Obama's Infomercial pt. 2

Infomercional Virtue: Strengthening the Ethos

[Summary: The rhetorical motive for the "infomercial": Strengthening Obama's Virtue, the weakest area of his ethos, an area he must strengthen if he is to govern.]

So much for the background, something that most observers - all but the "rabid right" - would acknowledge. Given that none of the major conditions - economic crisis, Democratic unity, and Republican divisiveness (internal and external) - barring some major "game-changer" (and perhaps even the capture of Bin Laden could not push aside the focus on the economy), Obama was in a position to simply play "prevent defense." That is, as he had done to some extent in the last debate, simply make sure he didn't make a mistake, to misspeak into a game-changer.

Obama also had so much money to spend that he could have flooded several "battleground states" with ads and get-out-the-vote organizers.

Why, then, go with an infomercial? Was it simply that it was safe? Well, no, there was a risk. It might make Obama seem too Hollywood, too much the celebrity and thus re-focus questions on his background. (Again, I leave out the reaction of the twenty-five percenters, the automatic "label and reject" group - although ironically some of them have begun to modify their virulence having "seen the handwriting on the wall.")

Well, the infomercial certainly dominated the news cycle. (Obama's rally in Florida and appearance on The Daily Show immediately after didn't hurt, either.)

But I think the infomercial was produced not only to influence voters before the election, but also, and in some ways primarily, to reassure citizens after the election. That is, Obama and his staff recognized that despite the active support of the Clintons, a phenomenal grassroots/internet support system, the mainstream media's rejection of the guilt-by-association, character-assassination narrative, and powerful endorsements, such as that of Colin Powell, Obama still had an ethos problem.

Obama's very strength, in terms of ethos, highlighted his weakness: his rhetoric, his balanced, even nuanced approach to problems, his instinct to step back and consider rather than engage and fight, emphasized both his practical wisdom and his disinterest, elements necessary to establish one's ethos, to make people comfortable with and follow one's leadership. As Jay Heinrichs has noted, Democrats have traditionally been strong on these traits, particularly disinterest.

However, the primary ethos trait is virtue - or, a sharing of values. It's an instinctive response, not so much do I like this person as can I trust him or her? Does this person understand me? We go to teachers for information and the office clerk for directions how to get our forms filled out correctly. But we don't go to them for advice about our relationships or budgets. For that we turn to the bartender or barber.

And Obama recognized that, assuming he won, he'd have to become a fixture in the community. Think of Andy Griffith, the laid-back sheriff of rural Mayberrry. Everyone knew he was smart, but he didn't make a boast of it. He treated everyone as if they were as smart as he was, and he went fishing.

What Obama had to do, in otherwise, was establish his virtue. He had to do it, or at least lay the groundwork, before the election. Afterwards, virtue moves would be limited by the politics of transition and governance. "American Stories, American Solutions" can be seen not so much as an extended campaign speech, or even a made-for-TV documentary, but a get-to-know-you, a personalization of Barack Obama.

From its dramatic structure to its dialogue and characterization, it was first and foremost a narrative. And like any good narrative, whether prose, graphic or film, its goal was to establish an identification of the audience with the protagonist, so much so that "when that Caesar has cried, the poor have wept."

Next: A look at the dramatic structure, from the title to the plot.