Barack Obama, Storyteller in Chief, has been going around the country making clear what he thinks the choice is in the upcoming election: the Republican position that government is the problem not the solution versus the Democratic position that good governance can matter. As I examined in my last post, he is telling his version of the American story, supporting specific candidates and promoting specific policies, but also giving his account of the recent past and his imaginative understanding of what the alternatives are in the near future. The specifics are interesting.
In Boston, supporting Governor Deval Patrick, the emphasis was on the economy and the kinds of tax cuts and public support that would benefit working people, the emphasis of all his speeches, but then a group in the audience called out: “Fight global AIDS! Fight global AIDS!” And the President improvised around his central theme:
And if they [the Republicans] win in Congress, they will cut AIDS funding right here in the United States of America and all across the world. (Applause.) You know, one of the great things about being a Democrat is we like arguing with each other. (Laughter.) But I would suggest to the folks who are concerned about AIDS funding, take a look at what the Republican leadership has to say about AIDS funding. (Applause.) Because we increased AIDS funding.
He was highlighting a distinctive position that Democrats share in contrast to their Republican opponents, public investment can contribute to the common good, especially in difficult times. And he makes his basic argument by citing the greatest of Republican authorities. (link)
But in the words of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, we also believe that government should do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. (Applause.) We believe in a country that rewards hard work. We believe in a country that encourages responsibility. We believe in a country where we look after one another; where we say I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper. That’s the America we know. That’s the choice in this election.”
In Portland, environmental commitment was given a little bit more prominence. In Seattle, he included in his list of accomplishments the withdrawal of 100, 000 troops from Iraq. “Because of you (who supported him and the Democrats) there are 100,000 brave men and women who are back from a war in Iraq.” In many speeches he denounces “All this money pouring into these elections by these phony front groups — this isn’t just a threat to Democrats; it’s a threat to our democracy,” as he did in Los Angeles, frontally criticizing the results of the Roberts’ Court 5 to 4 decision in the Citizen’s United Case. But in L.A., he went on to declare: “which shows you how important it is who’s making appointments on the Supreme Court. I’m proud I appointed Sonia Sotomayor. (Applause.) I appointed Elena Kagan. (Applause.)
And in Las Vegas he ended very strongly, supporting the Nevada Democratic candidates, especially Harry Reid, with quintessential Obama rhetorical passion:
Look, change has always been hard in this country. This country was founded when 13 colonies came together in a revolution that nobody believed could happen, except they believed. They founded this country on ideas that hadn’t been tried before: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal — (applause) — that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (Applause.)
Nobody believed that the slaves could be free — (applause) — except they believed.
Folks didn’t believe that women could win the right to vote, except women believed. (Applause.)
Nobody believed that we could get workers’ rights, except workers believed. (Applause.)
There were a lot of folks who said we would never get civil rights. But we got civil rights because somebody out there believed. (Applause.)
Imagine if our parents, our grandparents, our great-grandparents had said, oh, this is too hard; oh, I’m feeling tired; oh, I’m feeling discouraged; oh, somebody is saying something mean about me. (Laughter.) We would not be here today.
We got through war and depression. We have made this union more perfect because somebody somewhere has been willing to stand up in the face of uncertainty; stand up in the face of difficulty. That is how change has come. (Applause.) And that’s the spirit we have to restore in 2010. (Applause.)
And if all of you are going to go out and vote, all of you knock on doors, all of you are talking to your friends and neighbors, I promise you we will not just win this election, we just won’t elect Harry Reid, but we are going to restore the American Dream, the Vegas dream, the Nevada dream, for families for generations to come.
God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.
Obama went full steam there and then, perhaps, because Reid is not a particularly expressive political speaker. Perhaps it was because Reid has been a key player in the accomplishments of the past two years, as Obama sees it. The way he supported him sums up what Obama has been doing on the campaign trail, indeed what he has been doing since he gave his speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004, telling his story as a way to guide the American story. I suspect that this will guide him and the Democrats and the nation in meaningful ways in the coming years, though I doubt it will prevent significant Republican gains on Election Day. How big the gains are will reveal the power and limits of Obama’s storytelling around the country.
I thought it was insightful of my son, a first-year at U of Chicago, to point out what he believed was the important moment of Obama’s appearance and speech in Chicago Saturday: “Highlights of his roughly 30 minute speech include comparing the Republicans to drivers who drive a car down a ditch then don’t help to get it out…” Obama’s story includes having to continually respond to 2 years of political/media-byte attempts to suck the wind out of a movement (and a public) excited about substantive change at the level of policy (not rhetoric).
Story telling can be an extremely useful form for helping a leader communicate a vision. This is the easiest part. The hardest part is building consensus around the vision. This is largely dependent upon people discussing it and helping shape it. Internalizing is much more effective than asserting it. This is a real challenge with large numbers of people, and is easier to accomplish in small groups.
Story telling also has some inherent problems with it. For instance, war stories frequently stretch the truth, and sometimes are mere fabrications. Those who work with war stories understand this, and are cautious in using them. The war story analogy comes to mind because of the word campaign. It is used to describe aspects of both wars and elections. Even during this election cycle we have heard the president use the terms friends and enemies.
Because of the nature of story telling, in the interest of searching for factual truths as suggested by Arendt, it is very helpful to have transcripts in context, and be willing to ask the sociologically important question “says who,“ as suggested by Berger and Luckmann.
If we were to apply this perspective to story telling transcripts, it would be useful to identify “says who” when an assertion is made. I began trying to do this with President Obama’s statement on HIV/Aids; however, I wasn’t able to identify an official Republican Party statement on the assertion. It would be helpful to have links to statements that support assertions made in story telling. This may be impractical. It is time-consuming work, and most assertions made in political speech lack specific “says who” components.
One thing that story telling should do is set up the conditions to help solve major problems. This is best done when the vision is clear, persuasive and supported by factual truths.
The conundrum in this election cycle is that huge problems exist and aren’t being addressed. To accomplish our social objectives, the nation must be solvent. The absolute amount of the nation’s debt is not sustainable over time, and the trajectory of it is problematic. This is a Gordian Knot of huge proportions. To deal with joblessness, significant economic growth is necessary. This is the same kind of growth that can also help generate significant tax revenues. If economic growth will not solve the problem, then tax increases will be needed, but increases in taxation tends to slow economic growth. The magnitude of our national debt may require cutbacks in spending; however, the funded and unfunded liabilities are so large they cannot be dealt with through cutbacks in discretionary spending. What that leaves is defense and most of the social programs.
Story telling and a clear vision should provide guidance in how to address the problem. Solution may be painful, and probably can be implemented only if there is substantial consensus generated around the solutions. Unfortunately, these issues aren’t being addressed in this election cycle as far as I can see.
Obama hits the stump for 2010 candidates « Deliberately Considered…
Here at World Spinner we are debating the same thing……