PR Straight Talk

I am the son of German Jewish refugees who escaped Hitler.  My father lost most of his family in the Holocaust.  My parents came to America to survive.   As I grew up, I became aware of the magnitude of the horror of what had transpired in Nazi Germany.  That the human mind could descend into tyranny, evil, domination and control - and unspeakable atrocities.  That leaders could sway and control the masses  based on the fixation of an ideology that offered hope amidst economic depression and national despair by scapegoating and annihilating the lives of minorities.

Out of this experience it became my fervent desire to become an advocate for a better, kinder, more tolerant, more hopeful world for all.  As a boy, I remember looking out the window and imagining people of all ethnicities, creeds and religions encircling the globe, holding hands together in peace and love.  I saw the possibilities inherent for humanity if every human being was encouraged to realize his or her potential to the fullest.  I saw people of different races, religions, genders, orientations speaking to each other, dialoguing with each other, understanding each other, tolerating and even loving each other.  I saw them celebrating their differences, united in their common quest for life, freedom, fulfillment, prosperity and happiness.  I saw an end to poverty and a new era of abundance for every man, woman and child on our planet - material abundance, and creative, spiritual abundance. 

This Dream is not unique to me.   Millions of people around the world yearn for the realization of that Dream.  I believe that a point has arrived in human history where a critical mass of people have emerged, wanting unity, reconciliation and a better world for all.   It has taken millions of years for humanity to arrive here, for consciousness to have reached a point in numbers where something spiritually and culturally unique and exceptional may be on the verge of actualizing in reality.

The yearning has been there for a long time.  It was there at the outset of the war for American Independence, and seeded in the Declaration.  It was there towards the end of the Civil War, and seeded in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.  It was there after World War I and seeded by Woodrow Wilson in The League of Nations, and later seeded in the creation of the United Nations, and in the Declaration of Human Rights architected by Eleanor Roosevelt.

I also believe that that is the yearning of the millions who have responded to the message of Barack Obama’s inspirational rhetoric.

What the huge response to Senator Obama’s messages reflect is a great hunger for a nobler, finer kind of society and politics - one that brings us together, that reinvokes the better possibilities among and between people, that allows for the actualization of human potential in every person, that ushers in a newer more humane world - one of peace, of an end to wars and conflicts, of reconciliation between peoples, of economic prosperity here at home and in the world, of an end to poverty - of lasting hope and promise.

Senator Obama has tapped into this great need and hunger.  He has become, in his rhetoric, an eloquent and skilled spokesperson for our nobler aspirations.

Perhaps my own vision emerged from the tragic circumstance of my family – from parents who suffered through the Nazi era and came to America in search of relief from persecution, of freedom and the right to be.   I learned from their experience that words such as “freedom” - “human dignity” - “equality” - are sometimes fought for, and hard won.  I learned from them and through the trials of my own journey that there are people who would deny us our freedom and our right “to be”.

There have always been ideologues of the dark side, people who need to control and dominate others, who wish to suppress the light and the natural God-given right of  human beings to flourish and self-actualize in freedom.

And so we have a paradox.  One the one hand, humanity wishes to move forward towards the realization of the Dream.  On the other hand, we must be aware – and our elected leaders must be aware – of the dark forces wishing to suppress the Light.  I believe we are in this era now – and that the forces of Islamic extremism must not be underestimated in their desire for tyranny, domination and control.   They would have the rights of women entirely suppressed.  They would have those of other religions – should they not convert to their extreme ideological “religious” positionality – wiped out. 

We need to learn from the lessons of the past, when we discovered that this kind of radical tyrannical ideological determination has no heart, and cannot be accommodated.

I believe we CAN hold onto the Dream – and move forward with the Dream – but should not be naïve in our thinking that we can negotiate with terrorists.  We must hold onto the Light – but also realistically confront the forces of darkness with steadfastness and resolve.  It is a different time than the Cold War.  When John F. Kennedy said “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate,” he was dealing with people who were not attached to extremist religious ideological positionality.

My concern about Barack Obama is that while he articulates the Dream that people yearn to see actualized, he may be more naïve in his readiness to dialogue and negotiate with the forces of darkness.  It would be a terrible mistake for him, as President of the United States, to hold one-on-one negotiations with a man who stupidly says the Holocaust did not exist, and who, along with his Mullahs, is determined to destroy the State of Israel.   To give stature and weight to this man and his positions, without preconditions, could be very dangerous.  One must question the naivete of such a proposition, or whether there are darker elements lurking in Obama himself.

Robert Kennedy spoke of the Dream – and I believe he genuinely touched upon it in his awareness and his rhetoric.   The difference, I believe, between Robert Kennedy and Barack Obama, is that RFK would have soberly and without naivete seen today’s threats for what they are – as impediments to the flowering of the Dream.   As to Obama, one has the right to ask, does naivete and lack of experience cast a shadow on his intentions?  Does something darker lurk behind his motives…and his rhetoric?

As we aspire to the Dream, a vital lesson is that we not ignore the Shadow - for Light and Shadow dwell in humans - and we must be discerning as we yearn for the former while allowing ourselves to clearly see the latter.

In political campaigns, message equals at least half of perception.  The other half has to do with style - a candidate’s personality, character, likeability, body language and the fluency of rhetoric, and identifiability.

When an economy is in decline, when jobs are down, and mortgages are on the line, message has much to do with economic solutions.  When gas prices are escalating out of proportion to the average person’s ability to manage his or her bills, the message is about lowering gas prices.  When the cost of health care and pharmaceuticals becomes unmanageable, health care is an important message.

When a country is in a long, seemingly endless and protracted war, message has to do with ending war - especially if losses outweigh gains.  

Last but not least, does the candidate inspire?  Offer hope?  A change of some kind?

Thus in the current primary battle, depending upon how voters perceive the messages of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as they relate to the above issues, they will veer towards one or the other candidate based on their belief in that candidate’s sincerity, and their judgement that he or she can deliver on the message. 

The same holds true for John McCain.

But the degree of gravitation towards one candidate or the other will also be based on the other major variable - that of style.   Is the candidate likeable?  Is there a resonance with the way the candidate moves and gestures?  Does the delivery of language resonate?  Is there something about the character that moves the voter? 

Where in the assortment of all the above variables does the voter identify?

With respect to Hillary Clinton, clearly many women identify with her as the first major woman candidate.  Voters are also impressed with her tenacity, her strength and persistence, and her experience.  Those who support a universal health care system support Hillary’s plan.   “Message” and “gender” and “character” play important roles.

With Barack Obama, African Americans identify with the first serious candidate of color running for office.  Many Americans resonate with the Obama message of hope and bringing people together; and of a new kind of “cleaner” politics that presents itself as void of typical political games, and a willingness to talk to our enemies without preconditions. Many find Obama’s disdain for the war attractive.  Many are attracted to a high level of rhetoric that speaks to our nobler natures.   “Message” and “race” and “rhetoric” are high on the perception ladder.

During the Republican primary, those voters were clearly looking for Conservative messages, and were high on staying the course in Iraq, and a strong posture against terrorism.  Message was most important.  John McCain prevailed.

Perception of message and style clearly will sway voters in one direction or the other; and the convincability of message and the resonance with style will produce a President in the national election. 

What it seems to me hasn’t been tested enough is the vetting of one particular candidate.  How well do we really know Senator Obama?  How good a job has the media done in helping the electorate by investigating him with a real thoroughness deserving of the highest office in the land?  The Rev. Wright affair and Obama’s extremely tardy denunciation of the man after 20 years of close relationship with him; and the presence of advisors with stances contrary to Obama’s public posturing (e.g., anti-Israel advisor General McTweak versus Obama’s public declaration of staunch support for Israel) create doubts about the Illinois Senator’s credibility.  So do his pronouncement that he will meet with harsh adveraries without preconditions.  Hints of Chamberlain and Hitler?  He will say anything, it seems, in his typically articulate and mellifluent manner, to get elected.

If there has been insufficient vetting, then does that candidate deserve the electorate’s blind trust, message and style aside?  To put it another way, how can a candidate be accountable to the electorate in terms of the viability of message, if there is a lack of experience and lack of certainty as to that person’s background (in measuring up to the words of the message)?

The answer it seems to me is “No” and…”He can’t.”  And given this litmus test, Senators Clinton and McCain are known “commodities” with proven records of long standing, but Senator Obama, who clearly has not been vetted enough, and with little experience on the national level, does not deserve voter trust or confidence, irrespective of message and style.  The stakes are simply too high.

This is one case when message and style seem shallow in importance compared to the certainty that comes from in-depth vetting.

That’s one p.r. man’s opinion - p.r. aside!