Gaffes and the need for narrative

Matthew Yglesias is correct to argue that the influence of campaign gaffes is probably overstated:

One thing I wonder about is how much do "campaign gaffes" really matter? My guess is that their perceived importance is mostly an illusion. I mean, people point to plenty of examples of campaigns that lost, in large part, "because of" this or that gaffe or damaging random thing dredged out of the record but you never see an example of a campaign that won because it successfully avoided gaffes.

As I've argued, the fundamentals (the state of the economy and war) drive presidential election results, but the process by which this occurs is not entirely clear. Who fills the void? Reporters and pundits who (a) see their job as interpreting the political process for citizens and (b) have a strong economic incentive to create an entertaining drama that will attract an audience. These journalists collectively end up constructing a plausible narrative to "explain" the trajectory of the campaign and its eventual outcome of the campaign. This narrative is often built around media-generated controversies that have little influence on the outcome.

Campaigns also tend to be seen as a referendum on the skill and quality of political candidates, which are also closely linked to gaffes. In almost every case, losers are seen as bad candidates and winners as good candidates even when we would have expected the actual outcome in advance. For instance, the collapse of Michael Dukakis in 1988 may have been because he was a bad candidate who made mistakes like riding in a tank wearing a silly helmet, but it also coincided with George H.W. Bush converging to his expected level of performance given the fundamentals.

With all that said, however, it's worth distinguishing between epiphenomenal gaffes and those with deeper political and cultural significance, especially when the latter is reinforced in paid media. While largely incoherent, Obama's statement about downscale whites in small town Pennsylvania was offensive and condescending in its phrasing. If enough money is spent drilling that message into the heads of lower income white voters, Obama's performance in the general election could be significantly affected.

Comments

[eska]

i still maintain that assuming another's outrage is just as condescending as anything that was said by obama. my question: did you listen/read the whole comment?

[Rob]

The significance of a gaffe is directly proportional to how much it fits into the narrative that the opposition and/or the media has created for the candidate. A case in point is John Kerry's famous "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." That gaffe might have faded from sight had it not so well reinforced and confirmed the already-existing perception that Kerry was a flip-flopper and an opportunist.

Obama may well prove to be luckier than Kerry. Though he had to fight against perceptions of elitism earlier in his political career, when he was trying to appeal to South Side African-Americans, elitism hasn't been part of his baggage during this campaign. That suggests that his gaffe may have more limited consequences.

[BG]

I think this goes along with what Rob was saying, but the good part about this gaffe was that it was actually on message for Obama. Bitterness at missed opportunities and frustration with political leadership are corollaries of a Hope and Change message. Of course the biggest problem for Obama long term was not WHAT he said, but TO WHOM he said it.

That he aligns himself with San Francisco liberals against church goers and gun owners will be a much more potent message in the general election.

[Nick Taleb]

Brendan,

I suppose there is some small chance that you wrote this post using your original thoughts. But if you are going to steal my ideas, can you throw a brother a cite or something?

Sincerely,

Nick

[Jay Rosen]

Hi Brendan. This is something I have thought about for a while. See my post from 03 on the Master Narrative. I think you need a more complex view than this sketch to actually get at campaign narratives.

For example, one could develop a "conservation of narratives" theory; the press doesn't like to develop new narratives because it's expensive in several senses of the term. Also, as I argued in this piece on why campaign coverage sucks, there is a substantial premium placed on narratives that establish the political innocence of the press and suggest that journalists are non-aligned.

Cheers...