While wasting away my weekend in front of my computer in the air conditioning, watching the hot Texas summer day out my big window (sorry, McCain camp, no dark basement), I've been considering the campaigns of Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama thus far. So many KOS diaries point out the contradictions in Sen. McCain's words and actions, but it doesn't seem to make a difference to the larger population. To the frustration of the McCain camp, the soaring words and the inspiring images of Sen. Obama reach the voters - no matter how often Sen. McCain says "too young, too inexperienced."
I ran across an excellent article from 2004 regarding Ronald Reagan which seems very applicable to the 2008 campaign. Did Pres. Reagan demonstrate that it was only the pictures that mattered, no matter what he actually said? Or did his success in persuading the public demonstrate something more?
PressThink blog analyzed the "Leslie Stahl Fable" in 2004. http://journalism.nyu.edu/... Briefly, there is a much re-told story about a critical piece which Leslie Stahl did regarding Ronald Reagan in 1984. It was a very long piece by network television standards, and it pointed out many contradictions in Pres. Reagan's words and actions. Footage of President Reagan's statements which accompanied the report showed him before cheering crowds performing as he usually did, followed by the facts of what he actually did on the issues. Stahl expected an extremely adverse reaction from the Reagan White House. Instead, the White House loved the piece. According to the story that is often told, the White House told Stahl "Nobody heard what you said." The White House spokesman allegedly told Stahl:
You guys in Televisionland haven’t figured it out, have you? When the pictures are powerful and emotional, they override if not completely drown out the sound. I mean it, Lesley. Nobody heard you.
In a lecture at the University of North Carolina in 2001, Stahl said that when the piece was later shown to a focus group, less than one-quarter actually heard what she said. Most people viewing the piece thought that it was a campaign ad for Reagan or a positive news story about him. http://media.www.dailytarheel.com/...
As the PressThink blog article pointed out, the Leslie Stahl Fable has led many in the media to believe that "It is only the pictures, Stupid."
There is a lot of merit in that argument. That is the frustration for the McCain camp. No matter what they do, they are faced with the images of Sen. Obama in front of large cheering crowds. His European trip was a nightmare for them, as evidenced by their desperate negative ads in response. Those images were powerful. However, the flip side of that is the fact that the contradictions that we see in Sen. McCain's actions and words don't make an impact on the majority of the voters either. They see John McCain and the images of him as a military officer or a prisoner of war - great images. They seem him as a kindly grandfather figure, assuring a crowd that he cares about them and is going to take care of health care. We can argue until we are blue in the face that his actions have not matched his words, that he is NOT the kindly figure they see, that he has voted against funding for veterans, etc. They won't hear us any more than they heard Stahl about Pres. Reagan. We are trying to put intersperse the dry facts with the powerful, contrary images. It's the pictures, Stupid.
I have wondered, given what would seem to be a clear advantage to Sen. Obama in visuals at any joint appearances, why is the McCain camp pushing for Sen. Obama to make joint appearances with him at town meeting settings? They are facing the nightmare of putting their inarticulate, aging candidate on the same stage with a young, vibrant Sen. Obama. Think of the Kennedy-Nixon debates. Think of kindly "morning in America" Reagan facing the more discouraging, weary Pres. Carter. So, why push for that? The answer, I believe, lies in the continuing analysis on the PressThink blog.
Reagan was the "Teflon President" because of more than images. It is not just the pictures. Reagan, and W, appealed to the voters because they never talked over their heads. You can accuse W of doing lots of things to the language, but talking "too educated" is not one of them! I remember my educated friends being incredulous that anyone could vote for such an idiot - and hearing the analysis that voters viewed him as someone they would like to have a beer with. Reagan mangled his facts, told his little stories that were not true, etc., but the public loved him. The details were not important. PressThink uses a quote from a Ted Koppel interview with the BBC to explain this portion of Reagan's appeal:
Ronald Reagan has this wonderful communicator’s ability to convey to the public: "I know you’re smarter about some things than I am, and I know there are some things we both perhaps don’t understand as well as we’d like. I know that experts drive you crazy like they sometimes drive me crazy. Let’s see if we can get right to the heart of this issue. We’re talking about freedom, the American way, evil empires, patriotism, some of the old eternal values that seem to have been shunted aside." Ronald Reagan rarely, if ever, talks over the public’s head. The public clearly responds very positively to that.
The PressThink piece goes on to analyze Reagan as the great communicator who truly had a knack for turning phrases and delivering his remarks well. I don't think that John McCain is a Ronald Reagan communicator in that sense, but I do believe that this idea of not talking over the public's head is one which the McCain camp has latched onto - and I think that Sen. Obama has some vulnerability on that issue.
The tone of many of the McCain ads tries to portray Sen. Obama as putting himself above the public. Think of the ad in June showing the Obama seal like the presidential seal, superimposing Sen. Obama's head on the Statue of Liberty and the dollar bill. Think of the ad comparing Sen. Obama to Paris Hilton or Brittany Spears. Sen. McCain is saying "I'm just sort of a normal guy like you, but this other candidate thinks he's something special." Given Sen. Obama's racial heritage, this can also be seen as having a tone that Sen. Obama is becoming too "uppity", but the strategy worked for W against Gore and Kerry without any racial aspect to it. And, remember Sen. Clinton's effective use of Sen. Obama's remarks about voters "clinging" to fringe issues such as guns or religion as evidence that he was out of touch with the working class voters and an elitist who made these remarks to the wine-sipping California crowd.
I don't think the strategy will work this time. I think that Sen. Obama's ability to inspire when he speaks will be too much for Sen. McCain's stumbling awkward delivery. I don't think that Sen. McCain come across as competent to lead the country. I think that debates will reinforce the image of Sen. McCain as too old and too out of touch. But, Sen. Obama will have to remember that just being smarter than Sen. McCain won't win the election. He has to demonstrate that he is more competent while not making the public feel that he is talking over their head.