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!
Recent Comments