Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Accusing the Accusers: The Left's Losing Strategy & an Alternative
Put yourself in the shoes of the swing voters, especially the independent ones, the folks who are taking Obama and Hillary up and down the polls. These people are vulnerable to guilt by association attacks. Even Obama has trouble understanding and dealing with these attacks; indeed, he's been badly wounded by them--not enough to lose the nomination but enough to make things too close for the comfort he used to enjoy.
Okay, now that you're in their shoes a bit, think how it must feel to them when people publicly vilify Obama's accusers. That counter-attack implies to the swing voters, "Because Obama's accusers are so obviously ridiculous and poorly motivated, you must be ridiculous for even considering their criticisms." Consider a specific kind of swing voter, someone who echoed Hillary's not so subtle accusation against Obama when she said, "I would've left Wright's church." Those people who had been leaning to Obama started also saying, "Why didn't he leave that church?" Again, if Obama and his supporters were to start attacking Hillary for her remark, that would also denigrate the voters swayed by her attack and further alienate them from Obama.
We've got to find an alternative to accusing the accusers and denigrating the accusations by calling them "ridiculous," "too negative" or "gotcha politics." We've got to take the accusations seriously, which is often what Obama does. Unfortunately, when he respectfully deals with the accusations, he isn't very effective. That's because he deals with each accusation piecemeal, argues the facts of each accusation, and sometimes lapses into accusing the accusers and attacking the attacks. But he doesn't have to resort to counter-negativity. Here's what he can do.
He can act like a leader, a statesman rather than like the accused in a public trial. He can rise above the fray by taking on the problem of guilt by association politics, not just his problems with it. He can help us understand that this kind of politics and journalism subverts our democracy.
Instead of indirectly berating people for succumbing to it, he can explain empathically that it is a difficult problem, one that he also has trouble with. He can explain that his serious bout with this problem has led him to try to understand it more deeply and then help Americans evolve out of this difficult trouble. He can give us historical perspective on this problem to further help us accept that it is a serious problem rather than a stupid failing; he can draw an analogy to the McCarthy era and review the recent history of guilt by association politics.
I've covered other steps he can take to complete this elevated talk in previous posts. Perhaps the one I received the highest praise for is, "Obama's Unwitting Condescension Toward Swing Voters and What to Do About It." You can successfully google that title.
Comments (12)
I put myself in a swing voter's shoes.
I jumped off of the Hillary Bandwagon as soon as I heard her outright lie about sniper fire in Bosnia.
You simply cannot compare the guilt by association attacks against Obama to the the sin committed by Hillary.
Hillary also decided to protect herself, politically by voting with the Republicans on Iraq, and on Iran.
Add to the mix that she is running a scorched earth campaign against a fellow Democrat leads me to believe that she is the wrong candidate, at the wrong time, and for the wrong reasons.
May 1, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
As soon as people start feeling as if they have been "the bad guys," they get defensive. Obama is at his best when he rises above the need to make others wrong. I think he did this beautifully in his March speech regarding racism.
However, you offer a sound and useful critique of the way he, and the rest of us, perhaps, handle the politics of negativity.
May 1, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Obama, could and should do those things. But the real problem with our democracy isn't in our leaders, or in the press. The problem is in US. We, the people, are responsible for every inane story obsessed over by the press, and for every scummy candidate that gets elected. Yes, our democratic institutions have a solemn responsibility. But the first and most solemn responsibility is ours.
It is all our own fault. Wasn't it Jefferson who said; we will get the democracy we deserve? Why is this true? Because neither our leaders, nor the press would behave the way they do if we didn't tacitly approve, by continuing to elect them and continuing to view them. If anything is to truly change, WE must change first.
What was it that Obama said from that Hopi prayer; "We are the change that we seek." Some conservative commentators pretended not to understand what he meant by that. They suggested it was some kind of new age elitism. It should not be surprising that the right tries to quickly bury the truth when it rises through the clutter.
Republican power depends on citizens believing we are helpless to change any of our institutions. We must see that it is not these large intractable institutions we must change, its merely our own individual behaviors.
May 1, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
True enough.
Since people do not, however, like being reminded of their own responsibilities in a participatory government, most will continue to blame the press. Many will point fingers at "those others" and comment as to how good things would be if they'd all just go away. And the tax-cutters will insist that when things are good, we must cut taxes, and when things are bad, we must cut taxes, as there is never, in their eyes, such a thing as a public purpose.
Oooh, look, a shiny thing...
May 1, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear JohnDoe:
I guess I should've said put yourself in and stay in the swing voter's shoes for more than a few minutes. The swing voter who is swayed by negative attacks but can be reached is not swayed by counter-attacks against Hillary. We need to find a way to speak respectfully to that person, which, I argued in my post, means that we cannot speak disrespectfully of the accusers that swing voter is listening to and trying to evaluate. Our power is in our respect and empathy; that's Obama's message, Respect is not just a nice way to be. It's the way you get people who aren't in your choir to take you seriously.
May 1, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear new10:
I want to reemphasize the part of my post that explains that guilt by association tactics are difficult to handle, which I think puts the matter mildly. Throughout the Bush Administration, Karl Rove has bedeviled our best democrats and best journalists. Those people haven't had an answer to this problem. During the McCarthy era, devoted intellectuals couldn's unravel the guilt by association problem. So, for me, the problem has nothing to do with responsibility and everything to do with our vulnerability to these attacks. They are difficult to deconstruct, unless of course you already know and believe in Obama. Our vulnerability is a problem that requires a smart solution, not more responsibility or effort.
At this stage in our evolution, there is no compelling response to them, but Obama is probably the best at dealing with it but not good enough. His instincts are good--he empathizes and leadds in his speech on race. He needs to do that again, because we don't have a compelling way of dealing with these attacks, none of us.
May 1, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Preach:
I don't disagree. Obama must combat this as best he can. Guilt by association works best whenever fear can be invoked. Fear, of course, activates the survival centers of the mind and short circuits the rational thinking processes - the better safe than sorry, instinct. Given enough time rational thinking returns. However, he is fighting evolutionary biology on this, I think.
May 1, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Old Grouch:
You are too aptly named, dear Old Grouch. I think your pessimism is understandable but inaccurate. I believe that even hard core sociopaths are eager to make sense and be responsible but only when they are regarded with profound respect and caring. That's what Obama is about, and I think he just needs to deepen this approach to the problem and people will respond, just as they did after his speech on race. He needs to reestablish his genuineness, and the swing voters, the independents will, as they have before, respond as we wish they wold
May 1, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not think that Obama has it in him or his campaign to do as you suggest. Often he simply doesn't get it and, as you note, he responds by attacking the accusing rather than dealing with the issue at hand. This is also so true of many Obama supporters. There is a very self-defeating mindset at play, and almost holier-than-thou attitude that is incredibly counter-productive.
I do think you get it but I just do not see a change possible. I'll bet you cannot even get Obama supporters on TPM to act on your suggestions in their writings supporting Obama.
Matthew
May 1, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Matthew. Its quite apparent that it is our genuine and heartfelt admiration of Obama's character that bothers you the most.
I'm sure you must wish you could feel that way about Hillary's character, but then she hasn't given you much to work with, has she?
There is good new for cynics, like yourself. You need not remain bitter and jealous. C'mon over. Its more fun in the Obamas!
May 1, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The basic problem with many Obama supporters is they start from the premise that Wright is meaningless, not a real problem. They believe its only a problem because (silly, stupid, racist, uneducated, choose an adjective) voters are getting fooled. They are entitled to that opinion but it is not an absolute truth.
Its not simply guilt by association. Obama offered this man to the American public as his spiritual mentor and advisor. In effect he offered him up as a character reference. Same as if you or I were filling out a job application.
The second problem many Obama supporters have is their belief that Wright is right but again some voters are getting fooled by the MSM. Again they are entitled to that opinion but that also is not an absolute truth.
I think Wright is right about chickens coming home to roost. Pretty much right about God damn America but way over the top and offensive in his way of expressing it. Totally wrong about the government inventing AIDS to kill black people and neither Tuskeegee nor the syphilis studies justify it. Totally wrong about Hillary ain't never been called a nigger, Hillary has never had to work twice as hard to get the same grade as the white boy sitting next to her. There are others who might take a harder stance than I and their opinions are as valid as yours or mine.
I, and I think many voters, think Wright is a legitimate issue. Not the only issue, not even the most important issue, but one that is worth considering when choosing who to vote for. Just like a character reference on a job application. That is a valid opinion and no one will ever convince me its not.
Numerous studies have shown that attacking someone for their opinions or attempting to invalidate those opinions only serves to harden people in the opinions. This is a reality that many Obama supporters don't seem to realize no matter what the issue is.
This Wright issue is significant and I doubt its going away. I believe it will affect the votes at the margins perhaps to a large enough degree to swing the election to McCain. Obama and especially his supporters will need to deal with it in ways that I have not seen many able to do thus far on other issues. They will actually need to put into practice that which they preach. That its possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
May 1, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Matthew:
I'm touched by your reaction. I agree that it is near impossible to reach the scorched earth kind of Obama supporter, just as it's impossible to reach the same kind of Hillary supporter. At least, I don't see a few blogs doing that. But I think Obama can do it in the manner I've suggested in the second part of my post.
May 1, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment