The Obama Strategy
In response to the article I quoted in my last entry, Jason had this to say about Obama:
What all the fainting, name chanting, yes-we-can-ing, cult of personality stuff does is boost an empty suit riding on a wave of “hope” and “change” no one with two brain cells can believe in, to the highest office in the land.
At risk of following you down the rabbit hole of thread jacking, Obama made a fairly honest and cogent defense of his “hope” and “change” platform at the last debate. Despite the attacks of his critics he does indeed have many specific policy objectives. Overall they aren’t terribly different than Clintons (with the exception that Obama isn’t going to force people to get health insurance or go on the government dole, which I very much like), but he is taking a different approach selling it.
His argument was that to make substantial policy change it is essential to inspire and motivate the public. To build grassroots support. Politics and leadership is more than pie charts and bar graphs.
Is he selling the American public short to play to their emotions and try to inspire them instead of appealing purely to logic? Perhaps. But I think he is completely correct about the American electorate. Those that want to read his detailed policy objectives can look them all up on his website. Will most Americans do so? No. It doesn’t matter what kind of speeches he gives, most voters, sadly, aren’t going to pay attention to the details. I can’t tell you how to fix this problem, but you can’t blame Obama for recognizing it and creating a political strategy that fits the reality of voters in this country.
It is a strategy that many credited to Bush in the last 8 years. Many analysts say that he was very light on details and policy specifics compared to Gore or Kerry, but he reached average voters at the gut level and inspired trust, hope, patriotism, what have you, and so they voted for him. At the same time he appealed to the emotions and being a “good ol’ boy” he derided his opponents as egg-heads too concerned with policy and numbers and out of touch with what “real Americans care about” (whatever that means).
So you can’t blame Obama for doing what Bush has done so successfully in the last two elections. Heck, even Reagan, I believe, spoke more in broad strokes than in policy details and was heralded for it.
So just because Obama doesn’t include the minutiae of his health care plan in his stump speech doesn’t mean those details don’t exist. It is our duty as educated voters (as opposed to the rest of them) to seek those details out.
On the issues I have a fair amount of disagreement with him (as I do with most all candidates of any party), but I don’t fault him for his approach.
March 4th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
When I read this, I was reminded of something I said on the forums one time about MADD. A lot of members whine that MADD uses emotional appeal as opposed to logic, that they shouldn’t be allowed to do that. I forget which thread, but I finally said “appealing to emotion doesn’t mean MADD is stupid, on the contrary it means they know how to work!” Same deal with Obama, sort of, as you pointed out. Sticking just to logic is no way to win people over, no matter how sound. Got to find the main vein of what people truly care about, and steer it how you please. The logic is mostly just a backup, though still very necessary.
And, though I’m just guessing, I sometimes feel that’s one of NYRA’s weaknesses, though I don’t know offhand how to rectify it. We’re great at the logic, but the fact is, we can cite cold hard stats all day long about the benefits of a lower voting age, repealing curfews, etc., but it’ll mostly just affect those already inclined to agree with us anyway, while others might nod along but still not accept our position, because deep down, they really feel that 16-year-olds are better off and safer if they can’t vote and can’t go outside after 10pm. After all, “feel good” laws pass because people want them to, informed or not, and oftentimes they have no interest in being informed. So something stronger is needed. Something needs to rile them up and get them viscerally excited about our side. What exactly? Well, I have no idea. I suppose that’s the other problem.
Okay, I’ll stop now since I’ve gone off on a tangent, a depressing one at that, but it got me thinking anyway.