When it comes to political narratives, actions speak louder than words.
Yesterday, I outlined why John McCain's newly aggressive anti-Obama strategy--Question: "Who is Barack Obama?" Answer: Someone who's "palling around with terrorists"--isn't likely to work. One reason: it may be too late to define Obama as a dangerous radical. This isn't a matter of timing, per se; many voters don't tune in until October. It's a matter of actions.
The most effective way to damage a political opponent is by wrapping his personality and policies in a credible metanarrative that works as a single lens through which voters can see everything he says and does. In 2004, for example, Republicans labeled John Kerry an opportunistic flip-flopper. The tag stuck largely because Kerry's claim that he voted for $87 billion in war funding before he voted against it seemed to confirm voters' preexisting suspicions. Similarly, McCain wants the electorate to believe that Obama is a dangerously inexperienced radical.
But the problem for McCain is that he doesn't have an iconic "Voted
for It Before I Voted Against" moment to anchor his accusations. Merely
saying that Obama is a dangerous radical--perhaps because the Illinois
senator crossed paths with some questionable characters in the
past--isn't going to cut it. If McCain hopes to sell his salvo, he
needs to find real-time, newsmaking examples of Obama acting dangerous,
or radical, or inexperienced, or whatever. As former Hillary Clinton
spokesman Phil Singer recently wrote,
"political attacks work best when the charge they make is echoed by the
subject of those attacks." Unfortunately for McCain, Obama has done
nothing--again, in real time--to convince voters that he's either
dangerous, radical or dangerously, radically inexperienced.
In fact, much the opposite. Here's where
actions--namely, the candidates' responses to the Wall Street
meltdown--enter into the equation. The collapse of America's financial
infrastructure was not only a major historical event; it was the first
major event to happen after the country finally tuned in to the
presidential race. As such, it had increased potential to shape
perceptions of the candidates; after all, many voters were seeing
McCain and Obama "in action" for the first time.
Unfortunately for McCain, the electorate preferred Obama's approach to the crisis. In last week's CBS News poll,
44 percent of voters approved of the Democratic nominee's response--12 percent more than than those who disapproved of his
performance. McCain's grades, meanwhile, were reversed: 46 percent
disapproval; 35 percent approval. Today's NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll discovered
a similar disparity: the group of voters that felt reassured by Obama's
reaction (34 percent) was 5 points larger than the group that felt less
reassured (29 percent). Conversely, McCain's response resulted in a net "less
assured" rating of 13 percent (25-38 percent). Whether or not you
prefer Obama's crisis-management technique (staying calm and detached)
to McCain's (suspending his campaign), the Democratic nominee clearly
provided voters with real-time evidence that contradicted--rather than
confirmed--the story McCain's trying to tell about him. That's the main
reason Obama is rising in the polls.
Making matters worse is the fact that the financial crisis actually helped Obama tell
the tale he's been itching to tell about McCain: that he's "erratic,"
unreliable and too impulsive to be president (the dark side, if you
will, of "maverick.") Since then, Chicago has applied this
frame--fairly or unfairly--to everything from McCain's health-care plan
("radical") to his sudden decision to attack ("erratic"). Unfortunately for McCain, Obama has basically boxed him in. Over the next month or so, the Arizonan has to
shake things up if he hopes to overtake his opponent in the polls--even
though every zigzag presents Team Obama with a new opportunity to call McCain "erratic." Meanwhile, Obama must simply
avoid acting dangerous, radical or inexperienced to keep McCain's
claims from sticking.
Whose shoes would you rather be in?
Loading Menu