Sorry Ann,
I don’t want you
to think I’m piling on your beloved husband. During the lengthy primary and election cycle I know Republicans
as well as Democrats have taken Mitt to task for one thing or another. I’m sure it must
make you grit your teeth. No wonder you asked the critics to get off Mr.
Romney’s back and get to work for him. I had a friend who used to say, “The
loudest cheerleaders are the ones least likely to get into the game.” Coaches and political campaigners are
frequently criticized after the fact
So I am not going
to second-guess his political ideas or his speeches as such. I’m not going to
support either candidate, I’m going to talk about both candidates as
storytellers. (By the way, you and
Michelle both did a wonderful job at the conventions presenting a human, even a
loving portrait of each spouse.)
When you whittle
the various message ads and debates done to the core, Mitt seems to me to have
crafted the basic storyline of: “My opponent is terrible at his job. Fire him.
Hire Me.” Now, can you think of a
successful national campaign that had this as a thesis? I cannot. Yes, Richard Nixon used the “red scare” against Adlai
Stevenson and Kennedy invented a non-existent “missile gap” against Nixon but
each had a positive main message.
Barack, in contrast
has the underlying story as: “Things remain to be accomplished. Keep me on this difficult job.” Think
about Franklin Delano Roosevelt during
World War II or Abraham Lincoln’s second term as president. Times were tough. The leaders admitted
making mistakes, but they called on people to help them stay the course. Pretty stirring stuff.
I think one
problem with using an attack on your opponent as the primary focus of a
campaign is that it says nothing positive about you. Another problem is the negative tone of an attack can easily
veer into the sound of whining. Nobody
likes a whiner. Also, if you don’t provide a self-portrait, the other side will
provide one that you do not like.
Erick Herzik,
Chair of the Political Science Department at the University of Nevada, Reno,
who is a Republican and a supporter of your husband said the typical voter’s
reaction to hearing your spouse speak was, “Where’s the rest of the story? Mitt
is absolutely correct in that the more details he reveals, the more questions
he will get. On the other hand, without details Mitt ends up out of focus.
Some of Mitt’s
supporters seem to employ the worst sort of invective against Mr. Obama. I don’t know if he’s behind them, but I
do believe that he is at least covertly encouraging them. That may fire up part of Mitt’s base,
but I truly believe that in the long run it will diminish Mitt’s
reputation. They are not really
supporters of Mitt at all. They are
detractors of the president, of whom one commentator said, “They’d vote for a
toaster oven before they’d vote for Obama.
Agree or disagree?
Feel free to comment.
Good blog, Warren. I'm wondering what you think after the Biden, Ryan debate last night. I've always been a fan of Joe Biden, even if he sometimes puts his foot in his mouth. Too me, he's proved himself a genuine caring person over the years. He is what you see.
ReplyDeleteI think you nailed it as far as the storytelling of each candidate, Warren. Mitt isn't really telling a story, at all. Obama does better in the position of crafter of a narrative. But as you noted, both wives did a super job of telling their husband's stories at the conventions.
ReplyDeleteI thought both men did well in the VP debate. but Ryan was more open about his side wanting to reverse the Roe vs Wade decision. I think they've been trying to keep that vague.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Linda.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great way of whittling down each side's message, Warren. With all the muckraking & one liners (from both sides), it's sometimes hard to hear the underlying message.
ReplyDeleteSo true, Alyx
ReplyDeleteVery well stated. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteYou made an excellent point that a politician, or anyone who wants to influence a group, needs to be a masterful story teller.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to hear the stories told after the election.
I think you're dead right about being positive rather than negative is a winning strategy. If you concentrate on slamming your opponent people will eventually ask 'tell me specifically you would do it.' And some formless 'we'll do better. Trust us' is not the way to do it.
ReplyDeleteKara, Both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were great at telling stories as president.
ReplyDeleteJudy, You're welcome.
ReplyDeletePat, That is my belief too.
ReplyDeleteI think that's a good analysis, Warren. And an interesting take on this campaign. I'll be glad when it's over!
ReplyDeleteExcellent, Warren. I have less trouble with "the story" if it remains consistent. Where I have a problem is when the story changes from day to day, and it's difficult to determine where a person stands. In this case, one must pay attention to the narrative. Very close attention.
ReplyDeleteKaye, I will be happy too when it ends, I hope it ends the way I want it to.
ReplyDeleteGood point, Polly.
ReplyDelete