Senator Obama and John

I hope everyone was as excited as I was to see the first Presidential Debate this past Friday between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain—I mean, between “Senator Obama” and “John.” Glad to be watching and not under the pressure of being on stage, I tried to pay close attention to the framing used by both candidates. (See previous blog entry for a definition of “framing.”) Although the debate never seemed to have a defining moment, in which one candidate clearly won or lost, there were a few things that stood out to me.
John McCain kept using the phrase “Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand.” I lost count of the number of times John McCain said it, and, to me, it seemed like overuse. I assume the goal in using such a phrase is to paint Barack Obama as “inexperienced,” which has been a major argument against Barack Obama for many months. Although, I do believe that the focus on Barack Obama’s “lack of experience” may be trumped by that of Vice-Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin. (I’m sure Saturday Night Live is grateful to her for such rich material.) But despite the fact that I found John McCain’s words rehearsed and repetitive, I believe John McCain’s framing reassured his base and perhaps further drilled into the brain of the public, this idea of Barack Obama’s “lack of experience.”
I’ve been reading the book The Political Brain by Drew Westen, who is a clinical, personality and political psychologist and Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University. Dr. Westen argues that “reason is slave to emotion” (pg. 15), especially when it comes to politics. He writes that when it comes to an election, voters tend to develop an emotional connection to their preferred choice and don’t really use critical thought or reasoning to decide which candidate to support. He’s not talking about Youtube’s Obama Girl who gleefully sings how she’s “got a crush on Obama.” Westen means that this emotion is based on what our values are and how a candidate appeals to those values, and once we develop an emotional connection to a particular candidate, we shape our reasoning to support our emotional connection.
Supporters of Barack Obama hear John McCain’s repetitive rhetoric and probably find it an obviously rehearsed and weak attempt at trying to undermine Barack Obama’s credentials. Supporters of John McCain feel reassured that they’ve chosen the better-qualified candidate with real experience in Washington. Where this sort of framing might truly matter is with the swing voters. How do they interpret John McCain’s words? Do they buy into his framing? We won’t know until Election Day.
Barack Obama had his signature phrase, as well: “John is right…”. This seemed a wise move to me, although criticized by some as foolish for validating his opponent’s viewpoint. I felt that the use of the less formal “John” (rather than the more formal references made by John McCain, who always said “Senator Obama”) combined with an acknowledgement of John McCain having said something of worth suggested a familiarity that did three things: 1) it presented Barack Obama as a colleague and equal of John McCain and NOT somebody who “doesn’t seem to understand”; 2) it presented Barack Obama as someone who is willing to “reach across the isle” and work for the common good; and 3) it made Barack Obama seem more approachable to the average American citizen, who likely feels more comfortable when on a first-name basis.
It is possible that some stark supporters of John McCain may view saying “John” as too informal and even disrespectful of the veteran senator. But then again… our current President Bush, during his campaigns, seemed like “the guy you’d sit down and have a beer with.”