Strategy. Innovation. Brand.
Did Mitt Romney Read My Blog?
Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech was notable for one thing that it lacked: he didn’t launch an all-out attack on Barack Obama. Perhaps he’s been reading my blog.
Remember the difference between a debate and a battle? A battle has two sides; a debate has three sides. In a battle, you’re trying to defeat the enemy. In a debate, you’re trying to win over the audience. In a debate, you shouldn’t attack your opponent if you believe that the audience admires him. This is the situation that Romney faced. A lot of Americans (a majority according to polls) like Obama even if they disagree with him. We admire the president or, at least, feel sympathetic to him. If Romney attacked or belittled Obama, many people would think, “Wait… that’s not fair…” Instead of winning them over, Romney would be pushing them away. This was why I wrote a few months ago that it was dumb for Democrats to criticize Ann Romney, who is a very sympathetic figure.
So Mitt Romney took a different tack last night — one that Greek rhetoricians would have admired. Rather than attacking his opponent, he expressed sympathy for him. With messages like “we all rallied around him”, “I wanted him to succeed because I want America to succeed”, Romney expressed his solidarity with Obama supporters. Then he tried to peel them away, saying that Obama’s administration didn’t work out the way we expected. He didn’t fulfill our hopes. Romney used a tone of regret and disappointment rather than anger and attack. His message boiled down to this: “I’m like you… I like the man and I respect him … but it didn’t work out … it’s very sad but it’s OK to change direction”. It may or may not work but it’s a much smarter rhetorical strategy than a head-on attack against a popular opponent. Just ask Sarah Palin.
The Economist Agrees: First is Best
Which idea is best? Most often, it’s the first idea.
I’ve written about the first-is-best bias before. This morning, I was pleased to see that The Economist‘s columnist, Schumpeter, agrees 
with me. This week, Schumpeter reports on new research that finds the first-is-best bias in everything from chewing gum preference to the costs of television advertising (the first ad slot costs more than the second and so on). When people are distracted (and who isn’t these days?), they often go with the first solution they hear.
So what does this have to do with persuasive communication? Two things:
- If you’re trying to persuade an audience that a given idea is best, it’s best to present that idea first. If you need to present several alternatives, present your preferred alternative first.
- If, on the other hand, you want a thorough and balanced discussion of all the alternatives, you need to overcome the first-is-best bias. You can do this through “synchronized” discussions. For instance, you could ask participants to write down their thoughts and submit them simultaneously. Since they’re submitted at the same time, they don’t influence each other. Your job, as the idea coordinator, is to ensure that all the submissions are discussed fully and fairly.
You can find the article that Schumpeter reports on — “First is Best”, by Dana Carney of UC Berkeley and Mahzarin Banarji of Harvard here.
Too Stupid to Save?
I’ve written before about how to recover from foot-in-the-mouth disease but the hits just keep on coming. Over the weekend, Todd Akin, the Republican candidate for the Senate in Missouri made remarks about how a woman’s system can “shut down” and prevent pregnancy in cases of “legitimate rape”. To say the least, his remarks created a firestorm.
Can he recover? There’s an old saying that a verbal gaffe is when you accidentally and unintentionally say what you think. No matter what Akin does now, some people will think, “He said what he truly believes. He can apologize all he wants but he said what he truly believes.” Akin has almost certainly lost these voters.
Can Akin recover other voters? To do so, he needs to do at least three things:
- Recant and apologize forthrightly — he has to change positions, no matter how awkward that may be. And he has to apologize, clearly and without reservation. So far, he hasn’t really done either — saying merely that he “misspoke”.
- Actions more than words — After a thorough and honest apology, Akin needs to be seen working and acting on behalf of rape victims. He could volunteer in health clinics, spend more time with women’s advocates, etc. He has to be seen, not just heard. This might be called the Michael Vick school of image rehabilitation. After Vick spent time in jail for illegal dog fighting, he apologized, recanted, and spent a great deal of time working for dog health causes.
- Change the subject — if Akin successfully completes the first two steps, he will ultimately be able to change the subject and focus on something more to his advantage. The problem is that this takes time and he doesn’t have much time — the election is barely more than two months away. By comparison, it took Tiger Woods — a hero to many — approximately two years to recover his reputation.
My guess is that there’s not enough time for Akin to recover before the election. From a purely political perspective, if the Republicans want to win the election, they need a new candidate.
Activate Your Friends, Energize Your Enemies
In highly political situations, your ability to speak eloquently may actually work to your disadvantage. By speaking forcefully about a political objective, you may activate your friends but thoroughly energize your opponents. Your friends may support your objectives but without a great deal of energy. Your opponents, on the other hand, may be thoroughly alarmed by your presentations and highly 
energized to oppose your initiative. You can provoke a strong immune response from your opponents that can swamp even the best laid plans.
This happens regularly in political situations — especially during election campaigns. When one side speaks for something, the other side is motivated to increase the volume when speaking against it. Even if it’s a perfectly logical proposal, the mere fact that one side is pushing it hard may cause the other side to push back even harder.
Does this happen in business situations? All the time. But in business, the immune response is often cloaked. (In politics, the conflict is right out in the open — which may be healthier). If your business is highly political, you may find that speaking strongly for an initiative simply activates your opposition and weakens your position. If you think that’s happening to you, don’t stop speaking for your initiative but be sure to reach out to the opposition to look for common ground and areas of agreement. You need to make the first move — your opponents are not going to come to you. Look for private, face-to-face meetings with your opponents to clear the air and bridge the gap. You can learn more in the video.
By the way, the book I mention in the video is Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate by France E. Lee. You can find it here on Amazon.
90 Days of Anger
What’s wrong with people laughing? The short answer: they just want to go on laughing. That’s good for teaching but not good for politics. 
People love to laugh. If you’re trying to persuade an audience to your way of thinking, it’s good to get them to laugh. They’ll trust you more and, more importantly, they’ll think, “Oh good, she’s funny. Maybe she’ll tell some more jokes.” If they’re anticipating more jokes, the audience will pay more attention. You can get your point across more easily because the audience is primed and attentive. (By the way, this doesn’t work if you tell lame jokes. You have to tell funny jokes).
So why is this bad for politics? Because in political speeches, you’re aiming to motivate people and humor doesn’t motivate. People who are laughing just want to go on laughing. They don’t want to canvas neighborhoods, call friends, give money, storm the barricades, or even get off the sofa to vote.
The emotion that motivates is anger. That’s why political speeches and advertisements are so angry. The politicians want you to do something. Making you angry (and scared) is the simplest way to accomplish their objective. Making you laugh is counter-productive.
In rhetorical terms, the simplest way to make an audience angry is a technique known as “attributed belittlement”. You tell the audience that your opponent (or competitor) belittles them. “They don’t respect you. They think they’re superior to you. They think they have the right to tell you what to do, because you’re dumb. They’re elite and you’re not.” Sound familiar? No one likes to be belittled, so this is a very effective technique. (I’ve used it myself in commercial competition and it works).
So what can you expect in the 90 days leading up to the presidential election in the United States? A flood of angry messages and, more specifically, a tidal wave of attributed belittlement. If you’re like me, you’ll just want to tune out the whole mess.
This is a different kind of communication than I normally teach. I usually focus on “deliberative” presentations — you present a logical argument and the audience deliberates on it. A political presentation is usually a “demonstrative” presentation — you’re demonstrating solidarity and group loyalty, partially by demonizing the opposition. There’s no need for logic. You can learn more about deliberative and demonstrative presentations here.
My Social Media
