Obama, Don't Call McCain a Maverick Five Times in Your Ad!

What one word does John McCain want you to think of when you think of him? "Maverick"

So why does Obama's new ad use the word 5 times, even running the word across the screen? Because he and his ad people don't understand basic rhetoric and psychology (see Obama's Self-Defeating Rhetoric).

When voters go into the booth, especially the ones targeted with these ads who don't pay close attention to the race, they focus on just a few key thoughts and words. The last thing you want to do is repeat and reinforce your opponent's key memorable word.

You can't debunk a myth by verbally repeating it. This is basic stuff, so it is surprising that neither Obama nor his team understand it. It's why linguist George Lakoff titled his book, Don't think of an elephant. If I say that to you, you will think of an elephant. Negatives carry little rhetorical weight. I'll repost some of the vast psychological research below.

Obama's ad should read more like:

Narrator: They say they are not old-style politicians. Truth is, they are. Seven of John McCain's top campaign advisers are old big-spending Washington Lobbyists. McCain himself is part of the old big-spending crowd who votes with Bush 90% of the time. And Sarah Palin's an old-time big spender, too. She was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it. Politicians lying about their records? That's the old politics.

Or something like that. You get the point. Don't deny an opponent's virtue, affirm a negative one. And, of course, Obama and Biden and their surrogates would need to repeat those phrases again and again when they are on TV.

Would the McCain team challenge Obama's use of the word "old," claiming it was a dig at McCain. Let's hope so! It would only serve to create an echo chamber for the word 'old.' But McCain has no grounds to complain because he himself rather foolishly keeps opening the door by repeating the word on the stump, saying things like saying he and Palin will take on the "old, big-spending, do-nothing, me-first, country-second Washington crowd."

Story continues below

advertisement

I would drop the verbal and visual Western metaphor in the original ad -- the "Whoa" and the whip cracking. True, metaphors are arguably the most important figure of speech in rhetoric and the second most memorable (after repetition, which comprises about two dozen different figures of speech).

The problem is that the Obama team's metaphor is too clever by half -- it merely serves to underscore that McCain and Palin are from the West, the home of mavericks, a message drummed home by repeating over and over again the word "maverick" in the ad.

It bears repeating -- lines from the original ad like "McCain is hardly a Maverick" and "He's no maverick" and "Sarah Palin's no maverick either" are an absolute no-no.

This notion is so core to rhetoric that the ancient Greeks even had a figure of speech named for it -- apophasis, (from the Greek word for "to deny"), the figure of speech that emphasizes a point by pretending to deny it, that stresses an idea or image by negating it. As Shakespeare has Marc Antony say to the Roman citizens in the "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" speech after Caesar's assassination, "Sweet friends, let me not stir you up to such a sudden flood of mutiny." He wants -- and gets -- a mutiny.

Nixon foolishly said "I am not a crook." What do you remember today -- "not" or "crook"?

This is not just a long-standing principle of rhetoric, but something demonstrated by numerous recent psychological studies. In one 1990 study, undergraduate students observed sugar from a labeled commercial container as it was poured into two bottles. They then labeled one bottle "sugar" and the other "Not Sodium Cyanide." Students avoided eating sugar from the second bottle even though they had watched it being poured and "even though they had arbitrarily placed that label on it" and knew the label was accurate--that it was not sodium cyanide. Such is the power of words or, rather, the insidious lack of power of the word 'not.'

Even more insidious, "when people find a claim familiar because of prior exposure but do not recall the original context or source of the claim, they tend to think that the claim is true," as noted a 2005 journal article, "How Warnings about False Claims Become Recommendations," which concluded

Telling people that a consumer claim is false can make them misremember it as true. In two experiments, older adults were especially susceptible to this "illusion of truth" effect. Repeatedly identifying a claim as false helped older adults remember it as false in the short term but paradoxically made them more likely to remember it as true after a 3 day delay. This unintended effect of repetition comes from increased familiarity with the claim itself but decreased recollection of the claim's original context. Findings provide insight into susceptibility over time to memory distortions and exploitation via repetition of claims in media and advertising.

As explained in a Washington Post article from a year ago explained, "Persistence of Myths Could Alter Public Policy Approach":

Indeed, repetition seems to be a key culprit. Things that are repeated often become more accessible in memory, and one of the brain's subconscious rules of thumb is that easily recalled things are true.

Another useful article is " 'I am not guilty' vs 'I am innocent' " by Ruth Mayo et al in The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology in 2004, which found that for many people, the "negation tag" of a denial falls off with time:

"If someone says, 'I did not harass her,' I associate the idea of harassment with this person," said Mayo, explaining why people who are accused of something but are later proved innocent find their reputations remain tarnished. "Even if he is innocent, this is what is activated when I hear this person's name again.

"If you think 9/11 and Iraq, this is your association, this is what comes in your mind," she added. "Even if you say it is not true, you will eventually have this connection with Saddam Hussein and 9/11."

Mayo found that rather than deny a false claim, it is better to make a completely new assertion that makes no reference to the original myth.

It takes a lot of message discipline to do this. But then again, it usually takes a lot of message discipline to become president. Obama is lucky that he has one of the weakest presidential opponents in US history in terms of message discipline. That said, McCain seems to have found his voice, even if it is an old-politics lying voice.

Obama is getting better on the stump, but he is still lame in TV interviews -- as I argued in a recent post and as is painfully clear to anybody who saw Keith Olbermann desperately try to get him to make a stronger attack Monday night. If Obama could match his eloquence with a genuine understanding of the principles of rhetoric, this race would be a blowout.

Comments

[neetsie37]

I saw Keith's interview with Obama and it was painfully obvious this man cannot talk like an ordinary angry person who is being unfairly attacked; he constantly sounds like a law professor explaining why the other side shouldn't be doing these nasty things. Well, I knew all along this was going to happen. This was exactly why Hillary was the right choice --- and it's not too late. He had best step aside.

[brenner21]

Who is this "Hillary" person you talk about ... ?

[athenasword]

In my field, we say that the word "not" is missed by the brain. So, if you say "not telling the truth" the brain actually hears "telling the truth". It's the same when you say "careful, don't spill your coffee". The brain hears "spill the coffee".

Dems need to make sure we don't speak in the negative. Use the correct adjectives.

[dmacman]

The Obama campaign is fighting the masters of Propaganda. They had 90% of the country hot and running after WMD's in Iraq to attack Osama Bin Laden after 9/11! You don't think they know how to spin 50.0009% of the country to vote for their ticket?

[mostlybluedot]

You have got to have a message behind it. This war in Iraq never ends and costs ten billion a month while Americans lost their homes and stand on unemployment lines. Do McCain and Palin have a plan to end the war and put us back on the path to prosperity or more fairy tales and even lies like the bridge to nowhere or the sale of the plane on E Bay?

[dmacman]

FOR SALE - How McCain runs Ads

McCain:
Slightly used 2 door coupe with custom paint job.
Handles great even after rain showers, and the sound system is blasting!
Ask for the Maverick

TRUTH:
- 1980 FORD Fairmont Sport Coupe with 134K miles (((Slightly used 2 door coupe)))
- Hood and fenders spray painted (((custom paint job)))
- Was flooded during KATRINA (((Handles great even after rain showers)))
- Speakers are blown out (((Sound system is blasting)))
- Yeah Right! McCain would like you to think he is (((maverick)))

[freedog]

This is why we don't allow Dem's to manage our national security. Whenever they are surprised by something, instead of regrouping, analyzing and adapting...they freak out, and then go into denial coma for thirty days. Say what you will about the two parties but at least he republicans are disciplined while the democrats are the dysfunctional poster childs for political parties. Only, and Only the dems could actually find a way to lose this election. Keep up the good work!

[Daisy1111]

So true freedog!

[WhiteHat]

You are so right! Responding to McCain's words can serve to reinforce them. Even if it doesn't, it's not as effective as catchy new hooks on themes chosen by Obama.

McCain wants to make the campaign about character, so Obama should go after him on the issue to keep it from looking like an advantage for McCain. He could DEMOLISH him, but only if he framed the discussion. Make McCain respond about his lying and running a dirty campaign.

How do you really feel?
It's called Integrity.
This time, choose an honest president.

You know the facts, so you can picture the associated imagery.

Ouch!

[jasan]

You are correct, Obama should just call him what he is, a deceiver. There, that was not even difficult. You can avoid calling him a liar and just use this, whew, being politically correct sucks... Obama also needs to know that by calling McCain "Maverick", it just makes the old folks think of James Garner... Old folks vote...So call him the Deceiver and make the populace use their Webster's Dictionary..

[MadOzbo]

Joseph has tunnel vision.

It is MOST CERTAINLY effective to use the word "Maverick" a THOUSAND TIMES if you can debunk the usage of the term.

Obama did just that. It is NOT being a Maverick to vote like Bush. It is NOT being a Maverick to flip flop...EVERY instance of the word was debunked. THAT is what effective counter-point does, Joseph...

You evidently do not have much debating experience or knowledge of how things NOT in the Media Popularity Game really work.

[athenasword]

Actually, it would be more effective language to say "Is he a Maverick when he.... votes with Bush 90%". In my field, we have data that shows how the word "not" is missed by the brain. So, if you say "not telling the truth" the brain actually hears "telling the truth". It's the same when you say "careful, don't spill your coffee". The brain hears "spill the coffee".

Only exception is sarcasm. But that is tricky, especially in print.

Dems need to debunk using the correct adjectives (deceipt, follower, misleading, confused) and positive terms (instead of framing things with "not" or "don't")

[leoeris]

Can someone on Obama's campaign team please hire Joseph. You can use all of the money I contributed to pay him.

[milo h minderbinder]

While I agree with the sentiment of this article, and I certainly think Obamas ads and interviews could use a huge shot in the arm, I don't think there's any way we're going to avoid the word "maverick" in this election.

McCain is going to repeat it ad nauseum, and now Palin as well.

Is it possible for the Obama campaign to turn "maverick" into a dirty word, something that makes people think of McCain's lies and pandering to his own party's most extreme wing? To bring things to the point where people hear the word "maverick" and roll their eyes in disgust?

[BillZBubb]

In my post below I discussed this very idea. Use the Republican's tactic of turning your opponents strength into an object of mockery.

Remember the "Purple Heart band-aids" at the Republican convention in 2004? Remember "Ozone Al" Gore. Or how they mocked "community organizer"? The Republicans are masters at this.

It would be fairly easy to do the same to the concept of "maverick."

[ssengele]

You know what? Yeah, that could work. Just show that Bush has been a "maverick"--southwestern state legacy-family Republican, who didn't care what those bean-counter weapons inspectors' findings were; he had a gut feeling, and went with it. That kind of approach could work, in ways this commercial clearly doesn't.

[THISTLE]

Every word really does matter - and the word that Obama and Biden should be using is the
one he used in his accaptance speech - ENOUGH.

ENOUGH OF THE LIES FROM McCain & Palin.
ENOUGH OF THE LIES FROM THE REPUBLICANS AND THEIR CROWD.
ENOUGH OF 8 YEARS OF THESE PEOPLE.
ENOUGH OF WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO THE ECONOMY.
ENOUGH OF WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO THIS COUNTRY.

ENOUGH OF THEIR CAMPAIGN OF LIES.
ENOUGH OF THEIR REFUSAL TO DISCUSS THEIR RECORDS.
ENOUGH OF THEIR REFUSAL TO DISCUSS REAL ISSUES.
ENOUGH OF A CAMPAIGN THAT HAS BECOME - A REALITY SHOW - WHICH
IRONICALLY IS LACKING IN REAL REALITY - NAMELY THE RECORD OF McCAIN
AND HIS TRAIN WRECK VP.

WITH KERRY THEY DESTROYED A TRUE HERO, WHO FOUGHT FOR HIS COUNTRY,
AND INSTEAD MADE THE GUY- WHO HID BEHIND HIS DADDY'S SKIRTS A HERO.
AND NOW THEY ARE TRYING TO TURN OBAMA INTO KERRY.

OBAMA AND BIDEN NEED TO FIGHT AND KEEP POUNDING - ENOUGH ENOUGH ENOUGH.
IT WAS OBAMA'S STRONGEST WORD - IN HIS ACCEPTANCE SPEECH - HE NEEDS TO
START SHOUTING IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS - NOW - RIGHT NOW!

[IneptitudePrideB4Fall]

And STOP showing their pictures Instead show pictures of the failed policies; such as show the "bridge to nowhere"; show military funerals; show people on roofs begging to be rescued during Katrina; show McCain hugging Bush (a McSame picture, I know); ... Repeat message. Speak slowly and with emphasis on the words you want us to remember! Obama's ads are not good enough!

P.S., When we are trying to use mental reinforcement to help us think positively, we are always told to NOT think of what we wish to avoid, eg., Do not think, "I am not tired." but think, "I am energized."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[athenasword]

Exactly. Mc'Cane is deceiveing vs. he is not telling the truth. (see my posts above)

[jkclawyer]

McCain: If ever a maverick,
A failed one.

McCain: a failed maverick for 8 years

McCain: a maverick fighting the truth

[BillZBubb]

Your points are excellent, but you can use a term like "maverick" if you are prepared to make a mockery of the concept. That is the tactic the Republicans successfully use over and over. For instance, Kerry was a war hero, mock him for his wounds that "weren't serious". Or Gore is an enviromentalist--"He's Ozone Al". Or Obama was a community organizer...

A series of very effective ads mocking the "maverick" concept would be fairly easy to envision. And they would create some buzz. Then all Democrats would have to repeat the mockery in their statements. Make being a "maverick" an embarrassment.

The technique works.

[SandWedge]

I think he needs to fire his ad people and get new ones. I'm impressed with this blog even though I've never heard of Joseph Romm before.