Anyone who watched, read or heard about last month's State of the Union Address came away with a knowledge of at least one new goal on America's political to−do list: Win the future. The public reception of the term was less unanimous. While some named President Barack Obama's newest slogan as just the morale boost the country needed, others reduced it to an acronym: "WTF."
But the catchphrase — also the title of a 2005 Newt Gingrich book, as well as a handful of other modern political manifestos — is not the first to make it big during Obama's presidency. Nor is Obama, for that matter, the first politician with a penchant for wordplay. Political slogans of years past have been met with equally divergent responses and with equally persuasive arguments, leaving many divided on whether political aphorisms hold any real meaning or whether they are mere publicity stunts.
The answer is as simple and complicated as, "both," according to Bob Lehrman (A '65), chief speechwriter for former Vice President Al Gore.
"Take ‘winning the future.' Meaning? Yes. The message is, ‘At a time when Americans worry that we'll never have prosperity again, and we will lose out to China or India, who seem to be moving ahead, we will recover, and we'll win that battle,'" Lehrman, who is currently an American University speechwriting professor, told the Daily. "But it was also done in a way that guaranteed publicity."
Deborah Schildkraut, associate professor of political science at Tufts, explained that whether a political slogan holds any weight or, more importantly, any efficacy, depends on the situation in which the slogan is used and to what end. Wording is often just about getting the audience to remember something, she said, but words' contextual associations can also help win or lose a political battle.
The most transparent of these situations is what social scientists would categorize as framing: when opposing sides of a debate craft phraseology to present a stance more publicly palatable than their opponent's, if only linguistically.
"A catchphrase associated with a particular policy can matter in terms of framing the debate about that policy and helping figure out what an issue is about. That can be consequential," Schildkraut said. "The side that succeeds in framing gets the upper hand, and the other side is then in a position of trying to dislodge the framing of the issue that is being discussed. An example that comes to mind is using a term like ‘death panels' when talking about health care reform."
Framing can be as simple as associating words that register as "good" with your own argument and words that register as "bad" with your adversary's. Of course, opponents in a semantic battle can fight back, as the "pro−choice" camp did to a strong, offensive phrase "pro−life," which at first seemed to leave its corollary framed as the "pro−death" position, Lehrman said.
"You try to find a phrase that means something to a lot of people — and try to get a lot of people to hear it," he said. "Americans like optimism. They like people who are for something good. Both parties devote a lot of time and money trying to find slogans, phrases or acronyms that are both optimistic or for something impossible to oppose."
And it's no wonder political figures pour time and money into focus groups that scrutinize the terminology of their platforms; the effect of this name game on manipulation of public support is measurable, Schildkraut said.
"We see this in debates about immigration reform. One side promotes giving illegal immigrants an opportunity for ‘earned citizenship,' while the other side opposes ‘amnesty.' Research shows that the American public favors allowing illegal immigrants to earn legal status, but that support is weaker — though still a majority — if the survey question uses the word ‘amnesty,'" she said.
Slogans are used as framing devices on smaller political battlefields as well.Former Tufts Democrats President Seth Rau, a junior, cited the debate surrounding voting rights for the Tufts Community Union Senate's community representatives.
"Choosing your words in a debate is critical. Look at this fall's vote between Referendum 3 and 4. One proposal that won by one vote nearly won the election because it talked more about celebrating diversity, which is a key buzzword on our campus," he said. "At the end of the day, the public wants a memorable phrase that the media drives into their heads, whether they realize it or not."
Current Tufts Democrats President Ryan Long, also a junior, sees framing as potentially hazardous to campus affairs.
"I have seen language manipulation used in many different contexts, including on campus and think that it can be a serious problem on a national scale," he said. "I think that people are frequently swayed by rhetoric and do not investigate policies and the truth of what people say or even really think about it."
Still, senior Kevin McDonald, vice president of Tufts Republicans, does not think that the slogans used on campus — or in Washington — make much of a real difference when it comes to voters' leanings for one reason: "They're short and easily forgotten," he said.
Lehrman is of a same opinion. While he agreed that language manipulation can sometimes be effective in the specific case of framing, its outcomes even then are overestimated: Language can only complement a politician's message, not define it. One catchphrase often cited as having cast a politician in a favorable light is President Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America." Still, Lerhman clarified, the slogan accompanied Reagan's politics, rather than defined them.
"While Reagan won, the slogan didn't make much difference," he said. "The TV ad using it made some [difference]; it was really skillful. But the economy, the lingering unpopularity of Carter and Reagan's avuncular appeal were much more important."
Moreover, framing is only one use of political catchphrases, and if a phrase is being used for another purpose — like to describe a political philosophy or provide an uplifting message midterm, as is the case with "winning the future" — the effect is likely to be much more negligible, Schildkraut said.
"For the most part, I don't think they help all that much, especially during governance, i.e. ‘Winning the future.' During the campaign, a phrase like, ‘Yes, we can,' can tap into a zeitgeist and feed into the enthusiasm that people have for the campaign. That enthusiasm can certainly help to sustain involvement. During governance, however, a vague catchphrase about an approach to policy−making has difficulty resonating," Schildkraut said.
Lehrman agreed that "Yes, we can" was effective as a slogan but differed from "Winning the future" significantly.
"‘Winning the future' was a State of the Union message, calculated to express optimism," he said. "‘Yes, we can' was not only a theme of Obama's campaign. He used it in the long, brilliant end of his victory speech … at a time when that message struck home."
McDonald, who believes that the language that characterized the beginning of Obama's presidential campaign — words like "hope" and "change" — have immense power to inspire and mobilize supporters, thinks that the president's most recent linguistic offering falls short for other reasons.
"It doesn't strike me as anything special," he said. "This slogan doesn't have the same panache that others do; it lacks any kind of emotional power that many good slogans have. ‘It's morning again in America' gave the sense of rejuvenation and renewal for the country; ‘It's the Economy, Stupid' summed up the anger of the American people at the time. ‘Winning the future,' to me, doesn't have any of these qualities of a lasting slogan."
