Obama gets communication and that's why he was able to make a historic run to the White House. And it's much more than an understanding of how to use technology to deliver a message or to augment traditional grassroots organizing efforts.
More importantly, Obama understands the importance of focusing on commonly shared goals and values, in the process reaching out to unconventional allies to frame issues in a way that connect to the worldviews of hard to reach audiences. The latest example is the choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration. (Let's also hope, as I noted earlier this week, there's a spot for Richard Cizik in the Obama camp too.)
This past summer I was asked by Big Think what made Obama a master communicator. Below is a short video clip with my explanation.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
And as a guy who only talks about communicating but never gets around to communicating, what do you know about it?
I'd be more comfortable with this if I had some idea of what these shared values are. What does Obama share with Warren that justifies placing Warren in this lofty position? The anti-gay stuff? The anti-abortion stuff? The gee-whiz-I-keep-forgetting-to-mention-torture stuff?
Or does Obama hope to convince people he "shares their values" when he actually doesn't?
Obama can't very well tell Warren what he can and can't say. So Warren is free to use this as a "truth to power" moment and start shedding tears about blastocysts and the "threat" to marriage from the gays.
Of course there's every chance that Warren will use this moment to advance himself as the next Billy Graham, pastor to the stars and presidents. So he'll wheeze something conciliatory and everyone will pretend to get along. It'll be an hour to remember.
Been reading this framing talk for some months now and have considered it carefully and over time. "Framing" is jargon and means what the speaker wants it to mean and thus is self-serving, and the competency of using "framing" as the lead word for an explanation is questionable. "Framing" smacks directly of "I've been framed!" and of deceit. No one wanting to persuade, such as a lawyer, would choose that word, but a person might choose it if he or she got to explain it and serve him or her self, such as a professor. Now if it is true that the word is not competently chosen, is it not fair to ask, what else by the speaker is not competently chosen?
With "framing" the speaker's ethos is gradually destroyed, by himself. The situation is always much more complicated than what is presented. The setting, the recipients, the length of time, what others may intervene to say, the extent of knowledge, the trust in experts, and the final goal are a few things to consider. And where in this lies "truth?" "Framing" as an accommodation to the audience has a tendency to present "what's true for now" as in a show, or a play, and comes up short of "truth." Do we really think a trial of persuasion presents the truth? No, what appears to be the truth, for the moment. But that is not science, and that is not truth. The time periods differ, the goals differ, and the means must differ.
I think I understand what the speaker intends by "framing" and have done it myself as a trial lawyer, when it was essential and it was my duty. I was paid to do it. But science needs no "framing." Rather, science needs many voices, and voices who disagree, about the truth of matters, and when that search for truth and how it is done, and the passion that accompanies that search, is presented to individuals or groups, the direct light of that is persuasion enough.
Now it would be easy for anyone to slide "framing" into a sub-set argument that there may be better ways to say things. So what? there almost always is, about anything. So-called improved communication does not however mean that deceit is better when the truth is the goal.
No, religious fundamentalism is a scourge in a real world of death and life and misery, and science, and should be seen straight on for what it is. To "frame" things for it is to give it respect it does not deserve, to lift it up as if it does not condone ignorance, to soothe it before it bites again, to give it power in advance to hurt those it touches.
When I think of just one dead Iraqi child and trace back in my mind all the causes of this death, with branches like a root, going back to the trunk, and there at the base I find among others religious fundamentalism, then all the "framing" becomes as nothing. I have no wish to accommodate religious fundamentalism, and, besides, even if I did, it doesn't work, it doesn't help. With all due formal respect, you can accommodate them. I won't be joining you.
FREE On-Demand TV Shows, Movies, Music(millions and millions of digital quality tracks), Unlimited Games, Money, and FREE College Educations (Stanford, Oxford, Notre Dame and more) @ InternetSurfShack.com
Hi Friends,
What best of all, Dollar or Euro? This question worry many peoples.
But only you make your choice! Remember - your love and your personal intelligence make you rich. :)
--
Maria
http://www.girlsupdates.com
http://www.mysex-blog.com
The only good news about this is that Warren hates Obama and your typrical Obama voter just as much as he hates gays--just for different reasons. So he's probably choking down a lot of bile as he does this.... though wiping his mouth with giant wads of cash. Not MUCH of a punishment I grant you.
Rewarding a man who dehumanizes the LGBT community is great politics, yes. Is it being a great leader? No.
Can't we find a better way to deal with the human impact on climate change than to reward an outright bigot?
Warren is promoting a socially conservative agenda. He is using the rhetoric of "compassionate conservative" to gain a hold. Obama is rewarding that tactic. He is adding to a toxic environment that has taken away rights from other people. This is not a disagreement it is about fighting for rights for our fellow human beings.
You obviously put global warming ahead of all else. You want to win. You and Obama should be asking is it worth it?
Obama by calling bigotry against the LGBT community a policy disagreement is devaluing human rights for his own political gain. Once again Obama is a great politician but he is not a great leader. I am sorry if I have the audacity to hope for more and for a change I can actually believe in.
Right-wing fundamentalists are out in the desert, roaming it for the next 40 years. They have kicked the rational conservatives out of the GOP making it mathematically impossible for Republicans to win nationwide races for the foreseeable future. They have marginalized themselves, the demographic trends are against them, and they have become totally irrelevant.
So, why should one of them be chosen to do the Obama inauguration? Isn't that totally politically idiotic? Why not just ignore them into extinction?
oh no what a freakin nutcase.
This is the Thomas Kincaid of religion, mindless fluff, and if you listen to what he preaches, he is as anti-rationalist as the fundies (at least the fundies are consistent)
I'm not sure what goals and values I share with Warren. All it does is give a shout out to the far right, and deeply offend the rest of us.
Warren isn't a fundamentalist as far as I can tell. In fact, his brand of theology is very liberal and his "purpose driven life" is really pretty horrible when you look into what he is saying, but he plays well to the pop-religion crowd. I still can't understand why we need someone to make an invocation at all. This is the 21st century, after all.
Respectfully, give me an f'ing break. In this case, this is nothing more than pandering--a less flattering form of framing. Rick Warren is socially conservative on everything that he actually has influence over, especially gay rights--his church was 2nd in line behind the mormons in passing Prop 8. To allow him to speak gives legitimacy to his worldview; it's that simple. Call it framing--if so, he's "framing" his presidency as just one more that will leave the minority group of homosexuals--and everyone else Rick Warren believes is unnatural--in the dust. I expected more from them. Are you going to tell me that picking Salazar and Vilsack is also genius because of their relationships with oil and ethanol?
Warren isn't a fundamentalist as far as I can tell. In fact, his brand of theology is very liberal and his "purpose driven life" is really pretty horrible when you look into what he is saying,
Agreed. Not being a fundamentalist does not make him a rationalist, he is a new-agey mix of conservative Christianity with enough woo and fluff to try to appeal to Christians who think of themselves as 'liberal'. (A liberal Christian is not a compliment, it's a cafeteria belief system that doesn't even have a frame to attach itself to).
I have to go back and take my comment away - I got him confused with another one, but the rest of it still stands. This is pandering to people who will not support Obama, but the game goes on.
It's blowing up on CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/17/obama.warren/index.html
Matthew is winning me over. When I saw the Rick Warren story, the wisdom of Obama's tactics dawned on me.