McCain

Something is persuasive, wrote Aristotle in The Rhetoric “because there is somebody whom it persuades.” (Book I, Chapter 2; in the Penguin Classic translation by H.C. Lawson-Tancred this is “Persuasiveness is persuasiveness for an individual”). For Aristotle, persuasion relies on three types of proofs - ethos, pathos and logos; appeals to the character of the speaker, appeals to emotion and appeals to logic.

Senators McCain and Obama need to persuade two audiences: their respective bases and the group of swing voters in the middle. These audiences sometimes need to hear different things from a candidate. Going into the conventions Senator McCain had a lot of ethos with the swing voters, he was seen as a trustworthy man of character. He didn’t generate a lot of pathos, and he didn’t have much ethos with some conservatives (something Palin helped solve, at least for the base – possibly at the risk of the swings). Senator Obama has tons of pathos which brought along the base and tempted the middle – but for many he has fallen short on ethos. This is an argument that McCain (and now Palin) have been making for a while, that Obama is may talk good but he doesn't have the substantive chops to lead the nation.

Presidential campaigns are not decided by logos. When we vote for a president we are not voting on the specific facts of a case. Aside from a relative handful of single-issue voters, Americans vote on an approach to facts rather than on facts themselves – we vote on a point of view on the role of government and on discussions of America’s place in the world.

Recently Obama has been trying to increase his ethos by speaking to smaller crowds, going into policy detail and so forth. He has also been attacking McCain’s ethos, asserting he will do anything to get elected. Obama is telling voters that McCain was once trustworthy but is no longer.

Which brings us to Friday’s debate.

McCain needs to demonstrate some pathos, he has to stir voters without Palin at his side. Primarily he needs to focus on ethos. He has to demonstrate that he can be trusted in trying times, that he “gets” most Americans - and he needs to do so in ways that speak to both the base and swing voters, a tricky task. He also needs to keep attacking Obama’s ethos, making the case that at some base level Americans can’t trust Obama.

Obama has to do the same. He needs to demonstrate that he is a man of character who can be trusted and to go after McCain’s ethos, arguing that McCain will say anything to get elected. At the same time he needs to tamper down the pathos, he needs to recognize that a debate is an intimate setting and not an arena – that he will be in our living rooms having a conversation, not on stage having a concert.

A liberal media group, Brave New Films, is producing anti-McCain ads and distributing them on the Internet. One, McCain’s YouTube Problem Just Became a Nightmare, is an example of what to do right – and what to do wrong – in pushing a message.

The ad is direct and clear – clips of Senator McCain making contradictory or false statements. For most of the ad there is no voice over, just clips of the Senator speaking and clips of reporters correcting him. A clean, clear and direct negative ad.

But at the close, over a black and white picture of Senator McCain red letters appear reading: “The ‘Straight Talk Express Has Derailed’ but the corporate media won’t cover the story.” This is followed by a black screen and the words, “It’s up to you to get the word out. Send this to 10 people and tell them to pass it on.”

The problem is that after 2 minutes and 49 seconds of McCain v McCain, I’m told the problem isn’t McCain at all but rather “corporate media.” This tells viewers the problem isn’t a specific person they can specifically do something about, but rather a nebulous entity that’s running a conspiracy theory of which we are all victims. By introducing a new element at the end the ad undermines its own argument, distracts from the point of what’s being said and by placing blame in a nebulous “them” it dis-empowers the viewer. In addition, the ad would have much more reach if “corporate media” ran it either as news or as a paid ad on broadcast or cable television. Removing the attack on “corporate media” strengthens the main message of the ad, so it shouldn’t be there. The ask at the end (send it to 10 people) is good, it tells me what to do next, easy and doable action. There should also be a second ask – to donate to a fund to put a 30 second version of the ad on the air in battleground states (ideally the clips of McCain saying he doesn’t know much about the economy).

So a plug for a good clean whack at McCain, but a whack for leaping off message and missing and opportunity to raise money to put the ad on television.

This from The Note on the results of the Republican primary in Florida:

"Romney held an advantage over the half of voters who made their decision on the issues, but McCain countered with a strong showing among the remaining half who preferred leadership and personal qualities," ABC's Peyton Craighill and Brian Hartman write in summing up the exit polls.

A reminder that most of us, most of the time, do not make decisions entirely rationally. This is especially true when we vote for candidates. As political scientists John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse note in Stealth Democracy, Americans assume politicians are self-interested, we don't like politics, and we vote to punish those who appear to be cheating. We hate to be taken for suckers, and we are great at sniffing out insincerity. We vote for those who we think are strong, honest and who put problem-solving over politics. And we will vote on our perceptions of these attributes over our expressed interest in the issues.

Just ask passionate Obama supporters about their policy differences with Clinton, or any Democrat who supports McCain about the Senator's position on choice.