Capturing the event: the opportune moment and appropriate word

So, the Obama campaign has responded to the economic crisis with a 2 minute commercial outlining his economic proposals to reform the banking industry while throwing a lifesaver to the middle class.

I think it's a great move--define the event and set the parameters for an appropriate response. It works by using two foundational and ancient rhetorical concepts.

The first is kairos, or the opportune moment for speech. The kairotic moment may either be a response to an exigent situation or it may be constituted through effective speech. I think the economic ad is more in line with the latter than the former; while the immediate event is the Lehman Brothers collapse and AIG bailout, the spot makes these individual events part of a broader thrust of history--a crisis point brought on by irresponsible policy.

The ad does not simply define the moment, it also outlines what sort of response is "called for" by the event. In this case, the Obama campaign suggests that sober and cooperative action rather than divisive speechifying is the proper response to such a far reaching crisis. This is the second rhetorical concept, to prepon or in Latin decorum, both meaning appropriateness. Speech which goes beyond the appropriate cannot persuade, though speech that persuades may constitute what is appropriate.

What?!

If a response garners support from the audience, it builds a new sense of what speech can or should do. The "unprecedented event" that is the kairotic moment calls for speech that gives us guidelines in an uncertain world. It gives us the tools to negotiate contingency. The kairotic moment makes possible certain actions or proposals that might otherwise have seemed out of reach.

A concrete example from the spot may help. In an election year, voters are accustomed to being pandered to. We are the best nation in the world, we are smart and capable people, we deserve a candidate who will wine and dine us and make us feel special! We're also used to the politics of division and fear in order to draw stark lines between candidates.

Now, both of these tend to favor Republicans (or at least incumbents). What the new two minute spot does is argue that this moment in history calls for bipartisan discourse and cooperation (and thus the "new McCain" of fear and smear are inappropriate responses) while also setting up the frame for challenges ahead. It actually calls, in an oblique way, for sacrifice rather than excess.

Strategically speaking, this should be a home run. If Obama and the rest of the campaign are successful in their framing of the moment, then the McCain campaign's goal of getting this race down in the mud (where Rovian politics works) will be seen as backwards and obstructionist. McCain "won't get" this moment in history and its demands upon a new president. In fact, these tactics will look more like the problem--splitting the country apart rather than uniting in the face of a shared disaster. This also makes the Palin nomination a greater liability--not only is she intensely divisive particularly when compared to Biden, her lack of experience and inability to speak fluently about the economy makes her look unprepared for the vast task at hand.

It also makes any defensive responses to McCain attacks more persuasive. There will be criticisms of the Obama approach (and Republicans will HAVE to answer the policy proposals because they are the centerpiece of the ad), but if Obama is successful at defining the moment, it is easy to respond that such a crisis demands more than piecemeal reform and empty platitudes. "We never said it would be easy, but we have faith in the American people..."

The McCain response has been one of scapegoating, of placing blame on a few bad apples. The Obama ad, however, paints a broader picture of systemic failure. This message must make it through to the American public. I think that the mortgage crisis has been drawn out enough to make the scapegoating argument less credible, but it is always easier to point to a few exceptions to the rule than take on a vast entity like the whole of the banking industry. McCain's insistence that "the fundamentals are strong" helps the Democrats, for sure, but this is an opportunity for a big play, not a success in itself. We have to show that the fundamentals, the very building blocks of the economy (namely low wages as Scott Lilly so ably argues) are not strong, in a concise and easy to understand way. I think Lilly's argument works because it's so intuitive: What do you do when productive workers are making boatloads of products but aren't being compensated enough to actually buy them? You give them easy credit to buy the things they actually should be able to afford without borrowing money. You let corporations reap the profits and enjoy tax breaks, running an entire economy on ballooning debt of average Americans. Then you fiddle about lipstick and sexy kindergarteners while the whole thing burns.

Next time: Charts are awesome