Political Conventions

1-877-484-1667

Foreword

Allan's fifth book is early and a different book from the one I wanted to publish. It's also more timely and better.

After the success of his compilation of magazine and newspaper essays entitled Political Columns—Behind the Scenes with Powerful People,

I naturally asked for a sequel.

Allan continued writing and addressed a few issues not covered in Political Columns—including nuances of media relations and ways to win elections, make speeches and govern. We knew there could be a Canadian election at any time, so his take on websites, blogs, advertising, leaders’ debates, fundraising and all the other tools of campaigning would be well received.

But then came the American political season. Allan had visited campaign headquarters in New York and New Hampshire, and this experience motivated him to write a few columns. He was asked to do commentary on the presidential debates for PBS, and his notes and research resulted in more columns for The Hill Times—Ottawa’s political newspaper. New Hampshire public radio asked Allan for analysis on both conventions, and his hours on The Exchange gave him a great opportunity to test his observations.

Allan is known for hard work and research. Captivated by the most exciting presidential race since 1968 or 1948 or 1860 or perhaps ever, he took on the task of reading every inaugural address in American history, every major campaign speech and the State of the Union addresses. On his drives to presidential debates in New Hampshire, campaign offices in New York, and flights to and from the Democratic national convention in Denver, he listened to university lectures on the American Revolution, settlement history, politics, presidential history and anything else he could get his hands on. The more he listened, the more ideas he got.

It soon became clear that this book needed to focus more on the American election and political process. The title, Political Conventions, is a play on words. Allan identifies the conventions needed to campaign successfully. He deals with the conventions required to make a successful speech and those needed for governing. He often challenges conventional wisdom.

This is a how to book, but it has more dimensions to it. Politicians and political aides can read great advice on how to succeed, but anyone who has to communicate and motivate others will also learn lessons from this book. Political speakers will see the research they must engage in to ensure they are touching the historical and political bases that achieve success. They must also consider what other bases they must touch in their own jurisdictions. This book will help them.

As in his other books, Allan draws on his own experiences as one who helps a politician, diplomat or spokesperson every week in his training and consulting business. Sextant Publishing is happy that this book is different and early. It is in the tradition of this publishing house and its parent company, Cambridge Strategies. We want to foster intelligent, timely, public discussion and elevate the political discourse.

We want you to share our excitement with politics and public policy.

Ken Chapman

Edmonton, Alberta

Introduction

In this introduction, I proclaim my admiration for America. I don’t want any of my observations about the American political process or conventions to be misunderstood. There are two legitimate schools of thought about America. One is that it is a democratic country grappling with the mechanics of liberty, like the dozen or so others with a long history of democracy and the several dozen emerging democracies with a less free history. The other school of thought is so-called American exceptionalism—a doctrine that says America is unique in world history and the first, best, longest-lasting and freest system.

I’m in the first category, but that doesn’t lessen my respect for the American experience. In fact, in order to make a more perfect Union, that Union should be examined constantly. Examination includes comparing the rules and traditions of that Union with others. This examination, and the resulting evolution, has been going on ever since America began. There was a lively debate in the streets and in the Federalist Papers about the miracle in Philadelphia—the US Constitution. Continuing to examine the American experience and compare it to the experience of others is healthy and a compliment in itself.

My admiration extends to the intellectual history that exists in America. England, Scotland, Ireland, France and Germany certainly have it, but I regret to say that my country does not. Persia, India and China have longer intellectual histories, but they do not draw on European enlightenment or focus on individual liberties. Canadians, like Americans, drew on freedoms handed down to us by the French and British, but we haven’t explored, built on and sought to perfect those traditions as much as Americans have.

My admiration for the US is not unreserved and does not come at the expense of my good feelings for Canada. My reservations involve matters that Americans discuss regularly: distrust of government has created a tradition of pro forma criticism of government in general and Washington, D.C. in particular; wanting checks on their government, Americans all but hobbled it; the Byzantine structure that resulted creates opportunities for abuse; earmarks, by which individual politicians add local frivolous spending to an important bill, are wasteful and often unethical; presidential signing orders which tell the bureaucracy how to interpret legislation amount to an advance veto or de facto court rulings from the Executive Branch.

This political season has shown us how complex the US electoral system is. The American Supreme Court has ruled that political parties are pretty much free to run their affairs they way they want to. A result is that the two parties pick their leaders in substantially different ways, with different numbers of delegates and super-delegates. Delegates are counted differently in different states and differently for each party. One can shrug and say, That’s democracy or Democracy is messy, but there’s another point: If the two parties put up candidates for public scrutiny who have attained their offices by substantially different paths, the voters are choosing between apples and oranges.

Similarly, the Electoral College can be viewed as a useful weighting system to ensure the smaller states are not ignored, or it can be seen as interfering with the concept of one person, one vote and setting up a barrier between voters and their chosen candidates. Ironically, the winner-take-all feature that awards all the electoral votes for any one state to a single candidate has led to modern elections in which one state—Illinois in 1960 or Florida in 2000—seems to decide the whole national contest: hardly what the founding fathers intended.

But certainly America has achieved a level of local self-rule that we lack in Canada. Our prime minister doesn’t have the checks and oversight on the office that a US president has. Our members of parliament and even our regional caucuses don’t have the influence of a senator or representative. Realistically, our MPs can’t initiate a bill of substance. They must vote with the party, and for the most part, their committee work lacks influence. Our senate often does excellent committee work and may send the occasional member to cabinet, but in practice it has no power to veto legislation sponsored by the government. Perhaps that’s a good thing, because, if one believes in representation by population, even the American senate is a violation, as is our appointed upper chamber.

The closest we come to legitimate states’ rights is in some of our first ministers’ conferences, where our premiers may serve as a legitimate check on federal powers. This, however, is not required by our constitution, but is personality- and issue-driven. If a conference isn’t called, or strong premiers are not in power at the time, the forum is ineffective. Our mayors also lack the power of their American counterparts, even though several of our cities are more populous than some of our provinces.

It is my hope that this political season will be one in which examination of the US political system leads to change. Nearly 40 million Americans watched the speeches by each party’s nominee, and 100 million watched the debates or post-debate coverage. That in itself is positive, and may be a catalyst for re-examining the democratic traditions in a Union that is well worth continuing to perfect. I hope this book, and my commentaries, will be a small catalyst too.

Allan Bonner

Deerfield, New Hampshire

Media Conventions

The Talking Candidate

Publisher Alan Locke called me partway through the US primary season and asked for 1,000 words on what makes a good sound bite. Pretty instantly I felt two urges. The first was to belittle the idea as too basic and beneath the readers o/Winning Campaigns. But a better thought prevailed—this is a fundamental and necessary skill for politicians. I went back to basics—a passion for message-making that propelled me into business 20 years ago.

In the early days of the American republic, it was considered crass to seek election, so candidates engaged in front-porch campaigns, writing letters of concern that made their way into newspapers and sitting on their front porches waiting to be drafted into service. Long horse-and-carriage rides over washboard roads gave way to sitting for hours on hard train seats to visit far away districts in such a large country. Playing poker in the back of the train with reporters was a popular pastime, probably reaching its zenith with Harry Truman.

No candidates accepted the nomination in person until FDR did in 1932. They didn’t make much use of airplanes until IFK flew in his plane named Caroline in 1960.

There’s a dark paragraph that needs to be inserted here. It involves Adolf Hitler. He was the first politician to use the airplane extensively. Hitler’s early campaigns featured massive leaflet drops, billboards and crowd turnout—what we would call advance. He always booked too small a room, with crowds overflowing onto sidewalks. Buttons, souvenirs and hoopla gave the events the air of today’s rock concert. Hitler usually spoke late and was often a disappointment after the big buildup. Regrettably, his techniques worked.

The revolution in our politics came in 1960, when Robert Drew invented the lightweight sound camera. The film producer got permission from candidates Kennedy and Humphrey to film a documentary he called Primary. I haven’t seen it in years, but in my mind’s eye, Hubert Humphrey is wandering the streets looking for voters, many of whom don’t recognize him.

But times and campaigning changed quickly. The downside then was just what it is now with YouTube. Any candidate could suddenly find himself slipping on a banana peel on national TV. The upside was that candidates had close-up, personal and even intimate relations with their voters, via film and TV.

But there was a toll to pay. The toll for good relations with voters is the clip. In some newsrooms and journalism style books it’s called a sound-bite, sound-up or actuality. From 1960 on, if candidates couldn’t pay the toll, they just didn’t get the access or profile needed for electoral success.

The clip has evolved over the years. As late as the early 1980s, some still referred to the 30-second window. This meant that in a broadcast interview any newsmaker had a chance to speak for up to 30 seconds without interruption. Speakers who had something to say that fitted the medium, was newsworthy and had a visual element to it were on the way to the voters’ living rooms. Add a relaxed and personal style, and the trip was quicker and painless.

The 30-second window soon became 20 seconds, and by the turn of the 21st century, the average clip on radio and TV in a contentious situation was 8 seconds. Length varies on talk shows, interview shows, public broadcasting, newscasts and so on, but everything is shorter these days.

A good clip has several dimensions—the psychological, the physical and the semantic.

Psychological

We’ve all been at parties where we wanted to fake a heart attack to get away from a guest who was either too talkative or too passive to be a good conversation partner. What’s the happy medium? Don’t most of us get a kick out of hearing ourselves talk? An encouraging smile, nod or interjection from another fuels our discussion. Similarly, we want to receive enough good information or other benefits from the other person to justify the time spent. With famous people, just being in their presence may be enough, but we usually also want an insight or two for our time.

So, the psychological stance with a journalist is to show that you think this person is fascinating. Look as if the questions are stimulating and you are determined to be as informative and helpful as possible.

One of the main ways to transmit the right attitude is with energy and passion.

Physical

You must make eye contact with the journalist, if there’s one there. If there’s just a camera (double-ender or videographer), then you have to look at the lens. With double-enders, the journalist is in the studio and the candidate is in the office or at the event. ABC’s Nightline is famous for double-enders, but they go back to the early 1950s and Edward R. Murrow.

Videographers are combination camera-operators and journalists. Their faces are often behind the camera lens, so the victim (sorry, interviewee) must look at the lens. If you’re asked to look at another spot to pretend a journalist is at the side of the lens, for editing purposes, do so.

In a TV studio, the body language should be over-correct. We all remember from grade school that sitting up straight and looking attentive is hard work. It’s often not comfortable, but that’s what’s required, and it looks comfortable and professional.

There should be a straight line from your navel to your nose to help create a nice column of air on which your speech can float. Your gestures should be open, double-handed and bigger but slower than in real life. Don’t worry about camera angles and whether every gesture is in frame—you’re not the camera operator. These gestures will relax you, loosen the muscles in your chest so you can breathe, and transmit that you’re communicative.

Your back should be straight, and you should lean slightly forward towards the interviewer. Keep eye contact at all times. In an 8-second clip, looking away even once can appear guilty.

Semantic

A clip needs to make sense. This sounds obvious until you consider that public communication is making less and less sense these days. Take advertising—a kind of clip. Forty years ago, slogans were complete sentences, sometimes rhyming or sung:

Let Hertz put you in the driver’s seat today.

Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should.

You deserve a break today.

See the USA in your Chevrolet.

I can’t think of too many declarative statements in advertising these days.

In corporate life, we are awash in mission, vision and value statements that, as business studies show, don’t mean much to front-line workers.

In politics, focus groups tend to iron out the wrinkles in slogans and speeches to the point where nothing is being communicated. (By the way, I can’t imagine Winston Churchill telling his war cabinet that they have to break into small groups and discuss values and leadership). My litmus test is that if this turn of phrase at the door, in the speech or in the media is one that another political party could have used, in another election or at another time in history, then it’s not going to stick.

What also doesn’t stick is vague generalities or attacking someone else instead of promoting yourself. Consider this statement:

Well, my opponent and I certainly have very different approaches to these issues, and over the years, my constituents have come to know my values and my views on integrity and leadership.

This is saying nothing. The speaker hopes listeners know what both candidates have said on a range of issues, but that is an unrealistic expectation. Besides, people who have integrity don’t usually discuss it a lot.

Think of the clips that have stuck over time:

Walk softly and carry a big stick. - Teddy Roosevelt

We have nothing to fear, but fear itself. - FDR

If you can’t stand the heat, get the out of the kitchen. - Harry Truman

The military-industrial complex - Dwight Eisenhower

Amazingly, these all date from well before the television age, but they would still work well today. They are short and simple and make complete sense. They encapsulate complex issues of foreign or domestic policy and the national mood. They are in and of their moment in time.

These characteristics are even more important in the age of multichannel media. People hear these clips while driving, exercising, wrestling with the kids, eating and engaging in all kinds of other activities. They’re hearing them through ear buds and watching them on mini-screens on hand-held devices. They had better be good.

One cautionary note—the bad sticks better than the good. Consider these clips:

I am not a crook. - Richard Nixon

Read my lips: no new taxes. - George FEW. Bush

Vast right-wing conspiracy - Hillary Clinton

I did not have sexual relations with that woman. - Bill Clinton

I am not gay. I never have been gay. - Senator Larry Craig

Negatives and absolutes {no, not, never, nothing, none, always, never) are very dangerous.

You can’t imagine these statements popping out of the mouth of a guest at a dinner party. It would seem weird, and you’d not invite the person back. What also seems weird is what is called hyper-correct speech. When you hear yourself talking about this point in time, perusing a document, entreating or beseeching someone to do something, remember that no normal people talk that way and stop it.

Finally, many of my political clients protest that making good messages and clips, while staying on top of complex policy issues, is a tough assignment. Most say they’re too busy. I point out that there’s lots of time in the shower, in the back of the limo and on planes to rehearse and practice. I advise using the mirror, video and audio recording and family and friends to try out your clips.

Nothing should ever be said in public that hasn’t been practiced at least three times in private. Practice is much easier than explaining hundreds of times why you made the silly statement you did. It’s also easier than looking for work as a lobbyist.

Back to Basics

Studies of elite athletes make a point relevant to elite politicians. If athletes go back to fundamentals, they improve performance. If they visualize getting better, there is also an improvement. Athletes who both visualize and practice surpass those who use only one technique.

This is one of a series of articles I did on the basics—the needs of radio, TV and print.

I must credit the late David Pritchard, ground-breaking disc jockey, producer of Beatles documentaries and books, artist and friend. He made the distinctions about radio, TV and print that follow in one of our many private conversations in his recording studio. David is also responsible for the quip that media operate 24 hours a day, so go at three times the speed of real life.

I was always intrigued that the man who voiced the intro to one of my audio communications courses and did my editing and recording had also worked for the Beatles. I always imagined him telling George or Paul they’d just have to wait because Allan was on his way over. David did the voiceover because it needed to be done, he was a pro and it was as natural as handing a fiend a cup of coffee. He didn't ask if I wanted it voiced, didn't ask me to pay an appropriate rate, but just did it to get it done. I hope I can pass on this professionalism and kindness to another generation.

How we describe media speaks volumes about their effect. Newspapers, with the word news in front, imply that the news is the most important thing. The same is true of news radio or all-news radio. The term radio news exists, but it’s not a station format, just part of a station’s programming.

There’s no such thing as news TV—there is only TV news. For me, this means that TV itself is more important than the news that’s on it.

For politicians, this means that how you perform on TV is as important as your policies. So, with TV’s special status in mind, here are the ways and means to succeed on the tube.

The Pre-Interview

When you get a call, usually from a researcher, ask questions, without being combative. Are there other guests? What approach are you taking? How long will the interview last? Is it live or taped, in studio or on location?

Find out the name of the program and its host’s name. Get on the web and see recent clips, the host’s bio and the actual show, if you can. Rehearse out loud with staff and a video camera.

Here are the main venues you’ll encounter and approaches you can take to succeed:

Double-Ender

One end is you, in your office, the local studio or the site of an event and the other end is the journalist across town or across the world. Lean forward and don’t take your eyes off the camera lens. If it’s a clip for a newscast, you may talk for a long time but only see 8 seconds on TV. Have a half-dozen or so 8-second clips and a half-dozen ways of saying them.

For a talk show or panel discussion, you may be on for 8 minutes or more and deliver seven or so 45-second answers.

Videographer

This is a combination interviewer and camera operator. S/he may ask you to look out into space to pretend there’s an interviewer there or look into her eyes. Most likely the operator’s eye will be behind the camera and you’ll have no choice but to look into the lens. Imagine it’s your best friend. Turn up the energy and deliver short bursts lasting between 8 and 30 seconds, depending on the program. You may be asked to walk down the hall while the videographer is walking backwards. Just look at the lens and be convincing.

Stand-up, Over-the-Shoulder Interview

Look at the reporter. Don’t shy away from the microphone—it has to be close to get good sound. Be patient. Network news or documentary programs may interview you for an hour to get the 8 seconds