by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 25, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

n the eve of the Democratic National Convention, the Kerry campaign demonstrated its insecurity, imposing editorial control over anyone lucky enough to speak. Trying to stay positive is one thing but watering down and censoring speeches could backfire. No one—especially undecided swing voters—likes phoniness. Worried that only five-percent of independent voters will decide the election and concerned that Bush-bashing might turn them off, Kerry's spin control team has gone over the deep end dictating the content of speeches. After all, political conventions are about expressing the collective outrage necessary to defeating the opposition, especially a wartime incumbent, whose major appeal is national security. Exercising tight control over the convention's content seems overly cautious for a party looking for victory yet unable to articulate a coherent message.

      In their quest to control the message, party spin meisters might inadvertently suck the energy from the convention, too preoccupied with telling Kerry's story, something already known by most voters. Voters aren't as much interested in Kerry's biography than how he plans to take the country in different direction. Muzzling passionate speakers only dilutes the message to undecided voters, unable to pinpoint their own disgust over the country's direction. So far, Kerry hasn't contrasted himself with President Bush on Iraq and the war on terror, except promising more international cooperation, something the GOP can easily attack as kowtowing to the United Nations. Tiptoeing around Iraq leaves undecided voters—especially those unhappy with the ongoing hemorrhage to the U.S. military—reluctant to switch the incumbent at a time of heightened concerns about terrorism.

      Focusing too much on Kerry and not enough on speakers' outrage about the issues leaves voters choosing between personalities, not a clear vision for the future. No speaker should be told to tone down anything. Kerry's team should have more confidence that personal passion means more to undecided voters than creating a homogenized message. Taking spontaneity out of an already predictable outcome invites voters to tune out gavel-to-gavel cable news coverage. “Our speech process is helping people get comfortable with the message,” said Kerry-Edwards campaign spokesman Debra DeShong, explaining that John Kerry and John Edwards have a “clear message” they wish to convey. Kerry and Edward's message shouldn't preempt speakers from expressing their own views, including, if desired, bashing Bush and Cheney for hitting the country with a wrecking ball.

      Independent, crossover and swing voters aren't interested in predigested propaganda from an elite group of spin doctors, worried that spontaneity hurts chances in November. Going through drafts of speeches “to help highlight the campaign's themes for the convention” invites the kind of blasé uniformity likely to turn off voters. What interests convention-viewers are not only Kerry's message but the colorful range of opinions expressed within the party. No scripting or censorship can control the adverse fallout from spontaneous communication. “We went back and forth a little bit,” said Rep. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), discussing his experience with Kerry's minders. “But I gave in a little bit and I'm happy with it,” admitting he modified his remarks under pressure from the Kerry campaign. Invited speakers shouldn't be told what to say and how to say it, they should be trusted to deliver their messages.

      Kerry's team will have far more trouble with high profile critics like Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) or former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean whose disdain for Bush is known by all. Are they supposed to pull their punches when they indict the Bush record on health care and the war in Iraq? Placing a heavy hand on the content of speeches sets a dangerous precedent for a party boasting about its love for diversity. Instead of obsessing about “the message” or its effects on the estimated five-percent of undecided voters, convention planners should be looking for passion, fresh ideas and allowing speakers to openly express opinions. When former President Bill Clinton or Vice President Al Gore step up to the podium, convention-watchers expect fireworks, not predigested platitudes from Kerry's minders. All the talk about delivering a positive message might fall on deaf ears.

      Instead of listening to polling experts, the Kerry-Edwards campaign should urge invited guests to speak their minds. Kerry and Edwards have plenty of time to advance their positive message. But nominating conventions are more than rubber stamping the will of delegates already committed to handing Kerry the nomination: It's about firing up the base and persuading undecided voters to follow along. You can't change opinions or voting preferences by muzzling passionate voices willing to step up to the microphone and go out on a limb. Bridling passion for the sake of satisfying the number-crunching obsessions of pollsters invites disaster. Whatever percentage of undecided voters is up for grabs, they're more likely to jump aboard hearing passionate rhetoric than carefully scripted propaganda. Before it's too late, Kerry's spin doctors should take a breath and loosen the leash.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.