Sen. Barack Obama is doing well in his bid for the US Democratic nomination because he has a consistent brand. You didn’t need me to tell you that. He has consistent visuals and a message that hasn’t wavered much. He hasn’t needed to go into depth, as his nearest opponent is saying, because it’s not part of the Obama brand. And he’s not about to change his tune, showing Americans that his visions can be depended upon.
   I see the word Change consistently at Obama rallies, not just spoken by him but plastered on banners and other material. It’s consistently in the same typeface. In fact, his campaign has been clever enough not even to show his name prominently, which might look a little foreign—Change is what appears in bigger letters, Obama taking a back seat. In Texas this week, we normally see Change and Texas on the banners. Not Obama.
   It is a very good political technique and one I highlighted at my keynote for the Alliance Party last October. There, I referred to Tony Blair’s 1997 campaign, similarly about change, along with ‘New Labour, new Britain’. He was light on specifics. John Major, rightly, called Blair a political kleptomaniac. It’s a sentiment echoed last week by one accusation thrown Obama’s way by Sen. Hillary Clinton.
   In the words of Sir Robert Muldoon, when discussing his party’s 1990 campaign against a Labour supporter, ‘How can you say we have bad policies if you say we have no policies?’
   But after years of one type of administration—it could be argued there’s not much difference between the Bush years, the Clinton years, and the Bush years from the point of view of big business—Obama’s catch-cry is a tempting, appealing one.
   Change is something the American people want, so why not vote in someone who doesn’t look like he has played the Beltway game, even if he has been in elected office for longer than Hillary Clinton?
   By being light on the details, audiences fill in their own dreams. The Obama camp, no doubt, argues that a president must inspire and propel an audience to get involved. In the 2000s, this might well be part of the Zeitgeist: participative politics, just as we talk about brands that have the involvement of their audience in shaping their destinies. Obama has stayed on message—and that’s why he chalks up victories.
   In such an atmosphere, McCain and Clinton seem like yesterday’s news, viewfinders on where Americans have been, not the future they feel Obama will allow them to determine on voting day, and in the term to come. Whether or not the future unfolds that way is another subject altogether.

Note: this post is not an endorsement for any candidate. Posted by Jack Yan, 05:54  permalink

comments

Post a Comment  Links to this post