Effective Propaganda: Rallies, Speeches, Fireworks

Today, I would like to talk about the Obama campaign and how it used effective propaganda to effectively win the hearts of millions of Americans. Note that I did not include "minds" in that sentence. Certainly, a few documentaries have proven that his spell on the American public was not about issues but about perceptions, and Obama supporters were woefully behind McCain supporters in terms of knowledge of the issues. The fact, however, is that effective propaganda isn't about educating the masses. It is about exciting the emotions. And that is exactly what his campaign did.

Before I dive into my take on the "Obama Nation," let me state that what I say has nothing to do with politics or political lean. Whether you are so far to the left that you are about to fall into the pit of Hell, or that you are so far to the right that you, too, are about to fall into the pit of Hell, makes no difference. This is simply a look at the campaign, the speaker, and the propaganda. Please keep that in mind as you read.

Obama ran the perfect campaign. True to the ideals of effective propaganda, his campaign did everything correctly. We have not seen this kind of campaign in a long time. In fact, I'm not sure that we have ever seen this kind of politicking in the United States. The fact that he used every rhetorical tool in the bag, and his campaign was managed like an infantry corps, has brought both applause and criticism. His supporters claim that he was brilliant, and detractors hearkened back to similarities with the Nazi revolution. Either way, no matter what you think about him or his policies, it must be recognized that he mastered the art of propaganda.

I want to take a look at the elements of his campaign that created the reaction that it did. None of this happened by accident, and he led a well-planned effort that was choreographed like a Broadway musical. It was a marvelous site to see from those who are interested in such things.

To begin with, the Obama camp controlled the media. I know that this sounds like the whining of the Republican party, but let's face it, the media is liberal, and it was obvious that they wanted Obama to win. On the surface, it doesn't matter who the Democratic candidate is. If someone is running against a Republican, the media is going to support that person; however, with the Obama campaign, there was a different energy than just blind support. He had the media eating out of his hand. Stories that he wanted told were told. Issues that he wanted covered were covered. Pictures that he wanted taken were taken. There was no question that he managed the press like a CEO of ABC. He owned them, and they loved every minute of it. On any given day, it was difficult to find the least amount of criticism of Obama, but it was easy to find dirt on McCain or Palin. Again, I'm not griping about this at all. It's a testament to the fact that he was able to control his message which is what great propagandists do.

Secondly, he was a master of setting the stage. Take a look at famous political rallies, and they all have common attributes: large crowds, unified chanting, colorful backdrops, image worship, music, and theatrics. Obama's first decision when he won the Democratic nomination was perhaps his most important. Instead of electing to hold town hall meetings throughout the United States, he chose to hold mass rallies in stadiums. McCain did the opposite. Who stood out as being fresher and more interesting? Certainly, Obama did. His rallies were a mixture of rock star concert and Nuremberg. I'm sorry to make that allusion, but I cannot help it. Again, I am not talking about the man or the message. I'm talking about the show. It is a fair comparison, and there is nothing wrong with what he did in this regard. In fact, I view it as good because it was effective.

How did his rallies go? To begin with, one or two speakers introduced him. Their speeches were short and very emotional. Their job was to warm the crowd up and get the emotional energy moving upward. They used key words that were followed by shouts and chants. He had key supporters mixed in with the crowd whose job it was to encourage those mass shouts as well. That made for good television, and it brought the crowd to a frenzy. Just before he was brought on stage, the lighting would be dimmed, and music with rhythmic drum beats would proceed. And when he walked on stage, fireworks would go off behind him. By the time he got to the podium, everyone in that stadium was a fever-pitch. This is, my friends, effective propaganda.

His speeches were another part of the whole puzzle. He delivered speeches that were full of rhetorical devices. He spoke like a minister in a pulpit. His voice carried high and low, and his words were full of imagery. He repeated himself over and over, trying to get key slogans to resonate in the minds of the audience. His words were more than words. They were word pictures, and people could visualize what he was saying which is very important in an emotionally excited environment. At any point in his speech, the adrenaline was so high in the auditorium that it mattered not what he said. And those who were a part of the experience likened it to an orgy of ideas and emotions that will leave a mark on them forever.

On the campaign trail, his message was simplified into simple slogans that were repeated over and over. He propagated them, and the media and his organization continued to force-feed it to America. His name was synonymous with change. His rallying cry was "Yes, we can." His enemy was all things Bush. These three things drove the arrow through McCain's heart. He could not overcome the onslaught. Americans, over time, began to believe one thing: the Republicans have led us badly, we need change, and Obama can turn us around if we support him.

This support system, too, was "propagandistic." He had two types of people following him. Those recruited as supporters, and those who were followers. The followers were a subset of people whose job it was to recruit supporters. Indoctrination, therefore, was grassroots, and a system of indoctrination spread from town to town, person to person. The emotion of the rally fueled the tenacity of the followers who worked the communities for him spreading his message.

There is no doubt as to the effectiveness of his propaganda. He had youth choirs singing his praises, movie makers were filming documentaries about him, musicians were writing songs about him, and teachers were lecturing about him.

With all of this said, the most important aspect that proves the effect of his propaganda is not what was preached in his name, but what was left out. His efficiency at hiding his past, his clever dodging of questionable associations, his turning the tables against those who opposed him -- these are all the hallmarks of effective propaganda. It is true that he had the largest number of supporters who did not even know the issues. A study was conducted which stated that over 40% of those who voted for him did not even know which party controlled the House or Senate. 95% of them, however, did know which party had an official who spent $150,000 on clothing.

I want to end this by, once again, reaffirming my neutrality. I am neither for nor against him. I really enjoy, though, breaking down his very effective propaganda. I think it was a two-year work of art on his part, and it will be admired for years to come.