British and American Campaigning Contrasted

The emergence of Obama as a political force in the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />United States has notably contrasted with Brown’s slow demise over here.  Will Obama win the presidency?  Will Brown even make it to the next election?  If Brown could learn from Obama, could the campaign methods of the United States be transferred over here or vice versa?  What are the differences between British and American campaigning? 

 

American politicians have been very successful at appropriating America’s civil religion (protestant Christianity) as a strategy to legitimise themselves and their policies.  Durkheim defined religion as “a unified system of beliefs and practices which unite a community into a single moral entity”.  America’s religious framework cannot be separated from America’s myths of liberty, equality, justice and happiness for all.  We have all seen George W. Bush’s use of religion throughout his tenure in The White House.

 

The reason for the effectiveness of religious discourse in America is grounded in America’s history; it is one of puritan values.  Throughout the second Gulf conflict, Bush always structured his argument around religion, moving away from more rational measures, like the legal, evidence-based framework. 

 

In America, Bush and other politicians rely on emotional engagement to elicit support.  America at times seems to be backward, exhibiting vague, subjective notions of policy.  Instead of relaying facts as we British do, Americans are more comfortable talking about “dreams”“, hopes” and “fears”.  In Britain, we rely on hard facts and information.  When Blair had to convince the House of Commons to go to war, he reeled-off detailed information concerning WMDs, and Saadam’s past record.  When Bush spoke, he spoke of “freedom and fear” being“at war”. 

 

One is more likely to come across metaphors in speeches in America.  For example, “Americais a beacon”.  This was used by both Reagan and Bush.  Metaphors are more easily understood by the human brain and increase audience involvement and recall.  They make the speaker look charismatic.

 

When Brown and Cameron speak, they rely on dry statistics about the economy, health care reform and crime.  Britons seem to value measurable results, where for Americans it’s all about character.  Personality is important in both countries but where Britons appreciate kindness and intelligence; Americans seem to value “strength” and “Christian values”. 

 

David Frum, author of the Axis of Evil speech, once remarked that almost two-thirds of American people believe in the devil.  American politicians speak in simplistic terms, attributing value judgements like “good” and “evil”. 

 

In Britain, we have “inclusiveness” as a necessary policy initiative: gay people, multiculturalism and single mothers.  America’s necessary initiatives are more exclusive; Christian values, old fashioned, male-led family values and overt nationalism.

 

American presidential appearances are characterised by the prime time, televised, low-key, conversational format made famous by Reagan.  British premier’s appearances are more spontaneous – or at least appear to be. 

 

American political speeches are characterised by wide-ranging content – they are the product of sophisticated professional writing teams made up of policy advisors and ex-journalists.  British politicians use speechwriters but many simply write their own.  Matthew Taylor, Blair’s domestic advisor from 1994 to 1998 revealed that before a big speech, Tony Blair met policy advisors several times but sat down and wrote speeches the night before he delivered them. 

 

So what are the similarities between American and British campaigning? 

 

Both exhibit “market-driven” campaigns.  Mathew Taylor says that “…you win in the centre-ground so, the combination of electors becoming more like shoppers…and an electoral system which means that the election is won or lost amongst a quarter-of-a-million swing voters, so yes, elections are market-driven”.

 

Both governments can be said to be driven by a “moral compass”.  America’s is couched in an Old Testament version of Christian values, whilst Britain’s is guided more by a liberal, “inclusive” value system.

 

Personality is important in both cases; both try to identify with their audiences.  Gordon Brown does it by telling us he listens to the Artic Monkeys on his ipod; Bush does it by using words like “folks” and wearing jeans.  Bush has become so adept at playing the ordinary bloke in the street that many Americans have forgotten he attended private schools before going onto Yale and Harvard.

 

The effect of the economy is felt on both sides of the Atlantic.  Speeches are not made in a vacuum but are written primarily with the economy in mind.  This is the largest external factor in political speech writing.

 

We British value the idea of “community”.  America values its own idea of greatness and must constantly be reminded of it.  Both countries value the idea of “social climbing”.  For some reason, Americans are very susceptible to emotional political stimuli.  We Britons however, remain largely suspicious of anything politicians have to say.