm tired of hating. I want to feel good again. Take me to that place."
If that is the subtext of the message, it also works a powerful double whammy on the Clinton campaign because one of their main selling points is that they will fight the Republicans more effectively (Read: 4 more years of fighting,) and it turns every negative attack against Obama into an attack on that aspiration in Obama's supporters to personally step past the negativity. (He delivered that point brilliantly in Thursday's debate.)
The question to me, if this assumption is correct, is how far does this anti-Bush/anti-negativity message reach into the broader electorate? It obviously has some resonance with some disaffected Republicans and independents, but I wonder if it's enough to win the center which will be the deciding factor in this election.
Of course, part of the beauty of the Obama branding has been the highly malleable campaign themes "Hope" and "Change" which at various times have been shaped to attack the Bush administration, Hillary Clinton, the war, the economy, etc. It's the very inexactness of these terms that has allowed the campaign to shift its footing while maintaining its overall theme, and they could very easily do this again.
I think the bottom line is that the Obama campaign has found a way to tap into supporters emotions, to make the election more about them voting to ratify their feelings, than for or against any candidate.
And really, you gotta say, that's brilliant.
(Is it similar to evangelicals "voting their feelings?")
Just some stuff that's been bouncing around in my head. Feedback?
One of the reasons the Obama campaign has evoked such a crazy level of support is that the Obama campaign figured out a way to tap into the anti-Bush sentiment in the Democratic party through a positive frame. Instead of negatively attacking the Bush administration, as we're all fairly tired of hearing, they've successfully framed a vision of America where George Bush and all the attendant negativity no longer exists.
In a very strange way, this message allows a release of all the anti-Bush negativity in the people who follow Obama. Maybe a shorter version would be, "After all these years, I'm tired of hating. I want to feel good again. Take me to that place."
If that is the subtext of the message, it also works a powerful double whammy on the Clinton campaign because one of their main selling points is that they will fight the Republicans more effectively (Read: 4 more years of fighting,) and it turns every negative attack against Obama into an attack on that aspiration in Obama's supporters to personally step past the negativity. (He delivered that point brilliantly in Thursday's debate.)
The question to me, if this assumption is correct, is how far does this anti-Bush/anti-negativity message reach into the broader electorate? It obviously has some resonance with some disaffected Republicans and independents, but I wonder if it's enough to win the center which will be the deciding factor in this election.
Of course, part of the beauty of the Obama branding has been the highly malleable campaign themes "Hope" and "Change" which at various times have been shaped to attack the Bush administration, Hillary Clinton, the war, the economy, etc. It's the very inexactness of these terms that has allowed the campaign to shift its footing while maintaining its overall theme, and they could very easily do this again.
I think the bottom line is that the Obama campaign has found a way to tap into supporters emotions, to make the election more about them voting to ratify their feelings, than for or against any candidate.
And really, you gotta say, that's brilliant.
(Is it similar to evangelicals "voting their feelings?")
Just some stuff that's been bouncing around in my head. Feedback?
posted by mikevotes at
8:47 AM
12 Comments:
I think most people just want change. I hope they won't be disappointed.
By
Anonymous, at 10:36 AM
I think to some degree, they inevitably will be, because no matter how popular, he'll still have to get laws through the Congress, and that will involve some horsetrading and blunting of legislation.
But, depending on how the campaign goes, if it ends up not being too close, he might get some change in tone.
By
mikevotes, at 10:46 AM
I have no idea how the Obama movement has managed to pull this off. Maybe my scientific side is offended at the magic and dismayed that the Clinton campaign has been so lame. But the bottom line is that coming together in the name of hope and change is valid and good. I don't think there is a huge difference in policy or experience or record to these two candidates but the addition of hope may be exactly what we all need at this point in time. Whoever is the next president is facing huge challenges and will have to deal with division and negativity - all the more reason to go with a leader who can motivate people to become part of the process. If you frame it in light of a common desire to be rid of hate-mongering and negativity, I agree that the Obama campaign has indeed tapped into something very powerful. You can't credit him or his campaign for creating it but they have definitely embraced it. By the same token, any standard political strategies that Hillary and her campaign use will appear petty.
Anon - I don't feel sorry for those who may be disappointed if things don't work out the way they "hope" because I consider hope to be only part of the equation. Hope must be linked with action and willingness to get down and work out the problems (and keep working). Problems don't solve themselves.
By
Ptelea, at 11:23 AM
Obama does seem to motivate people. My concern is that the people with the real power will find some way to neutralize him.
By
Anonymous, at 11:27 AM
Ptelea, I guess it's a question of whether you think "Hope" and "Change" are real goals or campaign tools. My sense is generally the former, buit we won't really know that until we know that.
And, I hope you see the post above this one where, it appears to me, Clinton may have finally found an effective angle of attack.
....
Anon, They'll try.
Washington is always a balance between so many different power groups. He would upset the existing balance. The trick will be engineering new equilibriums that work to his advantage.
By
mikevotes, at 2:23 PM
Nice analysis, and admirably short on value judgments either way.
It seems Obama managed to get a lot of people to project their hopes and dreams onto him, and their anger and frustration onto Hillary.
I'm still dubious about whether that magic (and by magic I mean the sleight-of-hand type) will play nearly as well in the general election. I don't think the message is THAT malleable.
Within the Democratic party, we mostly share the same goals, so it's relatively easy for one candidate to be all things to all people. We all HOPE for more or less the same kind of CHANGE.
But in the broader electorate--and I think this is the fundamental disingenuousness about Obama's candidacy--it ain't so. The divisions are real and intractable. How do you unify pro-lifers with pro-choicers? How do you unify businesspeople with environmentalists? How do you unify evangelicals with atheists and agnostics?
I think there are a LOT of people who will look at Obama and see just another damned liberal with a damned liberal agenda. And they'll be right. In the end I don't think rhetoric can cover that gap. And he certainly doesn't have any policies or proposals that are any different from anyone else's.
Could he get 51% of the vote? Yeah, he could. But that's not a realistic recipe for change.
By
Anonymous, at 3:07 AM
I wonder if "the magic" will enter a second act. A shift more towards "hope" meaning that American dream kinda language, opportunity, prosperity for all.
That sort of language, especially if tied back to the middleclass heydey of the 50's would be very effective.
Trying to address/rebuild the middle class would be a big winner, and I don't think McCain can effectively make that argument.
By
mikevotes, at 7:02 AM
If this "feeling" continues to grow and allows Obama to win the election; don't underestimate the mandate of the people to change the behavior and votes of the House, if only to protect their own reelections.
In the end we can count on the fear of legislators losing their offices, to help us get real change in Washington. They play on our fears, we should play on theirs.
Experience to continue the status quo, or a gamble to turn the page?
No President can change the legislative process, but the people in a large enough majority, can change the votes of their representatives.
Forget the charisma of one man, the "hope" is that we send a message to Washington, that we have had enough.
If electing Obama gets that message across, then lets use him as our messenger.
By
Unknown, at 12:26 PM
Wanted to add:
Negativity will change voters behavior quicker than anything positive.
So is it the "hope and charisma" of Obama, or "change" the people are motivated for?
It's not Obama's inexperience that people worry about, it's staying with the status quo, that worries people.
I predict that Sen. Obama will be our next President, by at least a 10% margin.
By
Unknown, at 1:07 PM
Time, You're really putting yourself out there saying Obama will win. Does gravity still work, too?
Sorry, but in this year, the odds are so strong that the Dem will win barring something unusual. As soon as they start running against Bush and tying him around McCain's neck.....
And, to your broader point, I think the Reagan analogy is somewhat apt if he can pull it off. There is the possibility in this new networked world to create some grassroots pressure on Washington.
Of course, that ssumes he comes through and maintains the same popular mandate and it's not a 50 49 electioon.
By
mikevotes, at 1:35 PM
The people are fickle.
If it turns out to be a 50-49 election, I will be surprised.
The same people who wanted to invade Iraq, now disagree with invading Iraq. The same people who gave GB an 80% approval rating now approve at 30%. The same people who loved watching Clinton be impeached for lying about sex, won't even contemplate impeaching Bush for all his DEADLY lies.
The pundits won't even declare Obama the winner of the Primary, but yes, I'm willing to predict a landslide for Obama.(HAHA)
"Hopefully" that landslide is his authority to make great change.
Heck, Bush declared a MANDATE after the 2006 election, and he's been acting like a dictator ever since!
Don't bet the house on it, maybe there will be another 9/11 type attack, in which case I can see McCain winning.
By
Unknown, at 2:05 PM
I don't think it's a 50-49 election, but, I used that as a case where the Change won't happen.
I see McCain potentially winning only if they can either marginalize or cripple the Dem. But, again, somehow, he's going to have to dodge being called Bush McCain and I think that's the more likely to stick.
By
mikevotes, at 4:07 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home