Campaign vs. Metacampaign: Obama at the Crossroads

National campaigns don't really take place in in crowded halls, lobbyist lunches, debates, or even in the media. While each of these are important, they only matter because they provide cash - or create images - that help influence and shape what takes place on the real field of battle: the human imagination.

This may seem painfully obvious to some, yet its implications are subtle, and it's one reason why Barack Obama is so far behind in the polls. He is now going to be pressed to respond by changing his strategy, which he should. But if he changes in the wrong way the result could be fatal to his campaign. Should he go on the offensive? Sure - but only in a manner that fits his overall context, and only if he also finds several key issues that demonstrate he is the candidate of the future and its promise.

Polls and other quantitative measurements have their place, but campaigns suffer when they're emphasized at the neglect of the qualitative. Those qualitative campaign factors resonate on a number of conscious and unconscious levels, the way musical notes resonate with heard and unheard overtones. When they clash they make people uncomfortable.

In other words, a campaign isn't just an input/output model in the systems theory sense. It's also a work of art. It needs a literary or artistic coherence just as much as it needs an analytical foundation of policies and polling - and ideally, the two should operate in harmony.

For lack of a better term, let's go neologistic and call these overtones a "metacampaign." Metacampaigns aren't about policy. After all, campaign isn't just about itself anymore than a John Ford western is just about cowboys. If a "campaign" - the overt statements and policy positions of a candidate - conflicts with its own "metacampaign," the result is what anthropologist Gregory Bateson called a "double bind."

When Bateson used the term "double bind" he was describing the emotional trap family members are placed in when they're told something verbally (e.g. "I love you no matter what you do") that is contradicted by nonverbal messages. While this doesn't cause schizophrenia, as Bateson originally thought, it can certainly create problems. And it can exist in larger social groupings than the family.

While some of the reasons for Obama's current poll standings have been identified, there's been little or no discussion of the double bind issue. His campaign and his "metacampaign" have sometimes seemed out of sync. That's created a cognitive dissonance that can prevent people from becoming fully comfortable with him.

It's premature to suggest he can no longer win, as some Washington insiders are now saying (although if he doesn't act quickly that 'conventional wisdom' could become one more datum that gets fed into the public imagination.) But if reports like this one are accurate, his contributors are getting worried and are stepping up the pressure on him. That could cause him to replace one double bind with another by going on the offensive the way any traditional politician would.

The Obama "campaign" has made some understandable choices. Since he is African American and relatively young, they've elected to present him as conciliatory, as a unifier, and as a compassionate but cerebral figure. That makes good political sense, and it appears to suit his personality. But it's been done in a way that conflicts with his 'metacampaign,' which clearly identifies him as a figure of dramatic if not revolutionary change. Excess of caution, which might be seen as judicious in another candidate, reads as something approaching insincerity in Obama's case (even though it's probably exactly the opposite - to this outsider, it appears to reflect a genuinely judicious and contemplative nature.)

Fortunately for Obama, recent history gives us a precedent for handling this kind of campaign/metacampaign dissonance: Bill Clinton. If campaigns are works of art, Obama would do well to learn from the best artist of our time. Bill Clinton delivered the DLC message on many issues of substance, especially in his re-election campaign, yet managed to do so in a way that didn't conflict with his 'metacampaign' symbolism (which in many ways resembled Obama's.) He was able to preach centrism and still excite the electorate, because he was able to coordinate his change-oriented 'metacampaign' with his centrist speeches.

How can you talk about school uniforms and still appear dynamic? Bill found a way, by tapping into his own empathetic streak. Because he used school uniforms as an expression of warmth and compassion, rather than rigidity and control, this expression of social conversatism harmonized with the "new-style politics" image he conveyed.

Whether consciously or instinctively, President Clinton found a way to coordinate his campaign message with his metacampaign. The eye contact, the expressions of human concern, the lip-biting - people made fun of them, but they worked. They created harmony between his nonverbal and verbal messages, and brought his audience out of its double bind.

Should Obama start biting his lip? Hardly. Should he respond to falling numbers by going on the attack against Hillary, as he has begun to do? Yes - but carefully. He has to differentiate himself on both substance and symbolism. He has to take on her key differentiator - 'experience,' which as used by her campaign really means 'eight years of proximity to Presidential power.'

That means taking on the DLC-driven politics of the 1990s head-on. That means taking on lobbyists and consultants directly - including Blackwater lobbyists. And that means taking on the Big Dog - that is, Bill Clinton - in the right fashion. Obama's recent attack on "triangulation and poll-driven politics" is precisely the kind of thing he needs to do to gain ground. Yet Obama's kind of change should not be seen adversarial or "political," that is, based on old conflict paradigms. In other words, while his politics will essentially be progressive, he should be conveying this theme: Neither left or right, but up.

So he needs to confront the triangulation issue head-on, as he's doing. And Bill gave him a model he can now use against Hillary: When Bill thanked and "honored" President Bush in their debate for his years of service, it was a loving kiss of dismissal. Obama must eventually find a way to administer the same tender farewell to the former President and First Lady, without alienating them and their supporters, if he is to win the nomination.

But here is what's even more important than any adversarial strategy: Obama needs to introduce some exciting, new ideas that transcend the classic left/right paradigm. He could take on global warming as a cause that defines our national purpose, the way that the WPA did in the 1930's and reaching the moon did in the 1960's. He could adopt a new direction on national security that draws upon the best and not the worst of who we are as a nation.

And there's one issue where Obama has already drawn a clear policy distinction between himself and his rivals, including Sen. Clinton: healthcare. Obama can use the mandate issue, and healthcare in general, to differentiate himself as the "opportunity candidate," a position that fits with his youthful image and future-based orientation.

He also needs to show why he, and not Hillary, would be a better candidate against Giuliani. And lastly, he needs to show how he can excite the Democratic base before Chris Dodd or another dark-horse candidate takes that opportunity from him. (Sen. Clinton can neutralize this kind of threat from Obama and others by shifting her strategy and abandoning triangulation, which would also help align her campaign and metacampaign - but there's no sign at this point that she will.)

Obama needs to reframe his race with Hillary, and he needs to find those core issues that differentiate him from all his competitors. But he needs to act soon. Time is not on his side.

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post

Comments

[Nyland8]

In the nitty-gritty, grass roots universe of political campaigning, we use the word "touches" and we talk about needing a minimum number of "touches", or trying to maximize the number of "touches" a candidate has. Ideally, a "touch" is an actual door-to-door, face-to-face, shake your hand and look-you-in-the-eye type of "touch". But a "touch" can be as simple as seeing the candidates face under a headline in the papers, seeing them on TV, hearing their voice on the radio, a campaign phone call, a flyer in the mail or a campaign e-mail ... even noticing their name on a lawn sign as we drive by our neighbors house.

Each of these "touches" is an opportunity to share the candidate's policy positions with us and leave us with not only a comfortable familiarity with them, but a sense of their electability. Even a lawn sign sends a policy message to the voter, "This is a candidate that your neighbors - the people who share your values, the people whose children go to school with your children - believe speaks for you and will represent you well."

Two kinds of "touches" do NOT have a positive effect because they do not convey information that furthers a candidate's image or shows that they somehow share our values ...

... scandal - a la Larry Craig, swift-boating, negative campaigning, etc

... and "horse race" data - which tells us nothing about a candidate that we find motivating to vote for.

Continued

8

.

[Nyland8]

continued

Hillary has the unfair advantage that many of her husband's "touches" have been passed on to her. She is not a frontrunner because she’s the best candidate. Her position in the pack is tied to Bill’s popularity. She is American royalty, and beating her in the primary is like beating an incumbent. Her campaign has already been gifted with many “touches”.

Conversely, the voters in my little universe have not been "touched" enough by Obama. If he hopes to win the party's nomination, he'll have to find a way to increase his number of touches. Primary voters tend to be 4/4s ... in other words, they vote in every election. He needs to know that he's not running for president yet - he's running for his party's nomination, and there's a difference. It's time Mr. Obama spent all day, every day, appearing at rallies and shaking hands.

There'll be time enough to catch up on his sleep AFTER he's won the nomination. The primary is his biggest battle. Whoever the Republicans nominate will be less trouble to beat than Hillary Clinton.

8

.

[backhandpath]

OK RJ,
Here's an idea:
Obama could announce
in New Orleans
a commitment to build a state of the art
completely dedicated and independent
National Rail and High Speed Rail Transport System networked coast to coast,
centered and Head Quartered
in New Orleans,
as duel
National Recovery & Infrastructure ReInvestments,
on the scale of WPA infrastructure investments,

built of The People by The People for The People
across this great, innovative nation.

Such a huge work project would address 2 Glaring and pervasive problems facing our country over the next 10 years. Obvious problems with obvious solutions.

Such a huge work project would spin off solutions to many other problems as well,
such as Employment both nationally and locally in disaster effected areas, coastal restoration, engineering innovation, manufactur­ing...leas­t of all our dependence on oil for our mass transit needs.

2 Simple ideas with many complex challenges:
*National Rail Transportation-
Infrastruc­ture/Disas­ter Response
*HQ'd and centered in New Orleans-
Infrastruc­ture/Disas­ter Response.

[TheKiddy]

But sorry for sounding like a broken record...JRE has been in New Orleans, he announced in New Orleans, he could have been me, me, me on the Bill Maher show on Friday night (although I think he looked almost too exhausted to care from all that hand shaking and face to face in Iowa and New Hampshire) but he spoke up for New Orleans. You are trying to get Obama to be John Edwards and he isn't. If you could bring yourselves to support a white male Southerner in this race, you could really help change the world.

[Inaru]

He already stood up to the DLC, with principle and practice not belligerence - no PACs, that liberals bemoan so much when it comes to AIPAC! No USIPAC, (yes I want regular Indian people to flourish, but USIPAC is just for elites), modeled on AIPAC, representing India, not the U.S. How to confront without degenerating into name-calling and stalemate? Obama addresses world conflicts prioritizing humanitarian missions, seeks a world conference of Muslim leaders. We want politicians to be boxers when they need to be diplomats. People want democracy to be entertaining, social; they abhor democratic responsibilities, like funds for roads, schools, clinics and hospitals, armies and national guards. If Iowa caucuses weren't such a media event, would as many Iowans take is so seriously I wonder? Good thing they do, let's hope "entertainment" isn't the deciding factor! Obama wants to teach us that real change requires real work and commitment. When we say he's too professorial, do we mean we don't want to learn? He touches on new directions all the time, but media yells"he'll nuke Pakistan/Iran!", wrong, and ignore all the humanitarian proposals and funds he highlights! Even liberal media like Democracy Now and blogs, ignore that Obama has shown real compassion, genuine desire and well-thought-out plans to heal us and those we've bombed with real security: food, health care, housing, education, a path back to a peaceful secure country. His adviser Samantha Power was the darling of the liberal sphere when she won the Pullitzer for The Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide. Now that she's Obama's advisor, it's as if her influence and role as his surrogate don't exist! I keep working, one person at a time, until it hurts; the work gives me back hope and joy, one-on-one, people hear me. That, Obama taught me. I've taken Alice Walker's path - Kucinich in 04, but it's Obama all the way in 08, and no, we don't have time to wait.
http://africanamericans.barackobama.com/page/content/afamhome

[Jonni Rae]

Great blog. I agree with everything. I too have supported him from day one, with money and time, etc. However, the question remains: how to transform a grassroots organization into a national campaign? I am not sure Obama has answered that question successfully. I am particularly concerned about the fact that he does not mention NAFTA, the issue that working people really care about, the Clinton idea that lost us millions of jobs and put the working man and woman in a state of anxiety and hopelessness. Edwards talks about it and lays the blame right where it belongs, on Clinton. Appearing at high schools and colleges is beginning to wear thin, isn't it. Is it only students he plans to represent? The Iraq situation complicates more and more everyday with Syria kicking out the Iraqi refugees, Turkey poised to invade, the news that we have a private army, bigger than our own army, answerable to noone, in Iraq, giving money to Hilary. (Bill used Blackwater during the Bosnia war.) The issue of privatization -- Hilary with her 401 K plan is the first step towards privatizing social securty. He needs to get away from the kids and start talking to adults. He understands the issues; he is brilliant. I think he should go on Bill Maher and challenge him, go toe to toe with him as to why he thinks Edwards would be a better president than he. I think he has accomplished an amazing feat in this primary, transcending race and even party affiliation, but I would not count on Repubs or independents to vote for him on primary day. I too am at the stage of, "Anybody but Hilary" or a republilcan. Unless he attacks on the big issues, NAFTA, WORKFARE and PRIVATIZATION now, unless he can show he understands the changing situation in Iraq, and not keep harping on the fact he did not vote for the war, unless he can beat Hilary in the next debate and show her to be the corrupt, status quo, really anti-feminist that she is, he will not win.

[NoFactsJustTruth]

Campaigning and campaign donations MUST change in the near future, and the legalized bribery system that's currently practiced by lobbyists and corporations brought to an end.

Contrary to the idea that lobbies represent "...real Americans", there's little doubt greater access and favoritism is provided for those that contribute more.


Hmmmmm...greater favoritism for those that contribute more,...


yup, that's BRIBERY alright!

[coonce]

What Obama needs is ENDORSEMENTS from high level people. What he also needs is a SHOCK AND AWE event to happen between now and January.

Polls show that he can beat the Republican candidates just as well as Hillary if not better in some cases. His problem is - Hillary. She's VERY well known and has a husband that many LOVED as President. Obama needs to GET KNOWN and SEEN MORE.

Coonsey’s View
Political Blog and Forum
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

Notice: We’re currently looking for writers willing to post columns for free on our website. If interested, visit the site and click on Send Post. Be sure to add the name you wish to use and the title of the column.

Special News: Be sure to read Donna Brazile’s column she wrote this week. She talks about Democrats and Coonsey’s View’s owner.

[Boadicea]

REally interesting analysis. Thanks.

The thing about Hillary is that she needs no advice from anyone with regard to campaigning. She's obviously doing all the right things.

[CitizenE]

Obama has one big thing going for him, although that one thing would not win him voters in the US. He would buy the nation good will with the developing world, which largely views us now as the scoundrels of the world.

But the inability of Obama and any of the front runners to show any real toughness in the face of the rightwing establishment of this nation is so utterly disheartening. Look, more than half the country really wants to be able to root for someone to lead a change of course, not just the same old, same old grin and nod of the head. Why the Dems running for President aren't hammering away at the facts on the ground, day in and day out; why the leadership in Congress and the Senate seem so mealy mouthed is cause for alarm. As long as the best they can do is play a game of manners, the nation will throw up its hands and let the devil take the hindmost out of our souls. It's enough to make you want Ralph Nader to run for President.
This more than just strategy. This is looking in the eye of the problems we face and calling it the way it lies. This is doing the hard work of shaking a nation sleep walking over the edge awake.

[TheKiddy]

Exactly how is John Edwards not showing real toughnous? Exactly how is he not hammering away at the facts on the ground? His sleeves are rolled up and he is telling it like it is. You said "the front runners". You are falling into the Clinton trap of generalizing across the candidates, you know, "there's not that much difference between us'.

[yann123]

Edwards is showing real toghness . The problem is that the corporate media is not reporting on it!

www.johnedwards.com

People need to just look a little further on...

John Edwards is the only Dem. candidate that can beat a Rep!

[TankerRat]

Possibly. But I'd still place my vote with Bill Richardson although I'd support an Edwards ticket.

If it's Hillary (and this has already been decided at meetings to which none of us was invited why are we wasting all this time and energy) she'll get shellaced in the general.

Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, The RNC, The DNC, Hillary Clinton, and George W. Bush ALL thank you for your continued support.

[mikeodd]

Obama seems content to just skim the surface for now, happily accepting donations without really making a stand on anything. As an African-American POTUS hopeful, he's in a unique position to address the rapidly spreading race problem in this country.
Neglected NOLA, Jena 6, nooses found all over NY... At a time when there's so much to be mad about, he plays it nice and safe.

[MPeter]

On the contrary. Obama is positioned to pick at the right moment as he goes on air with ads and HRC's campaign implodes with illegal and evidently coarsed Chinese Chinese contributions for her campaign. Edwards has already faded and the other Democrats bid their time. Give Obama 3 weeks and see. He is retooling.

[DANIELLECLARKE]

I totally agree.

[TankerRat]

Won't amount to a beer-fart in a Texas tornado. He can "retool" all he wants.

Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, The RNC, The DNC, Hillary Clinton, and George W. Bush ALL thank you for your continued support because that is EXACTLY what you are doing.

[Snakeback]

Obama has a problem that is well known among successful startups: Scaling

He has succeeded at a small level, and now even arguably at the medium level. He has a demographic of progressives that support him. He has shown that he can raise funds.

But what he needs to prove is not so much that he can run a "meta-campaign - but that he can run a MEGA-campaign, because that what it takes to be president these days.

Can he run a Billion Dollar Plus machine? Can he get in every Americans face on prime time TV, on morning time TV, have his face plastered all over buses, wall murals, newspaper front pages on a weekly, but better DAILY, basis.

And can he get a single, simple meme out that convinces people that he's LIKABLE and ELECTABLE.

Notice that there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about policies in all that.

This is because policies come second. If people see you everywhere they go, all the time, and think you're a good guy and think it's realistic for you to win, then you have good shot at it.

AFTER all those hurdles are passed, then SOME folks will show a LIMITED interest in the policies.

The problem with the blogosphere where Obama is so popular, is that they are not the majority demographic. The Blogosphere cares FIRST about policies, and MOST bloggers will reasearch IN DETAIL their candidates, positions, past voting habits on issues, and analyze where he gets campaign money from.

The general public, whose vote you must have by a majority solid enough to overcome even vote tampering, DOES NOT prioritize those things. They prioritize LIKEABILITY, ELECTABILITY, and respond to a TOP NOTCH ADVERTISING MEGA-BLITZ.

If the public cannot be persuaded to buy the brand called "Obama!", all the proof in the blogosphere of how right his policy positions are will not help.

RJ REPLIES:

If Obama is all that popular in the blogosphere -by which I assume the writer means the 'liberal' blogosphere - I certainly haven't seen much evidence of it. I see more bloggers speaking up for Edwards, Clinton, or this past week for Dodd, than I do for Obama. I've tended to see a more "wait and see" attitude toward Obama among lefty bloggers, especially regarding his policy positions.

There are other assertions in this comment that I could discuss, but that's the one that jumps out at me. If the blogosphere has suddenly because Obamaland, I've missed it.

[RalphB]

Hanging out with the gay haters on the concert tour with ex-gay radical right singer Donnie Dwurkin should turn the page for Obama all right.

Sucking up to bigots and giving them a stage is certainly defying conventional wisdom as to how a Democrat becomes president.

[SmackwaterJack]

That was pretty good Mr. Eskow, done like a real pundit or should I say, As a really pundit. Sage indeed!

[mommadona]

It's hard to bite the hand that feeds you under the table.

Not his fault - that's just the way it is with that pathetic oxymoron, The Democratic "Leadership" Council.....has anyone in the REAL Democratic party ever asked them WHO ELECTED THEM LEADERS? Not the rank and file, I can assure you.

I would suggest Obama take on the DLC and the Chamber of Commerce, all at the same time with a focus on the fact that THESE GROUPS DO NOT ACT IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST - ONLY IN THE MULTI-CORPORATE'S INTERESTS.

WE are funding armies WITH PUBLIC FUNDS to FIGHT CORPORATE BATTLES BEST SUITED FOR THAT BOARD ROOM-where they design their business plans in order NOT TO PAY TAXES.

His first 'progressive' move could be the withdrawal of the concept of CORPORATIONS AS INDIVIDUALS, IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, with NO CORRESPONDING RESPONSIBILITIES to the country either ethically or fiscally, because ALL THE ACTIONS IN THE BOARDROOM ARE GEARED TO 'DODGE TAXES'.

Now, THAT would make one heckofa MetaCampaign for the future of this country and it's children.