Alpha Dogs: How Political Spin became a Global Business – BOOK REVIEW

In Alpha Dogs James Harding, Times Editor and former Washington correspondent for the Financial Times, charts the birth and evolution of the political consultant business in the US. Focusing on the partnership between cinema verite film-maker David Sawyer and Ad man Scott Miller, the brains behind the ‘Have a Coke and a smile’ campaign, Harding explains how these two idealists moved into becoming political consultants, started their own agency SMG and exported their model across emergent democracies. The model at the heart of their consultancy was very simple, and one that any modern day consultant would recognise, get inside the heads of the consumer, craft the message, go negative, pre-empt events, tell your story and sell it out. It was this toolkit that was tried and tested getting Kevin White re-elected as mayor of Boston in 1979 and then adapted through numerous unsuccessful (yet very lucrative) forays into South America to be refined in order that they could stage manage the overthrow of the Marcos regime in the Philippines supporting the 1986 campaign of Cory Aquino and two years later unseating General Pinochet in Chile. While the SMG team of consultants could at this stage be arguably on the side of God (or Good) and not Mammon, this was to change over the next decade. Their public failures in Peru and the increasing profit that could be earned from Junk bond sellers, tobacco companies saw SMG shift to a more corporate client portfolio. Miller left, Sawyer was ousted and the consultants spread far and wide across the political spectrum of America and beyond. SMG evolved to become Weber Shandwick, a major force in the public relations industry with a solely corporate focus.

While Harding appears sympathetic to the main characters of Sawyer and Miller, as well as many of the other characters that emerge as key or bit-part players in the SMG story this contrasts to his evaluation of the SMG legacy. While they may have talked of ‘electronic democracy’ of television making key players of the people and putting politics into peoples’ front rooms and not hidden in smoke filled board rooms, Harding contrasts this with the techniques used in order to oil this new democracy. Quoting the words of many consultants a story is built of the evolution in political communication ushered in by SMG. Joe McGinnis is quoted talking of ‘style becoming substance’ and that “The medium is the massage and the masseur gets the votes” (p. 80); for SMG selling a candidate was really about manufacturing an illusion and voters bought these illusions. Overall Harding’s assessment is “a decline in the national conversation, a less meaningful politics, a politics of soundbites and slurs, personalities not policies, image and a lack of imagination” (p. 224). Perhaps this assessment is one that Harding would extend to much of the public relations industry, given the critical tone taken when charting the shift to caring for Mammon and extending the SMG model into the corporate world.

As with many accounts of journalists, this is highly readable and accessible while also being extensively researched combining data from 200 interviews with many of the participants with academic works, SMG strategy documents and contemporary media accounts. It is therefore very important for understanding how the evolution of the political communication industry, how it became professionalised and what consultants would define as being professional. Ultimately, tools aside, winning appears to be everything. Whether it is regimes with dubious records for human rights or not, the well-meaning but inexperienced leader or the politico, the consultant can create the compelling narrative of either the self-less moral candidate or the hard-working professional politician and sell them as a brand. The belief is that the consumer democracy is sovereign, so the tools do not matter, consumers can make up their own minds. Yet when one considers the use of data in order to shape campaigns, the cognitive psychology which underpins message creation and the use of negative attacks one does wonder the extent to which consumers really are sovereign or are just manipulated and confused. Harding brings this contrast out well and hence this represents an important account of the industry and its impact upon the conduct of electioneering and political campaigning globally. He questions this impact, hope is hinted at residing in digital democracy but it is also noted that this is now the terrain of the consultant. The masseurs are now found building territory in social spaces online, Harding perhaps will find that the modern day SMGs will adapt that original toolkit and continue to find ways of manipulating electorates while still covering their techniques with a democratic veneer. They have created a political marketplace, for both personalities and their skills, but is this actually a democratic marketplace? Harding suggests it is not and it is hard to disagree.

Street-Level Campaigning

It may seem strange to most except Daniel Hannan that there is a huge debate raging in the US about free health care. The anti campaign is talking about this as if it will bring on the end of civilisation, it is talked of as a threat to civil liberty. Obama is of course leading the campaign for free health care and it is an uphill struggle all the way. The communication strategy, as would be expected, is multi-layered including appearances on every primetime television channel (except Fox of course). But the most interesting is conducted beneath the media radar and is at the ground level. The communication is from members of his movement, or so we are told, people like Nicola Aro. The email via the mybarrackobama.com community begins with the campaign message "I was lucky enough to be one of the thousands of people who heard President Obama speak about health reform recently at the University of Maryland. As he told the fired up crowd, "Change starts with people -- especially young people -- who are determined to take this nation's destiny into their own hands.""; it then moves on to ask for volunteers to support the campaign and lobby their representative. The Campus Phone Booth idea is about people calling other people and getting them to do the lobbying for them.

Basically it is an attempt to maintain the power of the movement that supported Obama's campaign for the Presidency. More importantly it is about citizen advocacy, people convincing their peers to get involved and back the President's initiative. It is an attempt to counter the public debate that centres on the negatives. It could be a highly persuasive tool if enough students and young people can be mobilised to run a booth and second can then mobilise others to lobby Senators. It is risky, but if it can tap into support for the initiative, and those being asked to give their time believe that they can make a difference by doing so, it could be a highly successful way of putting pressure on Senate.

Power!

The beauty and the danger of the Internet is that anyone can say anything and it can gain some element of credibility if enough people are willing to view it and then share it. Here is a prime example of a viral message that I have 14 links to this morning from a range of people within the PR industry, media as well as amused students and one anti-flying campaigner. The beauty is its simplicity, humour and believability; Ryanair's latest PR disaster is to suggest it may charge £1 to use the in-flight toilet on the basis that during a short flight there is no requirement to supply a free service - they did not get much good media coverage and the 'court of public opinion' was deemed to be unsupportive. The implications of the ability to create and share material are obvious and of course it does not have to be outraged customers or satirists. Who would benefit most from this: a competitor obviously. So if you want to 'dis' your opponent you need a viral Internet campaign - this may well be a feature of the forthcoming local and European Parliament election in June, after all all it takes is a little know-how, some cheap software, and a web user with access to a network. Anything could be influential in the new media age!

A bit strong, or striking the right chord?

Politicians are often quite measured in their language, particularly criticisms of opponents. However, the battle between Cameron and Brown is one that seems to be not simply political but also personal; or at least that seems to be the perception both leaders (Cameron in particular) want to offer. While it would appear that getting everyone, including single parents, back to work would work well with Conservative voters, it is Cameron that has emerged as the chief opponent to the plan. And interestingly he is defending the family in his attack on the 'macho... sick' Brown. Well that is the way much of the media report his quote, but in saying that "I think this is all some kind of macho positioning exercise, in which case I think it is pretty sick", in further questioning the thinking by saying "``I don't know whether James Purnell is just trying to be tough or if he genuinely thinks it is OK to force mothers of young children to go to work. Either way, I think this is a shameful proposal." and concluding his comments on the subject with a overall criticism that "These, I believe, are all signs of a Government that has been in power for too long", he is setting out his stall as against anything the government has to offer. This could be dangerous if they have to adopt government policy if they do win the next election, equally it could strike the wrong note among party loyalists; however the strategy is to be anything but Labour and make criticisms link with observations about being out of touch and 'in government for too long'. The time for a change (for the better) may well be the key message for the next election campaign, and Cameron is positioning himself as diametrically opposed to anything Brown's team can offer.

Citizen Endorsements

What is the most influential persuasion, an endorsement from someone we know. It still remains the case that many people are influenced far more by their parents and peers than any highly expensive communication strategy. The second most influential persuasion is supposedly, and say supposedly because it is based on theory and sporadic bits of research, is an endorsement from someone like ourselves. Therefore we may consider ourselves as members of social groups and so wish to be close to that group and so adjust our behaviour and attitudes to match members of that group: for social group this is identifiers rather than simple demographics, employment, but for example for me real ale lovers may be a group I wish to assimilate with and so adopt more broader commonalities with the members of the group (I shall resist a beard and woolly jumper though!).

So where is this going, well advertisers have long used the 'ordinary person' to endorse a product; I question whether anyone believes they are anything but an actor. Obama, very powerfully I think, used videos made by 'members of his movement' that endorsed him as then democratic candidate. The Conservative Party will attempt to replicate this. In their e-newsletter they state "We want to build a collection of short video clips with people explaining why they're Conservative". While the party perhaps do not need to worry about public support at the moment, the fear for any challenger is that the waverers among the electorate will worry about inexperience (one factor that led to Kinnock's defeat in 1992 despite looking like the winner in polls) and switch to the incumbent. The montage of endorsements should include a cross-section of voters and so could, if publicised right, be something that can be used to bolster support. The idea is that 'if Mr X, real ale lover from Cornwall is willing to back the Conservatives then I might trust them as well', theoretically it is a powerful persuasive tool!

Authentic Endorsements

A while ago the Obama campaign ran a competition among donators to win backstage passes to the Democratic Convention. There are 10 winners and they are now being used as endorsers of his campaign to a wider audience. to get a sense of the tactic here are some snippets from the vignettes about "the people who make up our movement... of all different ages, races, and backgrounds":

Barb is a teacher living... on her family's wheat and cattle farm, and rising fuel prices are making it hard to get by. She hopes Barack's plan for alternative bio-fuels will help the struggling economy in rural Montana. Barb volunteers for her church, sits on a hospital board, and organizes community events.

Anne is a retired budget analyst for the federal government. She says the first time she saw Barack at the 2004 convention, she thought, "This is Everyman. He is Kansan and he is Kenyan; he is African and he is Anglo-American; he is common sense and he is eloquence; he is dynamic and he is down to earth."

Trinace is a single mother and disabled veteran who served overseas for the Iraq War. She currently works for the U.S. Army as a public affairs specialist. Trinace is inspired by Senator Obama's message of change and his plans to address all of the issues that she cares deeply about...

John served in the U.S. Army for 10 years. He says his two tours in Iraq with the 10th Special Forces Group opened his eyes to "the link between our country's lack of an effective energy policy and our flawed foreign policy."

In effect these are representatives of the wide spectrum that is America, yet also representative in many ways of people who may be floating voters. Rather than persuading these people himself, Barack Obama's campaign uses them to promote his presidency to those similar to these backstage pass holders: dissatisfied patriots who want change on the issues they care about. Neatly he also approaches issues that McCain has attacked him on such as the Iraq War, energy policy, bio-fuels and of course his nationality. it is argued to be a powerful tool, people listen to people who are like them, if these messages and similar tactics become widely disseminated it may win over some of those unsure of Obama.

Propaganda or reflecting the public mood

"My constituents do not believe it is fair that they should face a constitutional discrimination as well as meeting additional costs which identical people in Scotland, and to a lesser extent in Wales, do not face. This is the English Question." This is an extract from a speech delivered today by Labour backbencher Frank Field at the University of Hertfordshire and probably picked out of a press release by a large majority of the media. Whether the current system of devolved governments is, as Field argues, "one of the festering sores in English politics" is a big question. I have seen no opinion poll data to back this up and have not seen it high on the news or public agenda, in fact it is only mentioned when comparing health care, prescription charges and student fees but not seldom is it placed in a wider context. So this may be a personal campaign of Frank Field's that he wishes to promote, and this is a very good way of constructing the argument. While Labour are already in decline in Scotland and Wales, Brown may be counting on the heartland of Britain to retain loyal. Field argues that it is these voters who may "defect to the Tories or British National Party" unless the English are given a parliament. Of course Field does not back this up, basing it on inferences to his constituency, nor can he state to the voters that an English parliament would redress the imbalances in disparities, but it is a very persuasive argument that hits Brown where it currently hurts the post: how to recapture the heartlands of Britain.

'I am We' - so don't attack us for sipping latte

Barack Obama has a wonderful ability to phrase arguments as if they come from his supporters, and the mass of US voters, as opposed to just being from him as a presidential candidate. Now he is under fire from both Clinton and McCain, he is also now drawing inclusion into his defence. Arguing that "Senator Clinton continues to run an expensive, negative campaign against us. Each day her campaign launches a new set of desperate attacks" he argues that "They're not just attacking me; they're attacking you". An outrageous quote from Clinton (actually said by an aide which may be handy) Obama highlights is that she "attempted to diminish the overwhelming number of contests we've won by referring to places we've prevailed as "boutique" states and our supporters as the "latte-sipping crowd." Own goal?? It is not playing well with Obama supporting bloggers that is for sure.

But also by including his not insignificant number of supporters across the US as victims of the Clinton attacks, Obama undermines the attacks and tries to build solidarity against his rival for the nomination. It may be successful but he needs a stronger case to pinpoint further reasons why an attack on him is an attack on the Obama movement; if he can make that case it could be a powerful weapon that persuades those who may not be supporters but who lean towards Obama and are undecided. How such techniques will play in a fight versus McCain is less clear but it could win him the nomination if Clinton is seen as attacking the people rather than her opponent.

Every persuasive devise in the book!

One of the laws of a piece of persuasive political rhetoric is to not give your opponent exposure, but to take their arguments and turn them against them in order to promote oneself; this is this law in practice Obama style.

In a speech in New Jersey he offered the following argument:

“People are saying that Barack Obama has got good policies and is inspiring but we can’t vote for him now because he hasn’t been in Washington long enough. He has to be seasoned and stewed a little bit longer so they could boil the hope out of him, like those other candidates… But he argued that those candidates were not going to provide the politics or society Americans want; he said: “Change is not going to happen by the same old folks doing the same old things. We need somebody new, a new leader.”