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.
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.
8
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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!!!!!
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."
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.
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.