Several individuals and groups have contacted me during the past week or so regarding negative politicking. I commented and shared NextStage's research with all of them (see Sticks and Stones for an example) and (I believe) much of what we shared has already been demonstrated in the (political) market. Still, I thought this would be a good place to share my answers on negative campaigning:
1) Who started this and why?
It is doubtful McCain or Obama made this decision although they definitely accepted the advice of others. It's worth noting that barbs were going back and forth for a while although the "barbs" were honorable in the sense that they were policy attacks, not character or personal attacks. Americans see a great difference between individuals and an individual's acts, a kind of "I respect you but I don't respect what you did". Note that this person v act is a tough concept to sell to most people. They understand the concept it when it's explained to them but most people won't think of it on their own. So what to do? Up the ante to "You yourself are a bad person". These are attacks on character and person and are much easier for the average person to understand and respond to. Because the concepts of "good/bad" are moral in nature they tend to be polarizing. People, once polarized, tend to stay polarized. This is good and not good. Polarized the "right" way, good thing. Not good is that once polarized people are like switches, flipping back and forth based on the latest information they receive. The hope is that they're polarized the way you want them polarized when they have to act (vote).
Unfortunately, yes, we are not a nation that appreciates "turning the other cheek" except in movies, novels, tv shows and the like. Also the time lag between being slapped and responding in kind, the nature of the attack, etc, are important elements. For example, if A is slapped and B responds with compassion. This is honored but not if A continues the attack. If A continues the attack and B continues to fail to respond, B is seen as weak, a coward, a victim or something similar. Again, the greater picture plays a part. Ghandi could get away with it because he wasn't running for office (no personal gain for himself) but Presidential candidates can not.
3) Does negative campaigning work?
I wrote in Reading Virtual Minds that, during the '04 Race, people didn't like candidates going negative themselves although they were willing to accept a candidate's surrogate going negative (as Palin is doing for McCain in this cycle).
Will direct negative campaigning work this time out?
This time out it's a tougher call because
- there's a far greater disparity in the voter base than there was in the past,
- the amazing number of "firsts" in this election cycle,
- the current waning of America as viewed at home and by the world and
- the public's disfavor and distrust of politicians in general.
Humans like to have someone to blame and few people like to have the finger pointed at them. I don't think negativity per se will be a decider but being able to scapegoat a party or group within a party ("Republicans" v "John McCain", "Democrats" v "Barack Obama", etc) will do the trick because it gives people someone/group to blame for the current situation.
4) What can we expect in the next four weeks? What will -- and should -- each of the candidates focus on?
What will they focus on? No idea. What should they focus on? The candidate who can present a simple, verifiable plan for solving any three of Iraq/Afghanistan, Wall St Bailout, Fuel costs or Mortgage crisis will win the day. If one of the candidates can solve the latter three the win will be a landslide because those problems are touching people here, not "there".
5) What do the American people want to hear?
People want to hear that they're not to blame for what's happening and that someone else is going to take care of the problem for them, hence my suggestion in #4 above.
6) Are there still many undecideds out there?
(at the time I originally responded to these questions) Lots. An amazing number, really.(Now) Growing fewer every day.
Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics.
Links for this post:
- BizMediaScience Politics blog posts
Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.
I'd like to announce my candidacy. Here are my solutions to the four problems aptly listed in Section 4, above:
1. Annex Iraq. Call it East Puerto Rico. Then we are occupying a US territory, which is desirable when one has a territory, and it will only be a matter of time until Iran does something to provoke us into annexing Southeast Puerto Rico.
2. Undo the recently passed bailout, to the extent it can still be undone. You invest in a Wall St. stock, you are gambling. Unlike gambling in Vegas, you usually win. Sometimes you lose. Unless we want to cap winners with a 'too much products tax'(TM), don't build safety nets for the losers. And lets face it, Wall St. since 1985 has had multiple falls from grace and still allowed players to triple their investment. If you invested twenty years ago and your investment has fallen from 4 times the investment value to 3 times, sorry. If you invested two years ago, hopefully you'll be playing for twenty years and see your money triple as well.
3. Tax gasoline at something between 50 cents and a dollar. Use some of the revenue to help offset residential heating costs for low income housing. Invest in nuclear power (don't worry, I'll put it in someone else's backyard) and windmills (call it a hunch, but the world feels breezier lately). Raising the cost of gasoline discourages driving great distances regularly (commuting), encourages reduced consumption.
4. There are two distinguishable mortgage problems. First, housing prices have dropped significantly and some of those who financed over 95% of their homes two years ago are now walking away from mortgages that they can afford to pay because the mortgage value significantly exceeds the price of their home. Second, are those who financed homes that they cannot afford with low upfront rates that ballooned to rates they really cannot afford. With the former, require the mortgage banks to refinance the mortgage to 100% of the present value of the house at presently acceptable interest rates. The banks will take a hit, but will benefit from not having to endure the expense of selling the property in a foreclosure situation and holding more reliable/tradable credit instruments. The second mortgage issue is the more unfortunate issue. You can't refinance the mortgage to present home value if the homeowner can not qualify for the mortgage, even at the present home value. All that accomplishes is repeating past mistakes. In that case, you simply ride out the pain.
Most Americans are not to blame for the problems in Iraq, on Wall Street, and with irresponsible lending policies. But as a nation we need to address the problems at hand and allow the pain to heal organically now as opposed to taxing our future to delay the pains. As Americans, we will get through this together, not by fattening corporations with pork or handing tax dollars over to lobbyists, to which both parties are overly beholden, but with a strong vision, fiscal discipline, and common sense.
A vote for Tex is a vote to bring you, The People, to the oval office.
I am Tex and I (wrote and) approve this message.
PS - please note all my solutions are simple and none are verifiable.
Posted by: Tex | October 15, 2008 2:01 PM | Permalink to Comment