I am going to make a generalization about martial arts. There are two types of martial arts: disciplines that focus on attacking your enemy (e.g. karate), and disciplines that focus on redirecting your opponent's attacks and using them against him (e.g. judo).
Now I am going to make a generalization about politics. Most politicians practice karate. When political commentators remark that one candidate runs a better campaign than the other, they mean that one candidate is better at karate than the other, better at attacking one's opponent and dictating the terms of the fight.
If you are running a positive campaign, especially one emphasizing change, you can't fight back with karate. It runs contrary to your disposition and your message. It doesn't take many days of attacking to make your supporters feel that you're just another politician using the same negative tactics as every other politician.
Yet you have you fight back, and fight back strongly. The best (and only way, I'd argue) to do this is through judo, using your opponent's attacks against him or her.
I'm obviously talking about karate master Hillary Clinton and judo practitioner Barack Obama. Neither style is morally superior to the other. Politicians choose whatever style best suits their talents and message. Yet the judo style of campaigning is more difficult to execute, and up until a few days ago, Obama wasn't doing a good job at doing it.
For much of the past three weeks, Hillary Clinton's campaign was a step ahead of Obama's campaign. She was controlling the debate, controlling the news cycles, and got Obama to engage in karate for the first half of the South Carolina debate against someone he can never beat with this style.
I have no idea how much of this insider politics stuff influences voters, but it made me worry that his campaign didn't have the cleverness or responsiveness needed to win the nomination. And quite frankly, if his campaign couldn't figure out a way to turn Clinton's attacks on herself, then he didn't deserve to win.
It heartened me several days ago when his campaign first aired the idea that Hillary would do anything to win. That was the right Judo response. One of Hillary Clinton's strengths is that she is willing to do anything to win. This is a good thing. It may be off-putting at times, but if she wins the Democratic nomination and you are a Democrat, you want her to do anything to win. It's too "ends justifies the means" for my taste, but if the only alternative is losing, then it's better than losing.
But Obama was able to reframe this strength as a negative and tie it into a message about how he represented a new style of politics and Clinton an old style of politics. His victory speech after he won the South Carolina primary is a masterful example of a judo response, and made me think that he finally got it.
It's also an inspiring speech that has won admiration even from some conservative Republicans. If you don't have time to watch the whole speech, minutes 4:00-9:00 are a good example of what I wrote about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree completely. He is very convincing. He says every other viable candidate- Republican or Democrat- is from the old establishment and is unable to rally such a diverse group of voters. He argues that other candidates can't be believed when they speak disapprovingly of political ties with lobbyists. I think that's true: other candidates, once elected president, will be immediately burdened with enemies they've accumulated in the opposing party and within their own party. So, would Obama be ushering in entirely new strategies for domestic and foreign policy? In his South Carolina speech he repeats "It's not going to be easy" and mentions there will be setbacks. I can't even imagine how difficult it's going to be. He has proven to be successful with rallying "the people", who I think polls show are mostly moderate. But as president he'll have to rally the congress, which is much more partisan and deeply entrenched in "the old ways". Granted, if the Bush administration had a 75% approval rating instead of a 30% approval rating in the national polls, it would be more difficult to pull moderate conservatives away from the Republican party.
I think the best thing he has going for him is his image as an Honest Abe. Someone who appears determined to unite the country, and has demonstrated an ability to do so in his own fractured Democratic Party. Someone who is determined to have a transparent administration, and has demonstrated this concept in his presidential campaign. Someone who takes a stance on controversial issues, but gives credit to the opposition when he feels it's due. And now for something completely different...
asdfjkl;
Post a Comment