Politics is an unusual marketing battleground. Elections are like one-day close-out sales and are pure winner-take-all.
Governing is a bit different. True, votes come down to a "yes" or a "no," but there is a lot of give and take in between. Still, very often, one side wins and the other loses. This is certainly what has just happened in the health care battle. Barack Obama won and his opponents lost.
Both sides employed sophisticated, data-driven strategies. Why did Obama win and the opposition lose?
I think the answer comes down to this: Obama approached this as a political battle and his opponents approached it as a branding battle. I make my living in branding, but branding only succeeds when it serves a higher mission. I'm not suggesting that opponents of health care reform lacked a higher purpose; they had strong principles guiding them just as the president did. But they relied too much on rhetorical techniques and framing strategies while ignoring some hard realities.
Here are a few points to consider:
1. The Numbers.
During the 2008 primaries, I was impressed by the Obama operation's ability to focus hard on the numbers and to count more carefully than their opponents. Some of this was just fundamental. They counted delegates, Hillary's people counted votes. Delegates were the deciding factor.
Obama was elected with the highest winning margin for a presidential candidate in 20 years. He won states Democrats had not carried since 1964. And they also gave him heavy majorities in both houses of Congress.
We live in a political system that makes change very difficult and gives the minority powerful influence. This is a good thing. But in the end, if you have the numbers, you can get what you want. Obama had the numbers and he knew it. The Republican strategists pretended he didn't and they paid for that misjudgment.
2. Change
People voted for change. Republicans interpreted this as a change from harsh partisanship to friendly cooperation between the parties. But again, that aspect of change was only a small part of the Obama campaign message.
Obama ran on a very distinct platform of moderately liberal Democratic proposals, including a promise of universal health care coverage. When he took office, despite a reserved demeanor in his manner, he meant business when it came to getting what he wanted.
This meant passing some very liberal bills, and that is what he set about to do. (See point #1 for the foundation of this success.)
3. The Argument
The administration approached this effort as the fulfillment of a campaign promise and framed health care reform as solving certain critical problems that had dogged the country for years.
Republicans built their opposition around a brand framing strategy, driven in large part by advice given them by the legendary consultant, Frank Luntz (author of the "death tax' strategy). Luntz believes in the power of framing issues around the right words. He advised Republicans to emphasize "government takeover" instead of health care reform, and to refer to a "government option" instead of a "public option."
To be sure, the Republican attack was based on adherence to core principles. But the strategy was so driven around rhetorical attack that it ignored the political realities: the majority party had lots of votes, had some degree of mandate, and was highly pragmatic.
The conservative commentator, David Frum, addressed this issue with some fanfare, comparing the Republican loss to Waterloo. He noted that the strategy of firing up the GOP base essentially backfired: " We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat."
When the vice president said to his boss, "This is a big fucking deal," he was right. The president and his administration, along with fierce leadership from the Speaker, knew their agenda, new the numbers, and understood the deeper politics.
Branding is always a handmaiden to something bigger. Frank Luntz has flashes of brilliance, but in this case, he let pure branding overplay his hand.
Comments