How to Frame the 2008 Campaign

Barack Obama just telegraphed the entire 2008 election. He revealed the only campaign theme that McCain can successfully employ. Here’s what Obama said:

“So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me… What they’re going to argue is I’m too risky.” Associated Press [1]

As we fight over individual issues in this election season, let’s not lose sight of the big picture. Unlike partisans, persuadable voters are not much interested in candidates’ specific issue positions. Issues don’t matter to them unless they are illustrative of a larger theme. (And remember, you’re hearing this from someone who works on issues every day—like all of these [2].)

What kind of theme persuades undecided voters?

The theme of the 1992 Clinton campaign was “the economy, stupid.” You knew that! James Carville and company turned that election into a referendum on the question of which candidate would better repair the nation’s economy. It’s the question that mattered. If, by voting, Americans were answering that question, then Bill Clinton was the obvious choice. If voters thought their ballots were answering the question “Who’s best on foreign policy?” Bush would have been the answer. So the Clinton campaign highlighted economic policies, not as a laundry list but as illustrations of its “the economy, stupid” theme.

Similarly, the theme of the 2004 Bush campaign was strength. Karl Rove knew that Americans were deeply affected by 9/11; their sense of security had been shaken. He also knew that George Bush was perceived as a strong leader, someone who was supremely confident of his direction (even when all evidence pointed the opposite way). So Rove set out to frame the election as a referendum on which candidate was stronger. While Bush played the macho cowboy, his campaign pulled out all the stops to portray John Kerry—who won a Bronze Star, a Silver Star, and three Purple Hearts for his service in Vietnam—as a weakling.

The book Take It Back [3], by Carville and Paul Begala, includes a heart-breaking account of behind-the-scenes decision making in the Kerry campaign. Kerry focused on a laundry list called J-HOS, which stood for Jobs, Health Care, Oil, Security. As Carville and Begala lament:

“That, of course, is a litany, not a narrative. Calling ‘J-HOS’ a message is like calling a supermarket full of food a gourmet meal.”

Despite impassioned pleas by both authors, Kerry would not adopt a frame. Carville and Begala explain that this played right into the Bush strategy of defining John Kerry as “weak, waffling, and weird.” The Bush attack worked—Kerry was painted as a cartoon image of a liberal—because voters didn’t know what Kerry stood for, really. Moreover, they believed he didn’t know himself. (Don’t your ears still turn red just thinking about 2004? What a nightmare!)

That brings us to 2008. What is McCain’s theme? How would he like to frame the question that the voters answer on Election Day? It’s fear! Which candidate are you afraid of? Which is the greater risk? Which is inexperienced in a time of terrorism and war? Granted, this is a pretty pathetic reason to vote for McCain—but it’s the only thing he has. McCain can’t win based on a positive message. Nobody believes he’ll change anything in Washington; just about everyone realizes he would continue Bush’s policies. That explains McCain’s recent campaign tactics, including going so negative so soon. He can’t win any other way.

Accept the fact that persuadable voters are uncomfortable with Obama at present. Because they’ve been paying little attention to the campaign until now, they hardly know who he is. (At a recent focus group of undecided voters, I watched behind the one-way mirror as one participant insisted that Obama is a minister.) If McCain and his pals spend enough money on it—and his friends in the media repeat charges instead of debunking them—their tactic could succeed.

Obama’s theme is change. You knew that, too! Americans are fully aware that our country is careening wildly down the wrong road. They desperately want change. But change is, by definition, risky. Change is scary. That’s why Obama has been trying so hard in recent weeks to act and speak like a mainstream candidate. That’s why he’s veered away from some of the populist language he used in the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries, and gone back to the values-based language used in his books. It sounds reassuring; it counters the McCain fear-mongering.

Terrorism and war are the issues that best fit McCain’s theme because persuadable voters remain fearful that their families could be killed by terrorists. Seriously! According to a recent CNN poll, 35 percent of Americans think “acts of terrorism in the United States” are very or somewhat likely “over the next several weeks.” In another poll, nearly 40 percent responded that they are very or somewhat worried “that you or someone in your family will become a victim of terrorism.” See both polls here [4]. So expect McCain to come back to life-and-death issues again and again.

Domestic economic issues best fit Obama’s theme. If we make the election about changing the way our nation addresses education, energy, health, housing, infrastructure, trade, and wages, Obama—and progressive candidates across the nation—will win.

So let’s all do our part by repeating the change mantra while trumpeting these issues. But let’s also frame our policies as mainstream and commonsense, so persuadable voters will understand that we offer nothing they need to fear. How? The talking points can be found right here at our Making Sense 2008 website [2].

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the recent book, Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People [5].