Strategies for Surviving and Thriving in Challenging Times

Strategic Action #4 for Surviving and Thriving:
Connect With the Zeitgeist (Part 1)

Walter Mondale attacked Gary Hart in the 1984 presidential primaries with a question lifted from a famous Wendy’s commercial. “Where’s the beef?” Mondale queried when Hart talked about his “new ideas” with little specificity. It was an effective ploy on Mondale’s part.

Bill Clinton tried a similar gambit on behalf of his wife’s presidential aspirations earlier this week when he charged Barack Obama with campaigning with “smoke and mirrors.” But it was no more effective than his earlier charge about Obama living a fairy tale. Obama went on to win the next day’s so-called Potomac primaries with unexpectedly large margins.

Why did Mondale’s charge that Hart’s campaign delivery lacked substance gain traction while Bill Clinton struck out in accusing Obama of dealing in smoke and mirrors?

Clinton is out of touch with the zeitgeist – the spirit of the times.

People were feeling pretty good about things in 1984 after Ronald Reagan’s first term. Gary Hart’s vaguely framed promises about “new ideas” didn’t click with the electorate that had been saved by Ronald Reagan from the malaise his predecessor Jimmy Carter said had infected the American people. 

In 2008, people are unsettled about many things. President Bush is closing his last year in office at historic lows in public support. The Iraq war has worn people down. The economy has moved to the top of people’s concerns. Images of suffering around the world fill television screens 24/7. The issue of immigration roils many. Scientists’ predictions of dire consequences that many people alive today will suffer from climate change spell a troubling future.

Amid all these dark conditions many are ironically drawn less to political leaders with specific plans than to those who project the traits of strong leadership – in a word, charisma. Charisma is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as “A rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm.”

We tend to ascribe great powers for solving problems to people to whom we are strongly attracted. When we suffer deep angst, we don’t so much need the details of their thinking about how they will relieve us of our pain as confidence in their ability to bring together people with the talent, skills, experience and knowledge to solve the problems that deeply trouble us.

People appear less galvanized by politicos because of their labels than by intuitive sensing of their ability to lead in troubling times. Many in the electorate care less about whether a candidate is conservative or liberal, passes a litmus test on this or that social issue, or even has a long history of experience in public office. They simply want someone with the leadership ability to solve problems.

As this is a marketing blog, I feel the need to connect the dots between my observations on the current political scene and conditions in the marketplace. Doing that is really quite simple: the same zeitgeist that is shaping people’s political sensibilities shapes their marketplace sensibilities. Consumers of every stripe are looking toward companies that proactively strive to relieve their pain and give them soothing comfort. I’ll say more about this in my next post.

Comments

[Steve Kirk]

I understand you to say people are looking for substance over style or steak rather than sizzle. You are absolutely correct. John McCain's seemingly miraculous come from behind almost victory is case in point. McCain is about substance, proven leadership whether you agree completely with his views or not. (I do not.) Obama is unproven as far as long term leadership is concerned, but appears to offer something of value. He is not the shop worn same old same old stuff Hillary Clinton promises. You know what is in the Clinton box and too many of us believe that it is all marketing of an inferior and somewhat shoddy product. Let's elect someone who can do something, anything. Steve Kirk blogs at www.theperfectsense.com.

[David]

Actually, Steve, I said that people are giving more attention to style than to substance. Obama has generally offered fewer details than Clinton has on her proposals. Moreover, despite her overwhelming superiority in tenure of public service, experience is counting for less in many people's minds than promises of change even though the details of change offered by Obama have generally been sketchy.

[Christian Cantrell]

David,

I think there's a lot of truth to what you write. Let me explain why I have gotten swept up in the zeitgeist, and how I think about experience.

First of all, as you know, experience isn't an absolute metric like a test score. Experience isn't necessarily even a reliable indication of of one's abilities, or a way to measure one's future success. Anyone who has spent any time in the corporate world understands that experience can sometimes be as detrimental as naiveté. In fact, some of the worst people I have ever worked for have had very solid experience and seemingly excellent credentials. Most of them have relied too heavily on their experience, and were unable to adapt to situations that refused to fit into the constrained models of the world they had built over the years.

The term experience generally has a positive connotation, but I would argue that one has to look more closely, and to consider its context, to understand its true meaning. In the context of elections, we have to consider the kinds of experience that candidates have. We have to consider whether that experience is even relevant to our vision of what a leader should be. And we have to weigh that experience against other qualities that are equally or even more important.

As far as I'm concerned, Obama's website has plenty of information on his policies, and on how he intends to implement them. When I watch a debate, I'm not overly interested in sound bites and fragments of facts that are just as easily found in a candidate's literature. Nor am I interested in accusations. I'm interested in seeing how effectively a candidate communicates, how he or she comports themselves, whether they can appreciate the intricacies of complex issues rather than holding imperturbable and overly simplistic positions. And I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm also looking for someone to inspire me. I believe that an inspired, focused, and committed population can accomplish far more than the most experienced politician on earth.

Only time will tell, but I happen to believe there is some real substance behind this zeitgeist. That said, I actually haven't entirely decided who I'm going to vote for in November. Right now, I'm just concerned about who I get to choose from.

[David]

Christian,

I should have pointed out that Obama puts a lot of detail on his web site for those who want to get beyond his charismatic style. BTW, keeping details light in public presentations can reduce gratuitous opinion-shaping commentary by reporters.

Another point -- Obama as president is likelier to draw more top-drawer talent than any president since JFK.

Thanks for your comment!

DBW

[Eamon]

From a UK and apolitical perspective Obama sees to be more in tune with the zeitgeist than the Clintons.

[Atare E. Agbamu]

That some of the most experienced hands in Washington brought us to our current sorry state should take care of the experience argument for most thoughtful people.

I want a leader who can inspire me to follow. As Napoleon said, "a leader is a dealer in hope."

If Obama's sustained grassroots campaign operation is any guide, we can expect real change. He can get the people to put pressure on Congress on behalf truly national (rather than special interest) initiatives.

For a fellow who has been cynical about the political process for awhile, I cannot but buy hope over fear and despair.

David, thanks for your always insightful take on issues that confound others.