Obama's Self-Defeating Rhetoric

While Obama is a terrific rhetorician, he and his ad team don't understand a core principle of rhetoric. Never repeat the word your opponent is trying to push. That is not just a basic tenet of the 25-century old art of persuasion, but a well-demonstrated principle of modern psychology.

Never say things like "They're going to say I'm a risky guy. What they're going to argue is I'm too risky." All that does is plant in the listener's mind the word "risky" associated directly with Obama. It's like saying, "I'm not a crook."

Never say things like

"I know that Sen. McCain likes to call himself a maverick.... that doesn't meet my definition of a maverick. You can't be a maverick when politically it's working for you and not a maverick when it doesn't work for you, when you received your party's nomination."

Never run an ad with a picture of your opponent that opens, "He's the original maverick" and ends "The original maverick?" That's especially true because "maverick" is such a strong and memorable word.

When voters go into the voting booth, especially the key voters the campaigns are targeting with these ads that don't actually 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 message.

The bottom line is you can't debunk a myth by verbally repeating it. This is actually very basic stuff, so it is surprising that neither Obama nor his team understand it.

It's why linguist George Lakoff titled his best-selling book, Don't think of an elephant. If I say that to you, you will think of an elephant. Negatives carry very little rhetorical weight.

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.

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.

But if Obama could match his eloquence with a genuine understanding of the principles of rhetoric, this race would be a blowout.

Comments

[iLogos]

The author fails to take one thing into account... the solution. If you cannot deny the allegations it gives just as much credence as over-denial.

It is a fine line you have to walk, and while the art of rhetoric is one I respect, it is not the end all and be all of communication.

[DWSouthern]

So how is Obama, for example, to address McCain's dismissive lie above tire pressure, by not mentioning tire pressure? The article seems to say that a politician cannot use facts and logic successfully. Maybe only lies and counter lies stick in people's heads.

[lescargot]

Hmmmm. How about by saying "There are many ways we can conserve fuel. Some of them have to do with the kinds of cars we drive and others have to do with how we operate and maintain them, but these are not going to solve our crisis in the long or the short term. Real solutions lie in breaking our dependence on oil altogether through the development of meaningful energy alternatives."

[peterg76]

Even Paris Hilton knows better.

[Nyland8]

Point taken, Mr Romm.

8

[Frenchy9]

No need to package these very useful observations on how to attack or counter attack and adversary in great moder psychology theories or
When I heard: "They're going to say I'm a risky guy. What they're going to argue is I'm too risky" I thought, my God what he is doing! Does he want to plant in the listener's mind the word "risky" associated directly with himself!?
So, it's good to see this article warning Obama team to think about this "details" that can curtail the strength of otherwise very true atack sentences.
Yes, we know Obama team is so clever and well organized, but even them they can forget to pay attention to some important points.
Better counter-attacks, more sustained, and don't forget the less educated Americans that will listen to them: they need clear and direct wording: ca you afford shoes 500$ a piece? Would you reject a wife that has been sustaining the years you when prisoner of war becuase she has become handicapped by an accident? do you want to entrust war and peace decision to an easily angry guy who can't controle himself in many occassions?
Obama team, please rethink you counter-attack methodology. Now it's the time. Thanks.

[nomobull]

take your advice and give it to mccain

[SeanGardner]

Your post was provocative, but you're forgetting two things:

(1) Obama is not running a typical campaign - Since you're pushing what you call "a basic tenet of the 25-century old art of persuasion" and the "well-demonstrated principle of modern psychology", you would think you would be up on Obama's understanding of the new media and embrace of the emerging technologies that converged to produce an army of online donors unseen and unparalleled in the annals of politics, and, which allows him to stay in contact with the millions of voters who have cell phones instead of lands lines.

(2) Obama understands the issues - We are facing a serious situation in this country, with respect to tepid job creation, the erosion of the middle class, as well as repeated Republican attempts to undermine landmark environmental laws, reproductive rights, civil rights, gay rights, and immigrants rights. Obama understands that with so much going against the Republican brand in general and John McCain in particular, all he has to do at the moment is push back against the lies, but not run a type of slash and burn campaign.

So you're mistaken: he understands rhetoric, and, he understands that he has a winning coalition of voters: an expected record turnout of latinos, blacks, native-americans, asian-americans and young and /or educated whites (Obama constituencies), as well as independents, veterans, and young evangelicals.

His understanding of rhetoric is fine. So say the millions prepared to give him a lanslide victory.

[Deaninphilly]

You apparently did not read nor comprehend the article at hand. It is not about subjects but about the words one chooses and the sentence structure of placing and repeating those words.

[SeanGardner]

I read the article fully...and I comprehended it fully.

My post was simply saying that Mr. Romm's fears are unfounded, and, that so many experts and insiders and pundits and bloggers have continously underestimated Obama: his strategy, his staff decisions, his fundraising ideas, etc. And maybe, just maybe, Mr. Romm is underestimating him as well.

Obama knows the issues, he has the agenda, and right now in this country, the "multitude" are focusing on that, rather than on the "anti-Obama wording" that Obama has repeated in order to effectively undermine and neutralize the attack. BRILLIANT!!!

I trust Obama on this one. Thank you very much.

[BillCarson]

Great article.

The conservatives have word/frame masters like Frank Luntz, Newt Gingrich or even Karl Rove.

But sadly, the left doesn't seem to get it. Case in point, George Lakoff's think tank, The Rockridge Institute, closed in April, citing lack of funds.

Don't Think of a Clinging Elephant.

[sf94127]

This time Obama actually has to win; the DNC can't hand him the win like they did in the primary.

Obama is in stealth mode in the GE. He mainly appears in ultra-friendly venues speaking to his koolaid drinkers. He has yet to get out there and fight. Looks like repeat of Gore-Bush 2000.

[Eoin45]

Nonsense from beginning to end.

[mjc]

Barack Obama just doesn't have enough experience to begin to know anything about campaign charges and counter-charges. His campaign managers and handlers have been touted by the Obamacons as being so much better than Clinton's. They had a lot more money to work with and still couldn't really seal the deal and now with McCain, same thing. But Obama's rhetoric isn't why I'm not going to vote for him: he's lacks real positions on issues, goes with the cheapest route and the most opportunistic situation. Who needs that for a president.

[StillIRise]

It doesn't take "experience" to sink to the level of the race-baiting and kitchen sink tactics of his opponents, past and present. What Obama DOES have is integrity, something that is slowing dying on our political landscape, and his campaign has been consistently one of integrity, even in his "rhetoric." . Did Hillary "close the deal?" I think not. She lost! Has John McCain "closed the deal?" I think not. He hasn't broken 45% and he's presently losing!

Your shallow justifications for not voting for Senator Obama are just that ... SHALLOW! His positions are as "real" as his opponent's, and I doubt if even you know what you mean by "the cheapest route" and "the most opportunistic situations." I'm sure you have your reason for not voting for Obama, but when you try to make reasons up to disguise the real reason, you come off sounding a little silly!

[mjc]

stillrise and shothot, you ought to check out the three or four polls that have been appearing every three days or so. They all show that Obama is nowhere near the position he should be in given the support of the Democratic National Committee and media. The one candidate that has broken 45% consistently is Hillary Clinton, not Obama and not McCain and in the past week or so Obama is mostly even with McCain, even given a complete failure in rhetorical skills and persuasion skills of John McCain.

[shothot]

If you can read, possibly you might go to his website and read his positions on issues. If you examine his work in poor neighborhoods and bills he pushed for, whether successful or not, you might see how he stands on certain issues. I venture to say you don't know the other candidate's position on every issue. Or, are you assuming their positions will be carried out during their tenure? Possibly looking at a candidate for some of the traits, ( character, foresight, family, judgement, etc) that make a good president might be a better means of evaluating. "Real positions". Don't make me laugh!

[SMAGGIE]

Just why must we vote for Obama? He has done nothing for the state of IL, except push out the party that was running against him, so he could get the job, AND HE DID. That is what politicians do,I guess. Obama is nothing but a teleprompter speaker. I'm sure he has someone write all those "words" he says. Sometime, I don't think he really knows what he is saying. He is not going to make the next four years any better than the last 8. With his friends in the Whitehouse, there won't be room for anyone that we can trust. He is not capable of doing that job, and if you even give it a good thought, you would see it. It is a disgrace for us to have to vote for one of these two candidates, but then there are some independents running!! GOD PLEASE BLESS US ALL!

[Softnsweet]

I hope you do not live in Illinois, because if you did then you would know just what Obama has done for the State. I cannot believe you are writing this and have not research the many bills that Obama has written. Clinton was right when he said no one that has not been President cannot be ready on day one. You guys expect more from Obama then any other candidate in the history of the United States.

[StillIRise]

I DO live in Illinois, and I know that Senator Obama has not only served our state well, but continues to do so, even as he is campaigning for the presidency.

SMAGGIE is merely spewing the same old trite unsubstantiated talking points used by those who are threatened by Obama's intellect and grasp of national and world affairs. He is a gifted and eloquent speaker who has published two best-selling books, but those who cannot accept this in their worldview rationalize or explain it away by insisting that he uses teleprompters or has someone else to write for him, because they don't want to believe that he can actually be that intelligent. I don't think it's that they expect more from Obama than any other candidate in the past; I think they expected less from him. Obama just doesn't fit their paradigm of what the President of the United States should be and look like, so they continue to raise the bar, hoping that at some point he'll stumble and become the stereotype they want to see him as. Meanwhile, they just make stuff up to disparage him!

[shothot]

No, God heal you and your lack of judgement!

[cowgirlblues]

Mr Romm-YOU are a genious-seriously-Obama needs to hire this man-the most clear thinking-no BS article I have read this political season-As a hillary supporter, i can only say-you should have been on our team. I appreciate a smart person no matter their candidate..

[Calvincito]

I hate to inform you cowgirlblues but your candidate ran a bad campaign and lost while accumulating millions in debt. Accept those facts and move on. Whatever you do, please do it based on principle and not bitterness.

[Deaninphilly]

Don't think she was saying anything bad about O, but apparently you saw a way to post something nasty and mean that was uncalled for. I think it is you who have bitterness, perhaps you should work on that before posting.

[Adamwestiii]

I'm voting on facts that is why I spend a lot of time surfing the net! Whether McCain picks Libermann, or Kantor, I will vote for either Obama or go Independent. I initially voted for Pres Bush and after that I wasn't too happy! I decided to change party and vote for Al Gore until he selected Libermann!. I couldn't stomach that either so I again voted for Bush.

[ConcernedCtzn]

Senator Obama is doing exactly what he should be doing. Where are the surrogates? We routinely see McCaskill (and boy is she good), Kerry (and he's consistent), Wexler, Daschle, even E. Bayh out doing the best they can. But there are some poor excuses for Democrats who haven't defended Senator Obama at all or even attacked Senator McCain for his lies, deceptions, gaffes, and just plain blunders.

Where are (in no particular order):
C. Dodd, B. Richardson, J. Biden, The Clintons
R. Emmanual, D. Wassarman-Schultz
S. Tubbs-Jones, E. Rendell, T. McCauliff
J. Carville, J. Edwards, H. Rosen, K. Sebellius
C. Rangel, N. Pelosi, H. Reid, J. Webb, C. Schumer

Do the Democrats want to win or not?!!! We have a nominee now!!! Fall in line and get to it!!!!!!!!!!! He should be above the fray and those listed above should be attacking doing the dirty work!!!!!

Obama 08!!!!!

[phipho]

Gee citizen, what you are describing sounds like a very typical political campaign. What happened to the new style politician? Don't tell me the new order won't last till the convention. Obama has no interest in giving Hillary a meaningful place in his campaign. Blame his inept campaign on him and the obamabots, not anyone else.

[ConcernedCtzn]

It sounds like winning. It sounds like letting him do what he does. He hasn't asked anyone to do what I just suggested. I'm definitely not like him. Nor are any of those listed above or they would be the nominee. Senator Obama remains a new type politician.

You all seem to forget that should Hillary be too prominent a fixture, there will be a lot of people who will be turned off by her.

I won't address the issue of "his inept campaign" since he is the nominee. That will speak for itself. Awwww shoot, yes I will. He won with the "inept campaign."

[Calvincito]

Clinton supporters should know the meaning of inept. Imagine 30-40 percentage points up and losing the way she did.

[StillIRise]

We saw the epitome of an "inept" campaign in the primary, and it wasn't Obama's campaign!

[cowgirlblues]

When Obama went over to the "dark side with his reversal of posistion on off shore drilling-he lost the last hope he had of getting my vote-I will write Hillary Clinton in.

[yhgtup]

Your writing Hillary Clinton's name in is only a vote for McCain. Why not save yourself some time, & just punch the anti-women issues candidate, John McCain?

[littLdy2]

You got it! Write-in is my plan too.

[Softnsweet]

I cannot believe some people. Why would you vote for McCain. Have you really read Obama's stance on off shore drilling. Geez.. I hate it when people do not do research.

[kappock750]

Please first read the totality of what he said and has written before you make a decision.
Second are you ready to squander the supreme court, right to choose, health care, the war in Afghansitan, minimum wage issues, workers and human rights, corporate greed and power at the expense of all. Seriously, r u willing to give these issues over to McCain and the republicans .... that's what they are hoping for ..... a voter like you ..... rethink and re read ......

[StillIRise]

In other words, you're voting for McCain!

[shothot]

Bravo, concernedctzn! Sitting on their asses and waiting for the cows to come home.

[certainot]

the battle of the ads is going to be a wash but the reason it's not going to be a blowout at a time when any American who votes republican after what they've been doing has to be an idiot or a masochist, is because the GOP has a talk radio monopoly that can be used to turn a molehill into a mountain within a day, create a long lasting myth out of lies within a week and do it all while Dem strategists are changing the dial to get away from talk radio. the GOP frames with a nail gun while the Dems use rocks and strategize in a vacuum.

dems argue about the best way to mend their broken political bones while limbaugh and sons continue to swing a well coordinated political 2x4 and feed talking points and spin to the rest of the corporate media like no other propaganda tool can. obama can be as good as he can be but for a large part of America he will still largely be defined by limbaugh and sons.

one hope may be if progressives begin picketing and bocotting the local talk radio stations that are lying about their candidate, going racist on him, and even suggesting violence against him. but they might have to turn off the music and turn on the talk once in a while to get a list of local businesses to boycott.

[Boadicea]

You're absolutely right. Another vehicle Democrats don't have is the church. As a former Republican and a Catholic, I can tell you that a lot of Republican campaigning and volunteer recruiting goes on in "mainstream" churches.

The outcome of the election will depend on voter registration and turnout. And that depends upon volunteers and money. Democrats would do well to stop second guessing Obama every step their candidate takes and start volunteering and donating,. And for all those who think their opinion is so important and wise that it absolutely must be heard, send it to the campaign, instead of publishing it where it will only serve to discourage Democrats about their candidate.

That's the part of the equation that people like this author should understand. There will be plenty of time to criticize the candidate after he wins! Publicly criticizing him now won't help; it will only hurt.