Speak to Lead

Persuasive Messages: How 4 words opened the door to the Presidency

As I was searching my hard drive for a manuscript, I came across the following description of how 4 words helped transform Dwight D. Eisenhower from an outsider to the presidential nominee at the Republican Convention in 1952.

It may well be that without this 4-word slogan there would never have been the 3-word slogan popularized in the general election: I Like Ike.

As the U.S. lumbers along toward Election 2012, candidates of both parties would do well to craft there slogans and sound bites for results. Intellectuals distain them. Critics malign them. But voters heed them.

Did Four Words Make a President?

By Alton Ketchum 

How powerful are slogans in politics?

Here's a story of one that helped to make history.

In 1952 America was at a political crossroads. Should we continue our worldwide commitments undertaken during World War II, or should we pull back behind our frontiers?

The problem found human expression in two leaders.

One was General Dwight D. Eisenhower, recently victorious in Europe and since 1950 commander of NATO.

The America-First Committee was led by Ohio Senator Robert A. Taft, whose partisans wanted to return to policies pursued before the advent of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Both were contenders for the Republican presidential nomination.

Up to the convention, scheduled for July 7 at Chicago, many seasoned observers thought the General had only an outside chance.

As one who believed that the U.S. should play a strong and constant role in world affairs, I wondered what could be done to help his cause.

Perhaps a good slogan would project the story.

The problem was how to put that case in a way which would not be too invidious to the powerful senator and his ardent cohorts.

I tried dozens of word combinations, ranging from delicately suggestive to the heavily assertive, and kept coming back to one:

Political Debates: Post Iowa debate Republicans need to heed advice given to Nixon

Richard Nixon in 1967, a Washingtonian Magazine article in 1984, and an experience with political bloggers in 2009, all came into alignment as I was thinking back on last week's Iowa Republican Debate.

The hardest lesson for Republicans to embrace is the reality that persuasion depends on emotion, not reason.

Just as I was dismayed in 2009 to hear a political blogger say that all they needed to do was get out the facts (click here to read the original post), I was disheartened that the Iowa debate produced few moments that connected emotionally enough to be remembered. Actually, I'd have to think hard to remember even one.

I compare that to the first time I heard Mike Huckabee speak. It was in 2007 and I still recall in some detail, and still feel the emotions I felt, when he related the story of going to town with his father to see the governor speak, and a second story about a school teacher and veterans.Two clear memories after 4 years; none after 5 days.

Which leads to the Washingtonian article. I was going through a scrapbook of interviews I did in my early days. One was with the Washingtonian in April 1984. In an accompanying article, I came across advice political consultant William Gavin gave to Richard Nixon in 1967 in preparation for his 1968 presidential campaign. 

It was true then. It's true now. And if Republicans want to win back the Senate and White House, they need to pay heed.

Here is Gavin's advice to Richard Nixon:

Voters are basically lazy, basically uninterested in making an effort to understand what we're talking about.

Reason requires a high degree of discipline, of concentration; impression is easier.

Reason pushes the viewer back, it assaults him, it demands that he agree or disagree; impression can envelop him, invite him in, without making an intellectual demand.

Let's see how they do in the next debate.

Persuasion: Preparing Spokespersons to Handle Sensitive Questions

In the previous post, Interview Prep: Was spokesman being honest or just nervous?, you saw what can happen when the spokesperson is not properly prepared to handle sensitive questions.

Mr. Hallor appears to me to be a likeable and competent guy with a genuine concern for the public's safety who wants to be helpful to the reporter. This should have been an interesting interview that aired once and then was forgotten.

But the interview goes viral because Hallor acknowledges that WMDs have been found in the U.S., only to have the onsite public affairs person, followed by a written statement, and a phone call to the station (20+ days after the interview-how's that for timely response?!) clarify Hallor's "misstatement."

So how could (and should) this have been prevented? Here are 5 steps for handling sensitive questions:

Persuasion: Overcoming 'we just don't have the money' objections

A webinar participant recently asked the following question:

How can we eliminate the objection of 'we just don't have the money.' This seems to be common when seeking a job with a small company or funding for a project.

Often this objection is preceded by "We'd really like to hire you/fund your project/etc., but..."

While the detailed answer to the question would involve numerous variables unique to each situation, here are some general guidelines.

You first need to reconsider the WHAM!factor^TM of your offer:

Are you able to show conclusively that what you are suggesting will benefit the potential employer or project funder? When lack of funds is an issue, your number one priority is to demonstrate that the cost of hiring you or funding your project will produce returns several times more than the cost.

Without first creating a convincing and compelling desire on the part of your prospect, you have little chance to bypass the "no money" objection.

You also need to determine whether the "we just don't have the money" is real, is perceived to be real, or is a polite way to say, 'No.'"

Recognize that there are situations where the saying, "You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip" applies. They don’t have the funds nor the means to get the funding.

Action: Find who does have the resources and focus on them; don't hang around waiting for the turnip to get a transfusion.

At other times your prospect may perceive the objection as real, when in fact the needed resources could be found in-house or could be raised from external sources.

Actions: Come up with suggestions on how to find or acquire the necessary funds. Think of options they might not have considered. Focus on ways of reducing risk to the prospect. Be creative.