hypnolibertarian

McCain on Obama

As a political example, let’s look at McCain’s ad on Obama.  This is an entire campaign, which ad campaigns usually are, and aimed at what the McCain campaign saw as Obama’s greatest strength — the aura of invincibility and inevitability that surrounded him after he defeated Clinton in the primaries.  In particular, when he traveled in Europe, the crowds were gigantic, and he was treated as a rock star or perhaps the Pope.

The McCain campaign relied on a reframe to change this situation, and it was a brilliant reframe.  The presupposition is that Obama is a good candidate, and a good President, because of his charisma.  Whether this is true or false is not our concern here; what interests us is how McCain combated this.

The reframe was a simple one; McCain’s media people did not bother to fight Obama’s celebrity.  Instead, the reframed the situation to say that Obama was *only* a celebrity.  The first commercials flashed images of other celebrities that bring large crowds, but who are famously brainless; Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.  The pundits universally derided these ads as being nonsense, but from an unconscious point of view they are brilliant: they form a connection between the very intelligent Obama and brainlessness.  Paris Hilton’s riposte may have been funny, but the McCain campaign was laughing all the way to the bank; it continued their connection of brainless celebrities attacking McCain, no matter how funny it was.  A good sign is the way Hilton’s film got coverage for a couple of days, then people realized what they were doing, and it disappeared.

Later ads continued the reframe, and continued (and continue) it effectively.  The latest shows Obama surrounded by lights and cheering crowds, then has him drawing back into a very small picture as the crowd and lights are removed.  It is an amazingly effective ad; it says that without his props of lights and adoring crowds, Obama is a small, pathetic man.

Again, none of this has to do with the truth.  It has to do with effective unconscious communication, and so far the McCain campaign is winning.

Let’s pick apart one of the most common commercials: the series of AT&T commercial that seems to run twice an hour (at least) on almost every channel in the world.  I’ll describe one of them, but the rest are similar.  A sweet couple is moving into a new to them, but old and fairly scary looking house.  An old woman, thin, gaunt, tells them they are in a “Dead Zone” where calls disappear — forever!  The dad says, “But we have AT&T.”  And we see the guy with the glasses, with an army of folks behind them.  “You’re good.”  And the woman says to them, a bit spitefully, “Well, you have crabgrass!” and stomps away.  Then the usual text, “Avoid dead zones.  Call AT&T.”

This commercial works well on multiple levels.  The first is the obvious one: humorous, a takeoff on ten million horror movies and TV shows, a little flip at the end, gets the name in and the message so people understand it.  Top marks.

However, there is also a semi-conscious thing going on, which we recognize every time we look for it, but the commercial runs so often we just tune it out — and the companies depend on that, believe me.  The more you “tune it out” consciously, the more the message goes past the conscious mind into the unconscious.  The semi-conscious message is clear: things are incredibly horribly disastrous unless you choose AT&T.  Dead zones: eeeek!

The more unconscious message is unconscious only because it is a series of images that have culturally known responses; it’s not that hard to spot.  The beginning of the horror movie brings the harbinger of evil.  Oh, no!  Next someone has to be killed, of course.  However, the hero comes to save the day (early).  So we feel, unconsciously, not only relaxed from the slight charge but grateful to the guy who makes it all better.

None of this is rocket science; that we’ll take in a future commercial.  But we must not underestimate the three levels working together.  The more the commercial is unnoticed, the more the latter two levels work to create “good feelings” about AT&T.

Let’s compare Sprint commercials.  We have one with the CEO promising lots of good things: big deal.  And we have one that creates bad feelings if you don’t use Sprint (humorously, so as not to leave a bad taste in the mouth) but never resolves it (now that I think of it, that may not even be Sprint).  The worst thing Sprint ever did was to get rid of the Muldar in the black coat.

The message?  Commercials, both company and political, work on multiple levels.  The best ones are small examples of brainwashing: tension, release, savior (see Sargent, “Battle for the Mind” for a more complete description of brainwashing theory specifically.)

One of the things I want to do on this blog is answer questions on a regular
basis.  I’m going to take some questions for the past week or so, and then
maybe do the rest another time (or answer more questions).  This, of course,
is a shameless way to cater to my readers and keep them coming back.

Question 1: “But there seems to be one area of TV advertising which goes
completely against this grain, and I am curious to know why. I speak of
commercials against drunk driving, smoking, drugs, bullying, etc. A common
understanding among hypnotherapists is that creating negative feelings in
order to sway the subject away from smoking is risky and not as effective as
creating positive feelings about being a healthy non-smoker. Why then do so
many ads for our own good focus so intently on creating negative feelings? “

First of all, I point to the post on Negative Campaigning.  Those who are
“motivated away” from things will be reached by this kind of association.
Second, to be frank, many of these commercials are as much for those in the
business as for those in the public, making themselves look good.  Such
people are often motivated negatively: seeing the horrible hunger and
squalor or having a relative die due to lung cancer or a drunk driver.
There is a close to unbearable desire to have the people to whom they
communicate share their anguish.  So public service announcements are often
done negatively, and I don’t see this changing.

Question 2: “Will you venture to hypothesize that someone in the catbird
seat of the Democratic Convention planned the “O-BA-MAH” chants, or their
counterpart at the Republican Convention orchestrated the “U-S-A” chants?”

Yes, of course.  Specifically (having been involved in a campaign or two)
there are specific media political consultants who make this their business,
just as there are ad agencies and research organizations that make the same
thing *their* business.  In general, the campaign honchos say what they
want, the media experts come back with storyboards and why they will work,
then the commercial gets approved.  The key here is “why they will work;”
they explain what they are doing.

Question 3: “What about unintentional hypnosis?”  Unintentional hypnosis is
a fact of life; the kinds of techniques I describe, particularly the raising
of emotional levels, happens all the time in real life.  Our best hypnotists
are our parents, but teachers and peers are good at that too.  This is a
blog on hypnosis and politics, so unintentional hypnosis tends to not come
into this discussion, but I may well take a tangent or two at times into
this rich field.

Please keep those questions coming!

Here we move into the realm of true subconscious conditioning, which the
true mavens of Madison Avenue foist upon on to sell cars, makeup, drills,
toilet paper, and Presidents. This is making connections, not obviously as
we saw before, but deep in the mind, totally bypassing conscious awareness.
These techniques are very commonly used now, and are very effective.

The first choice is what to connect with what. For sales, there is one
obvious answer for almost anything: sex. Sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, and more
sex. Sex sells. Sex sells better than anything else, to both men and women.
Whether this is Freudian or evil or whatever, it is true, and all of Madison
Avenue knows it. Connect a product (or a person) to sex and you’re almost
home. Obama has the advantage here by a lot; however, the nomination of
Palin as VP for the Republicans may have been motivated by many more things
than her record — like her legs.

The mechanism for the connection is usually very subtle: something is the
same, a marker, a footprint, between a sexual image and an image of the
product. Sometimes this is a logo. Sometimes it is an emphasized word louder
than the others by a specific percentage (have you noticed how commercials
are always louder than the shows on TV?) Sometimes it is a shape that can
appear in many places, like the Target circles. Sometimes it is a word with
the same typeface: smart, sexy, vibrant, white, anything. If this is
concealed in a “funny” commercial (for example, that gum with the blonde
spokesperson) then the subconscious not only gets sexual connections, but
good feelings as well. This is why so many commercials are comical.

This kind of communication with the subconscious is almost impossible to
catch in all cases, and is endemic. The ad men know much more about
conditioning large bodies of people than the government (which may be scary
in and of itself). We are all victims of this programming. Next time you see
a commercial that you like, watch for markers between the sexual parts of
the commercial and the product. Some will be clear and obvious. Some will be
very subtle. How many can you see?

Visual Rhythm

Note that knowing what is happening doesn’t keep the technique from working.  The images are still there.  But keeping track of yourself, and what you remember, and how it affects you will teach you much about how this kind of technique works.  So pay attention today, maybe for a few days.  What is the average image change speed?  Is it fairly consistent across commercials?  Can you determine two or three common speeds?  What do you think each one accomplishes?

Have you ever seen an interview with a celebrity or (especially) a politician where the answer to each question seemed to have no relationship whatever with the question that was asked?  This scene is endemic on the political scene, and is a game that reporters and politicians know well.

To an extent, this is an example of different frames; however, more specifically, it is an example of different outcomes.  The reporter wants to catch the politician in an embarrassing or newsworthy sound bite; the politician wants to get his message out to people and become more familiar as a figure to the public.  Therefore, the two often duel concerning their outcomes.  The reporter accuses the politician of dodging or not answering the question.  If the politician were being honest, his answer would be something like “D’UH!!!”  Instead he usually makes some tenuous connection between his answer and the question.

A wonderful example of changing outcomes is the history of the Iraq conflict.  At first, we were going in to protect ourselves from horrendous weapons that might be used, not just on our allies, but also on us.  Then we were in Iraq as part of a strategy in the overall Middle East (which is also a change of frame size; see the posting on frames).  Then we were there to help the Iraqi people who were under the heel of Saddam Hussein.  Now we are there because a too rapid withdrawal would leave the Iraqi people vulnerable to looting, deprivation, and civil war.

Whether you agree with our policy in Iraq or not, the pattern here is very clear; whenever the war grew too unpopular, there was a change of perceived outcome, and the Bush administration gained a bit of breathing space.  Those who were unalterably opposed rejected the outcome change; those who were unalterably in favor didn’t need it, but didn’t mind; however, those who were undecided or uncertain had another opportunity to support our troops and our government.

Changing outcomes, or goals, can be very subtle.  Watch for it in the campaign.  Can you identify where Obama has changed outcomes on some subjects?  How about McCain?  Did it help or hurt the candidate?

<!–[if !mso]&gt;

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } &lt;![endif]–> A familiar whine in politics is, “I was taken out of context!”  This complaint comes when some reporter believes that he or she has “caught out” the politician saying something that the public will not like, and often it is true.

In psychological areas, what “context” is in “out of context” is called a “frame”.   Frame is an entire set of assumptions, agreed presuppositions, and connotations assigned to words that are used during conversations.

We all share frames when we communicate.  Many arguments happen when the two speakers have mismatches between their frames.  Therapeutically, hypnotists and therapists manipulate the frames of their clients in order to produce beneficial change.

All of us are, to an extent, chameleons.  We change depending on the people around us.  Politicians do this more than others; it is important for voters to feel that a politician is “one of them.”  Thus, “out of context” is usually not just something as obvious and reprehensible as leaving out the “not” in a statement “I do not believe in flag burning.”  The frame is the entire situation.

If a politician, a candidate, or a business can control the frame of a discussion or subject, then he controls the vast majority of reactions to the subject.  Was the Exxon Valdez a simple accident, or the inevitable damage to the ecology from an oil based economy?

Frames of small groups differ from what might be called the “national frame.”  This is fodder for reporters; they take statements made in small groups and broadcast them in the more general national frame, with damaging results.  Suppose Obama had said, “The people in Pennsylvania have a hard life.  Their faith, their families, and their ability to feed themselves and protect themselves with their guns are what get them through.”  There would have been little controversy, except perhaps to the firearm statement.   Instead, in a frame shared by rich Democrats that don’t know the concerns of poor people in Pennsylvania, he spoke of “clinging” to religion and guns.

In the frame in which he was talking, the first statement would have seemed maudlin and emotional.  Obama used the language necessary to reach his audience.  However, that audience was a small one, and the statement in a national frame was offensive, to say the least.b

In later posts, we’ll discuss how frames can be changed, and how this can change the reaction of the public to various issues.  I’ll mention one now: when McCain talks about Iraq, he talks about the specific gains that have been met and the plight of specific people should the US pull out “too early.”  When Obama talks about Iraq, he talks about Afghanistan and North Korea and the necessity of meeting obligations there.  McCain wants the frame as small as possible, because he can point to specific results and specific dangers that people will react to.  Obama wants the frame as big as possible to point out just how small those gains are against our needs elsewhere.  Compare this to when casualties were higher: Bush did his best to expand the frame to the entire Middle East.

Control the frame and you control the thinking of the people around you.

One of the comments from my early posts (well, this is still an early post) asked about rhythm, influence (hypnosis), and the political process. Rhythm is amazingly hypnotic; we have all heard of the drums of voodoo priests and the rituals at places like Bali and the jungles of Jamaica.

The most common use of rhythm in political conventions is not to convert the uncertain, but to energize the converted. For this, rhythm is very effective. Remember the chants of the Democratic convention: O–BA–MA!! this continued for minutes, hours. The chant was deafening, and extremely hypnotic. The beat was about 90 to 120 per minute, which matches the brain in high activity.

Let us take a brief tangent to explain this. The brain has a tendency to use frequencies in the “brain waves” that occurs around it. This phenomenon is called “entrainment”, and is used in a variety of ways. When the brain waves of a mob — and there is no other word for people knit together by such powerful rhythms — coincide at a high level, they are extremely suggestible, and it is easy to arouse emotional reactions within them.

The trance caused by such a shared rhythm is much deeper than the trance caused by (for example) The occasional use of language patterns. The brain under that form of entrainment is open to suggestions ways that the person may not have experienced before. In the days of the British Empire, travelers from the west continually were amazed by (and wrote about) the way they were overcome by the rhythm of the drums and the atmosphere they created.

The Republicans were a bit underwhelming in their use of rhythm this year. After all, chanting, “McCain! McCain!” just doesn’t have that same powerful rhythm as “O–BA–MA!!!” Perhaps there is something in a name. But the Republicans did what they could with rhythm in the songs, clapping, stamping together in rhythm.

This does not tend to bring in those outside, who are not ready to participate in the ritual (but keep in mind those British explorers). For the faithful, it is a high that cannot be duplicated by any drug, and one that is addicting. Rhythm is part of any personal appearance, and if it is not, someone on that campaign staff should be fired.

In our exploration of hypnotic communication in politics, let’s start with what has been called “negative campaigning.”  Many pundits have decried negative campaigning as something divisive, polarizing, and an example of the character of the candidate.  If they can sink so low as to just call the other candidate names, then they are just exposing their own lack of character and answers to the complex problems that face our country.

The inevitable response is a very pragmatic one: negative campaigning works, and works better than any other technique.  However, if we are examining the use of communication to influence the voters, we must ask, “Why?”

When I was trained as a hypnotist, I learned that it is important to construct suggestions carefully.  In particular, pragmatically (I know of no academic research that verifies this, but it is taken for granted as true by clinicians) that there are two ways to motivate people.  One is to present a goal and ask them to  move towards it.  The other is to present a bad result and ask them to move away from what they dislike, at makes them uncomfortable, what they fear.

A quick example is found in the suggestions to stop smoking.  One way is to create a wonderful reality where the client is enjoying good health, easy breathing, scents that they had not smelled in years.  The second is to create a horrible reality of dying of lung cancer, clothes smelling of smoke, gradually diminishing abilities to play sports, run, walk, and even breathe.

The point is not that one is intrinsically better than the other; each is effective given the client.  One of the first things to find out is how the client  motivates him or her self, then adjust your communication accordingly.  Good car salesmen do this all the time; do you buy for the wonderful car, or to avoid costly repairs and breakdowns?

The reason negative campaigning works is that it reaches that portion of the electorate that is motivated by moving away from a bad situation: “away people.”  For this, you need a villain (at least most easily), and the other candidates are the most obvious choices.  There are others, beloved of some politicians: “Big Oil”, the rich who don’t pay their share, terrorists, black people, Jews, whatever.  The mixture above is deliberate; “black people” and “terrorists” could not be farther apart from each other (nor could Jews).  What matters is that the person receiving the communication regards that result negatively.

To avoid negative campaigning is to avoid fully half (my clinical experience indicates more than half) of the electorate who are motivated away from negative things.  Negative campaigning works because it appeals to that motivation pattern, and to promise never to engage in negative campaigning is to pass by more than half your audience.

Appealing to your motivation pattern is inherently unconscious communication.  The logical message is there, but so is the unconscious one: run away from this or move towards this.  I spoke in the introductory material about suggestions that fit the patterns of the unconscious mind, and this is one of the most basic patterns in our personality.

Which kinds of ads do you react to?  When you get out of bed in the morning, is it because you want to experience what is coming or is it because you will “get in trouble” if you sleep another hour?  Neither is better than the other, but knowing how you motivate yourself is valuable in trying to improve yourself and in observing how politicians (and others) try to appeal to your basic motivation style.  Look for it in the next few days.