Campaigns Aren’t Conversations
by Patrick Ruffini :: February 20th, 2007 11:50 pm“Campaigns are conversations.” If I hear this one more time, I swear my head is going to explode. Campaign 2008 already has its most overused cliche, at least among us techie types.
“Let the conversation begin,” blares Hillary Clinton’s Web site. “Start the conversation,” says Chris Dodd’s. “This campaign is about YOU,” proclaims Barack Obama’s. Jeff Jarvis has a new blog on Presidential video dedicated to the Platonic ideal of campaigns as a neverending bull session with the voters.
Problem is, I don’t get the point of this exactly. At some level, this seems like no more than a basic transposition of Doc Searls’ “markets are conversations,” which is brilliant as applied to business because markets are inherently leaderless. It’s trickier to apply this pure and abstract ideal to politics where the voice of the people matters but where voters can and do evaluate candidates as leaders who stand on principle and don’t just do things because they’re popular.
On another level, I don’t see how any of this is new. The ideals of candidates listening to voters, answering questions, or holding town halls where even hostile questioners get their say isn’t exactly new. Politics in America has featured some element of conversation since right about the Boston Tea Party, and Iowa and New Hampshire living rooms are arguably pretty darn representative. Candidates who don’t have some sense of how to interact with regular people usually face prospects far worse than an unfavorable review on TechPresident. It’s called losing.
Candidates need to know how to converse. But they also need to know how to lead. They need to be able to stand on principle, even if that means telling everyone that they’re conversing with, “Sorry, but you’re wrong.” When America is under attack, I don’t want my President to have a conversation with me. I want him to lead.
Ronald Reagan, JFK, and FDR inspired the country with soaring rhetoric that belied the latter’s casual-sounding Fireside Chats. In the history books, they stand in marked contrast to conversational leaders like Bill Clinton, who wasn’t exactly known as a man of bold principle. Last November, I was on a panel with Robert Moran of StrategyOne, who remarked that Reagan would have made a great Internet candidate. I couldn’t agree more. Why? Because he genuinely inspired us. He came up from the people, not from Washington. And yet Reagan was the master of the set piece, not the conversation. His radio addresses that made him President and his greatest speeches once he got there were not the product of a conversation or a committee, but lonely brilliance jotted down on yellow legal pads.
In the age of new media, the worst thing someone can be guilty of is being inauthentic. That’s not exactly a new insight either, but the YouTubeization of politics amplifies a candidate’s past twists and contradictions many times over. That means you don’t have a “conversation” with someone that’s really a monologue. Most of Hillary Clinton’s invitations to “chat” are immediately followed by a fade to black. Faking a conversation is worse than not having one at all.
I’m involved in online politics because I think the Internet can help unpack the spin, get smart people involved who wouldn’t otherwise played a role, and show candidates as they really are, through a medium that’s truer and more expansive than 30-second ads or 8-second soundbites. The first rule of thumb governing all of this is don’t ever try and be something you’re not. If your candidate is a man of deep conviction with a clear sense of what they want to accomplish, don’t pretend they are going to lead by plebiscite and practice democracy by Web chat.
Don’t get me wrong here. I don’t think candidates should live in bunkers (because if you do, you lose). Blogs, wikis, social media, wisdom of crowds — all of that, I’m there. But at some point the conversation has to end and leadership has to start. I want candidates who are real, and tell me stuff I don’t already know — not just what I want to hear.
And that’s ultimately the road this new therapeutic, conversational culture is leading us down: getting candidates to bend to the prevailing winds and hence not being leaders at all.
Tagged: conversation 
hillary clinton online politics ronald reagan strategy
Comments (13) 
Trackbacks (5) 
del.icio.us 
digg it 
subscribe
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
You want a candidate who is real? And you liked Ronald Reagan?
Excuse me? He was an actor. He was never real, everything was smoke and mirrors.
And you think he was the master of speechwriting, from what you wrote? No, he just delivered the words written by others.
He knew how to deliver a line. By lumping him together with people who actually were thoughtful, such as JFK or FDR, or even Richard Nixon (tho his thoughts were pernicious and paranoid, he did think) you do them a huge disservice.
Reagan was a good man. He did well during his presidency, in sharp contradistinction (as they say) to the current occupant.
As for the rest of your post, it’s pleasant to fantasize that those who seek political power in this country would be motivated to speak the truth to us instead of just pandering to whatever base they think they can turn out. Please don’t confuse that fantasy with anything real.
Yes, the computer allows me to come here today and share a story:
On Feb. 17th, I attended an event in Florida which featured Dick Morris as one of the speaker. Most of the people in the audience were intersted in what he said about the 2008 race and mostly about the two women often mentioned as becoming the first woman to become president. He was very interested in our efforts at Think Condi to promote Secretary
Rice as our next president.
A few of the comments by Dick Morris are posted on our website’s blog on
at:
www.thinkcondi.net
Dick said Condi should be the one to break the gender gap to the White
House rather than because of who she is married to. He also agreed that our efforts are valuable and would add credibilty if she were chosen as VP in 2008.
With our group, in addition to saying that Condi Rice needs to be a candidate in 2008, at times, we also have to defend Condi Rice against some negative reports and comments made in the media; like Barbara Boxer, Susan Estrich and Donald Trump. It was good to see conservative radio hosts come to her side as well about the single woman issue.
Right now, while she is in the Middle East, it is exciting to witness Condi’s efforts in Israel, Germany, or Jordan. Her “Shuttle Diplomacy” has been blossoming over the past months to broker agreements between Russia, Japan, S Korea and China to bring pressure upon N Korea to come to the table over the weapons issue.
Many of our efforts have been to inform people about the stand of Condi Rice on other important issues. For example, sSome people are not aware that Condi is a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment or that she grew up in segregated Alabama; during horrible church bombings. She has faced hardships yet her parents helped her become a strong person with the confidence needed to face the dangers in the world.
The WMUR New Hampshire poll shows:
McCain 32%
Rudy 19%
Romney 15%
Condi 10%
The Bow Picnic of the Republicans in New Hampshire shows:
Condi 26%
McCain 26%
Rudy 14%
USA Today/Gallup of November 17, 2006
Rudy 28%
McCain 26%
Condi 13%
Newt 7%
Romney 5%
Our National Director is Richard Holt from Ohio. He said during a radio show interview last week that these poll numbers are without spending $10,000 a month to promote her as president. It can be seen in the polls that the Republican voters see her as standing by OUR president and helping him settle some foreign policy issues. People have high respect for her and she is the highest ranked person from the White House in job approval.
Charles says:
“Reagan was a good man. He did well during his presidency, in sharp contradistinction (as they say) to the current occupant.”
What a gallant thing of you to say Charles. I especially like how you try to contrast Reagan’s performance with that of GW Bush (”As they say”, indeed!). History will judge him better than the left wing media does right now. You also praise the thoughtfulness of JFK and FDR. Thoughtfulness?! Maybe they were thoughtful in trying to figure out ways to hide their respective extramarital affairs.
The point is that people follow leaders not because they are thoughtful, but because they lead. While I am a fan of Bush, the places I fault him are where he has let others lead.
One more thing about Reagan. Remember that he was not only an actor, but also a leader. To call him just an actor and to say he had few thoughts of his own is not facing reality. You, Charles, did not know Reagan personally, so it is very easy for you to say it. Congratulations on getting someone to comment at such length on such a non sequitur.
JFNK: I did not say Reagan was “just an actor.” To claim that I did and then argue against that is an example of the logical fallacy known as “the straw man”.
Since I expressed only opinions, there can have been no “non sequitur”. Impressive that you know the term. It would be even more impressive if you had a clue as to what it meant.
Speaking of non sequitur, to say that someone is a leader because they lead is an example of another logical fallacy, “assuming the conclusion.” As a metaphor, I’ll allow it. As argument, it’s not gonna work.
As for history judging “him” (you were speaking of both Reagan and Bush, but I assume you meant Bush) — Bush reached his pinnacle of respect in about 2004, and from here on out I think it’s all going to be downhill. Frankly, I don’t think history is going to judge either Bush II or Reagan very positively.
“Some experts say the budget could achieve balance in the short run of the next few years. In unveiling its proposed budget this month, the Bush administration forecast black ink on the federal ledger in 2012. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in its recent annual outlook, also shows a surplus for that year.
A year ago, the CBO’s forecast for the 2007 fiscal year called for a deficit of $270 billion. In the annual outlook released last month, the 2007 gap is projected at $172 billion.
“Right now, we’re in some sense in a relatively good spot,” says Jim Horney, a budget analyst at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank in Washington. “We’re in the sixth year of an economic expansion,” a time when federal revenues often rise along with a growing economy.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0221/p01s03-usec.html
I guess you’re right Charles. Historians will excoriate Bush for bringing the deficit down during his term. The article dutifully mentions the uncertainty of the future, but didn’t many Democrats (who NEVER want more spending, of course) slam Bush on budget deficits. Oh well.
charles is seriously ill-informed
Reagan wrote most of his speeches in longhand. He spent 8 years from 1954-1962 giving thousands of speeches to hundreds of thousands of people in close to all 50 states.
he wrote the time for chooosing which is still the most succesful campaign speech in US history(or #2 to the cross of gold)
he wrote and delivered hundreds of radio speeches in 1975-1976 on all the issues that built him up for 1980
it was derision like Charles’ that let Reagan win the 2 most overwhelming EV college wins of the past 30 years and leave office with a 70% approval rating.
keep up the good work, chas.
“Markets are conversations” is a fully formed concept backed up by a book and years of discussion. Those three words summarize a well thought out philosophy.
“Campaigns are conversations” essentially means everything and nothing. It sounds deep but when put up inspection it means whatever the reader/listener wants it to mean. It is a vapid statement. That’s why it is a good campaign slogan.
Actually, I don’t say that campaigns are conversations. In the end, a campaign must be propagandistic: It must be the candidate getting his or her views spread, which includes making your allies spread them for you. The only thing two way about the Dean campaign was the organizational end (’hey, kids, let’s invade Iowa’). The messaging was and inevitabley is one-way, once the candidate has a stand — and once the campaign has begun, he or she better. I don’t use propaganstic pejoratively; it’s reality.
Having said that, you’re also right that candidates must listen and there are new ways to listen. So they can be more conversational.
But my real point about the use of YouTube et al is that it allows the candidates to act more conversationally, to look us right in the eye on our small screens after we’ve clicked and talk to us quietly, at a human scale, not from a big platform in a huge crowd. Maybe, just maybe, it also allows us, the voters, to be heard better. But we’ll see.
jfnk:
The fact that the projected budget surplus is predicated on Bush’s inability to get his tax cuts made permanent will no doubt go to Bush’s credit in your book.
jim,
So the fact that Carter’s perceived mis-handling of the Iran hostage crisis (which may have been deliberately prolonged by GOP operatives) wouldn’t have had anything to do with the results in 1980?
It’s not my goal to malign Saint Ronnie or Dubya. If you prefer your delusions as to their ability, keep them. Just don’t expect them to be shared.
Back to the conversation at hand. The attempt to portray Hillary as engaging in a “conversation” is a rather transparent attempt to counteract her negative perception as cold and calculating. Won’t work, but there it is.
Charles, Jim, Crystal, and JFNK
Perhaps you don’t realize it, but this was a post about campaigns not being conversations. Not about Reagan or Kerry or Carter or Condi.
One may disagree or disagree with Patrick’s politics, but let’s take a look at his overall point. At some point, a candidate has to lead…they have to take a stand (and stances) to, at the very least, set the tone for the conversation. Of course the candidate should engage the public in some sort of dialogue…more than a commercial with a voice over “a strong America, great schools, and he’ll hold the line on taxes”.
I mean, when Barack Obama says this campaign is about YOU…of course it is. But it’s also about him. But if he (or Rudy or Mitt) or any other candidate that is currently more image than reality doesn’t define themselves and hides behind ‘conversations’ then they won’t last.
One thing that drives me crazy about the political scene is that so many people are ready to fight solid non-political points because of how they are politically.
[…] Patrick Ruffini has a really interesting post, entitled “Campaigns Aren’t Conversations.” Talking about the latest trend of “campaign = conversation” being employed by Hillary “Let the conversation begin” Clinton (among others), he states that winning campaigns don’t spark conversations, they spark drive, energy and leadership. […]
[…] Maybe Patrick has a point. digg_url='’; digg_bgcolor=’#FFFFFF’; digg_skin='’; Powered by Gregarious […]
[…] Tricks, Dirty Politics, Campaign promises by Kathy at 15:53 on Feb 23rd, 2007 | | Trackback URL | Print This Post | No Comments» […]
[…] Politicians love to talk about courage and leadership as a means to overcome public opposition to their policies. As conservative columnist Patrick Ruffini puts it, “[Politicians] need to be able to stand on principle, even if that means telling everyone that they’re conversing with, ‘Sorry, but you’re wrong.’” Of course the elephant in the room is that leadership only works if you know what you’re doing, and everyone you’re conversing with is in fact wrong. Leadership quickly turns to a fault if you refuse to deal with your critics out of stubbornness, arrogance, and ignorance. It’s also dangerous when ignoring your critics (sorry, leading your subjects) is really about trying to salvage a failed foreign policy while compounding the error through escalating American involvement in a guerilla conflict. […]
[…] Just look at the narrative of the ad: Hillary’s “conversation” is really a monologue. That’s true, but it’s hardly the stuff of 1,000 GRPs. I’ve written about it. But before this video, it wasn’t a message that resonated anywhere beyond the technoconsultant class. Lo and behold, the video hailed from that select group. […]