I had an idea, wanted to share it, and thought this would be the place. My first diary entry and I don't know if I'm doing this right. I'm curious to know what people think.
*Competing Narratives and Political Campaigns*
Human beings do not make decisions by analytic logic, or by factual arguments. We make decisions based on compelling stories - a story which is compelling will move us to take part in that story, it will explain the world, and it will chart a future course. Powerful stories help us arrange our lives, they provide meaning and context for the events which happen to us. In the political realm, voters will cast a ballot for that candidate whose story is compelling to them. They will not vote for that candidate whose story fails to compel them, and they will vote against that candidate whose story frightens, worries, or alienates them.
Each politician will have a dominant positive and negative story. The positive story is usually a product of the candidate, it is the story they tell about themselves. The negative story is a story that others tell about them - their opponents, the news media, or simply regular people. There are, of course, non-dominant stories, some of which are corollaries of the dominant story and some are unrelated. For most voters, only the dominant story and its corollaries matter - we cannot hold multiple unrelated stories about a single individual in our consciousness.
There are five ways in which these positive and negative stories should be analyzed. Understanding how these stories work will answers a number of questions about politics: why some politicians are "Teflon"; how to successfully attack an opponent; how to craft policy and process decisions; and more.
1. Proof and Disproof. Stories must have some connection to reality to function. When a story gets told, the listeners will evaluate that story based on the evidence available to them. Different types of stories require different types of proofs (and dis-proofs).
a. Some stories can be proved or disproved with a single piece of evidence. For example, a negative story "Bob is a liar" can be proved with a single example of a lie. No matter how many times Bob tells the truth, that one lie proves that he is a liar.
b. Some stories require a preponderance of the evidence. "Sue is smart" requires Sue to show that she is smart most of the time. A few missteps do not prove her ignorance, but she must give smart answers most of the time (especially to hard questions - because that's where the rubber meets the road.)
c. Some stories are almost impossible to disprove. (A story which cannot be proven at all will not be believed). "Jim has a good heart" is almost impossible to prove false. Unless Jim were to commit some personal failing - beat his wife, disown his brother, etc. - we must presume that yes, he does have a good heart.
1.1 It is emotionally satisfying to have a story (positive or negative) proven true. Because stories explain the world, the proof of a story is like finding the missing puzzle piece. Because of this, it very hard to disprove a story which has already been proven.
2. Relationship between the positive and negative stories. These stories do not operate independently (remember, we cannot hold unrelated stories about one thing in our consciousness - they must be related.) There are three types of relationships.
a. Contradictory. Stories which are in conflict require voters to determine which story is true and which is false. Both stories cannot be true. For example, the positive story about Al Gore was "you can trust his experience." The negative story was "he exaggerates." If the voter believes the negative story, then the positive story cannot be true. (You cannot trust someone who lies.) The conflict may not exist on the surface, but may still be present. For Howard Dean, the positive story was "He will revolutionize politics and bring new people to the Democratic party." The negative story is "he is too angry to be elected." One might at first say, it doesn't matter if he's angry, he'll still bring people in. But if he is too angry to be elected, then he cannot win, and thus cannot revolutionize politics.
b. Consistent. Stories which are consistent can live with each other. The truth of one does not threaten the truth of another. Voters must decide not which is true, but which is more important. The key question becomes "where is the `but?'" For George W. Bush, for example, the positive comes after the "but" (this is best for the politician.) "He may be dumb, but he has a good heart." Same for Bill Clinton, "He can't keep it in his pants, but he cares about Americans." Same for Ronald Regan, "He's not all there, but he believes in American's greatness." What comes after the "but" counts more for voters. Opposite for George H.W. Bush. "He is experienced, but he's out of touch with average folks."
c. Synonyms. Stories that are synonymous are two sides of the same coin. This makes a candidate boring to voters, because there is no dramatic tension. A good example is Joe Lieberman. The positive story is he has integrity. The negative is that he is self-righteous. These things go together. Same for Dick Gephardt: "He supports working people." "He's in the pocket of the labor unions." These are the same thing. Gephardt can't, therefore, minimize his negative story without damaging his positive (no "sista Hoffa" moment for him.)
3. Voter Participation. Voters want to fell that they are part of the positive story that the candidate is telling. This is why Dean was so successful in 2003, because the positive story is easy to make your own "I'm revolutionizing politics." Likewise for Regan - "He believes in American's greatness, and so do I." Stories that people cannot participate in leave people uninspired - and most importantly, they fail to insulate people from attacks. If you attack Regan than you attack everybody who believes in America's greatness.
4. America's Participation. The story you tell should resonate with what people believe to be America's story. This is working for John Edwards, for example, "Everyone should have a shot at the American dream (I did.)" This is very consistent with what people understand as America's story. A negative story which is "un-American" is particularly damaging to a candidate. This is John Kerry's danger, for example. Being an elitist, aloof, is very un-American. Luckily for Kerry, the aloofness story requires a preponderance of the evidence to be proven, and be disproved with enough examples of humanity. This is contrasted with the Dean negative story, "too angry" which requires only one example to be proven.
5. Cosmic participation. Voters want the stories about a candidate to fit in with their cosmic story, their religious and ethical narrative. For most Americans (but not all) this means that right is rewarded and evil punished, that God is on the side of Freedom and Truth, and that our leaders are following God's law. This is the strongest part of Bush's story, because God (Jesus, actually, but that's the same thing for evangelicals) gives Bush a good heart (that's why the stop-drinking story is so important). When Bush says to his critics, "you can't see my heart" the meaning is that only God can, has done so and judged Bush worthy.
So, whose stories are best positioned to defeat Bush? Dean's, as much as I personally agree with his policy stances and desire to revolutionize politics, is the worst (of the major candidates - Al Sharpton's stories "He's witty, but a race-baiter", is the worst. Which is why he has the highest negatives.) Voter participation in the positive story applies to a limited pool. It fits with the American story pretty well, but it is unclear how it fits with the Cosmic story. The positive story requires a preponderance of the evidence, and hamstrings Dean so that negative attacks damage his positive story more than other candidates (evidence: Iowa). The negative story is bad because, like Gore's, it takes only one example to prove (which is why the guttural scream is destroying his candidacy.) The worst position to be in is one where your positive story is hard to prove, your negative story is easy to prove, and they contradict each other. That, unfortunately, is the position Dean is in.
Kerry's is interesting. His positive story "Courageous Fighter" requires a few powerful examples. He already has many of these, most effective is turning the boat sideways to fight the Viet-Cong. (Notice how the put-everything-in Iowa strategy mirrors, and therefore proves, this story.) It is hard to disprove because we don't expect even courageous people to be that way all the time, just when it counts. The negative story "Aloof elitist" is easy to disprove, by showing that he can connect to real people (This is why the ads showing other people taking are important - they work to disprove the negative story.) The stories are consistent, and if Kerry can minimize the negative, his story runs, "He's aloof, but he is a courageous fighter when it counts." The positive story connects with voters (I'm a fighter, too), connects very strongly with America (when our back is to the wall, we rise to the occasion), but its connection to the cosmic story is unclear. Kerry's story can be, therefore, and winning one. The problem is that his negative story directly contradicts Bush's positive story. It's like facing a team who best player is their center when your starting center is out sick.
Edwards may have the best story to take on Bush. His positive story "I lived the American dream and everyone should have that chance" has a powerful connection to voters, to the American narrative, and to the cosmic story (Everyone has God-given potential, a phrase Edwards uses in his stump speech.) The story requires a preponderance of evidence, but that evidence seems present. It is vulnerable to opposition research - if someone shows that one of Edwards' trial victories was frivolous or ill-gotten, then his positive story could evaporate. The negative story is "Too little experience." The benefit for Edwards is that this story requires a preponderance of evidence to be both proved and disproved. So one misstep does not prove inexperience, it would require a pattern of ignorance. A raft of detailed policy positions and smart answers to tough questions can prove that his inexperience doesn't matter, putting Edwards' "but" in the right order.
Clark is a difficult case because his dominate negative story is yet to emerge. His positive "I can win wars" is an established fact - it cannot be disproved by any evidence (save the Serbian's re-invading Kosovo), although it can be minimized. It fits with the American story ("We are winners"). There are a number of possible negatives, vying for completion. One will be established at some point, and that will determine Clark's fate. If it is "He's a republican," then Clark is in good shape. His policy proposals and his support from established Democrats can disprove this story. It is also not in conflict with his positive story. If it is "He has no domestic experience," then Clark can do a lot to minimize the importance of this. This negative would be synonymous with his positive story - so every time he was attacked for not having domestic experience, it would remind voters that the reason for this is because he was winning a war. The negative which would sink Clark is "He's an egomaniac." This story is easily proved (every time Clark explains why he was retired early from NATO command he sounds like an ego-manic) and it undercuts the positive story (you didn't win the war, the grunts did and you shouldn't take credit for it.) It is also impossible to disprove, because we expect ego-maniacs to cover it up. If Clark can control which negative story is told about him, he could be victorious. Those want to defeat him should play up the ego-maniac story.
And how should a democrat attack Bush? Two options present themselves. One is to turn the "but" around, so that Bush's story is "He has a good heart, but he doesn't know what he's doing." Evidence of policy failure in Iraq can do this (which is why Saddam's capture is so great for Bush). Joblessness can also do this. The other option is to replace the negative story. This is harder to do, but would work much better. A good negative would be "He cares more about his big business friends than average Americans." This can be proved based on policy, and can't be easily answered by the positive story (because we expect a person with a good heart to be nice to their friends.) Plus, a person who also has a "good heart" (say, Edwards - this is a corollary of "everybody should live the American dream") could neutralize Bush's positive story.
This model is just an outline, obviously, of how voters make their decisions. But it can be helpful in understanding how candidates appeal, or fail to do so, to people. It explains who can inspire people, and how people can bounce back from defeat. Stories can change, too. A positive story which is disproved may be replaced by another, for example. But by and large, once we settle on a story, that's it.