If McCain Has an Advantage, Here's Why

Putting aside all the details of policy and political management (yes, I know I'm reversing myself here, but bear with me)... and taking a broad view of communications... it occurs to me that if the McCain campaign has an advantage, it's this: McCain, however much he talks about change, stands for stability.  And simplicity.  As in, "You don't really need to change anything.  You don't need to make painful choices.  You don't need to accept that things are seriously wrong.  America can go on being America - same as it ever was."  Or put another way, "I'll change Washington but not your life."

I don't favor simple, but simple usually beats complicated.  The risk to Obama is that he comes across as complex and his worldview looks like it means pain for the end user.  As in, "Things are difficult in intricate ways and we need to look at them carefully, and think hard about them, and give up things we like and change who we are in the world."

Want to bet on complexity/pain against the can-do spirit?  I'm not sure I do.  Bad news from my partisan perspective.  We need the surgery but we're going to pick the hair tonic instead.

Then there's Palin.  The other day I was trying to take down Clotaire Rapeille and his archetypes.  Today I'll reverse that, too.  McCain and Palin together look like the wise old man and the young woman.  It's classic Jung food.  Think that isn't going to resonate?

The wise old man goes walking with Sophia and they get together and tell you it's all going to be all right.

The alternative is Scary Exotic Guy.

I'd hate to think The Reptilian Always Wins.

But maybe it does.

Comments

[Albnyc]

Is is too reptilian to suggest that voters tend and want to vote for those whom they believe align with their values? It could be that McCain and Palin resonate better with larger swaths of the country than the urban, bi-coastal and youthful sets can admit.

That's what this election will come down to: what do the "fly-overs" think?

[Alan G. Ampolsk]

Not sure. Your forumlation looks simple, but isn't. Who are the voters and what are their values? Are there really "fly-overs" and "urban, bi-coastal and youthful sets" or are those fictions created by marketers who stand to get rich or powerful or both if they create divisions and oppositions? Are fly-overs genuinely voting their values, or did political salesmen create the idea of fly-overs (and, conversely, urban elites) and tell them what their values ought to be?

If there were "fly-overs," then the middle of the country would be voting 100 percent McCain, and the coasts would be voting 100 percent Obama. Somehow I don't think that's going to happen. The values of the two supposed groups may be a lot closer together than anybody realizes.

The problem with the marketing approach to politics is that it's all just tools, and tools are easy to abuse. I can use a hammer to build a house or beat someone's brains in. And the reptilian may always win but the reptilian is also really easy to manipulate. "Vote your values" or "Be afraid of the scary exotic guy?" It can be hard to tell the difference.