So, the Obama campaign has responded to the economic crisis with a 2
minute commercial outlining his economic proposals to reform the
banking industry while throwing a lifesaver to the middle class.

I
think it's a great move--define the event and set the parameters for an
appropriate response. It works by using two foundational and ancient
rhetorical concepts.

The first is kairos,
or the opportune moment for speech. The kairotic moment may either be a
response to an exigent situation or it may be constituted through
effective speech. I think the economic ad is more in line with the
latter than the former; while the immediate event is the Lehman
Brothers collapse and AIG bailout, the spot makes these individual
events part of a broader thrust of history--a crisis point brought on
by irresponsible policy.

The ad does not simply define the
moment, it also outlines what sort of response is "called for" by the
event. In this case, the Obama campaign suggests that sober and
cooperative action rather than divisive speechifying is the proper
response to such a far reaching crisis. This is the second rhetorical
concept, to prepon or in Latin decorum,
both meaning appropriateness. Speech which goes beyond the appropriate
cannot persuade, though speech that persuades may constitute what is
appropriate.

What?!

If a response garners support from
the audience, it builds a new sense of what speech can or should do.
The "unprecedented event" that is the kairotic moment calls for speech
that gives us guidelines in an uncertain world. It gives us the tools
to negotiate contingency. The kairotic moment makes possible certain
actions or proposals that might otherwise have seemed out of reach.

A
concrete example from the spot may help. In an election year, voters
are accustomed to being pandered to. We are the best nation in the
world, we are smart and capable people, we deserve a candidate who will
wine and dine us and make us feel special! We're also used to the
politics of division and fear in order to draw stark lines between
candidates.

Now, both of these tend to favor Republicans (or at
least incumbents). What the new two minute spot does is argue that this
moment in history calls for bipartisan discourse and cooperation (and
thus the "new McCain" of fear and smear are inappropriate responses)
while also setting up the frame for challenges ahead. It actually
calls, in an oblique way, for sacrifice rather than excess.

Strategically
speaking, this should be a home run. If Obama and the rest of the
campaign are successful in their framing of the moment, then the McCain
campaign's goal of getting this race down in the mud (where Rovian
politics works) will be seen as backwards and obstructionist. McCain
"won't get" this moment in history and its demands upon a new
president. In fact, these tactics will look more like the
problem--splitting the country apart rather than uniting in the face of
a shared disaster. This also makes the Palin nomination a greater
liability--not only is she intensely divisive particularly when
compared to Biden, her lack of experience and inability to speak
fluently about the economy makes her look unprepared for the vast task
at hand.

It also makes any defensive responses to McCain attacks
more persuasive. There will be criticisms of the Obama approach (and
Republicans will HAVE to answer the policy proposals because they are
the centerpiece of the ad), but if Obama is successful at defining the
moment, it is easy to respond that such a crisis demands more than
piecemeal reform and empty platitudes. "We never said it would be easy,
but we have faith in the American people..."

The McCain response
has been one of scapegoating, of placing blame on a few bad apples. The
Obama ad, however, paints a broader picture of systemic failure. This
message must make it through to the American public. I think that the
mortgage crisis has been drawn out enough to make the scapegoating
argument less credible, but it is always easier to point to a few
exceptions to the rule than take on a vast entity like the whole of the
banking industry. McCain's insistence that "the fundamentals are
strong" helps the Democrats, for sure, but this is an opportunity for a
big play, not a success in itself. We have to show that the
fundamentals, the very building blocks of the economy (namely low wages
as Scott Lilly
so ably argues) are not strong, in a concise and easy to understand
way. I think Lilly's argument works because it's so intuitive: What do
you do when productive workers are making boatloads of products but
aren't being compensated enough to actually buy them? You give them
easy credit to buy the things they actually should be able to afford
without borrowing money. You let corporations reap the profits and
enjoy tax breaks, running an entire economy on ballooning debt of
average Americans. Then you fiddle about lipstick and sexy
kindergarteners while the whole thing burns.

Next time: Charts are awesome