Should Joe Biden Run The Same Plays as Donald Trump?
Well, yes and no .... maybe. Here's why ...
Alan Kelly | Guest Contributor
Special insights heard daily at #RealityCheck on WURD every Mon - Thur, 10am - 1pm ET LIVE at wurdradio.com or WATCH the 9.1.20 edition on WURD TV at facebook.com/forwurd or LISTEN each day by WURD app. Also: wear your B|E today!
Donald Trump always runs high-engagement plays. These are all influence strategies that are largely from the diverting (green), pressing (purple) and provoking (red) families of elements as seen in the Taxonomy of Influence Strategies ….
Joe Biden, however, plays a different game. His strategies are of the "fit" cluster of plays (second row, below) that resonate and create agreement. He tests for reactions, informs to educate, invokes to give color, challenges to be better and, different from Trump, he concedes errors …
Players who engage (like Trump) can be beaten, but not by high-fit opponents (like Biden). And vice versa. Why? Because Biden can no more bray and strut (via a Peacock) any more than Trump can admit fault (via a Concede) …
So when rivals such as Trump and Biden run such different plays, how do they engage for competitive advantage? The answer is counter-intuitive for both. Trump's best bet is to run plays that frame, particularly those that educate instead of entertain. He might try to invoke images of his humanity (as Biden will) but these will conflict with his hard-edged brand. Trump will need to spell out his story and policies via the Inform play …
Biden's best bet is two-fold: (1) Frame his story with rich images via the strategy called Invoke, and (2) bait Trump but with humor. The irony and hypocrisy that belies Trump's record is easily purloined and poked in a way that shames the president, but preserves Biden's dignity …
Something needs to be said about the strategy of response: It’s a loser’s game. Responding to an attack, rant, brag, insult or lie – whether planned or improvised – seldom slows or stops aggressors. More often it revives them.
When President Trump decries Democrats as far-left fascists he stirs the hate of the left whose like-minded news outlets then fact-check and puncture the hyperbole (see my essay, Anatomy of a Strategy). Lured more by the reaction than news, conservative media report the outrage that the president’s slights incite. You might think the Democrats are winners of this round for busting the bloviations, but on net it’s a point for the right because what Trump covets most is the upset of his rivals. Foment, not facts, is what fuses his base.
Recasting or ignoring a label is seldom a good counter to President Trump’s sticky sound bites. A better option is to encourage or even accept his point: Sure, we’re fascists. We like masks, equal rights and healthcare-for-all. Yep, we’re fascists. Since November 2015 I’ve argued that Trump can only be beaten by speeding him up, not slowing him down. Indeed, Trump is prone to over-state, but without punching bags his proclamations convey as crazy.
When I suggested recently to a client that we publicly engage a competitor on a winnable debate he admitted we might score some points, but he worried we’d also earn the rival’s wrath. My suggestion of engagement was taken as aggression when in fact the plays I had in mind were nuanced. It was my mistake and my failure to educate. Quite understandably, he saw his choices as binary: Attack or retreat, low road vs. high road, etc.
Responding to a detractor, especially one that embraces misinformation, disinformation and other forms of propaganda, is not a casual choice. In fact, it’s often the wrong choice. Reversing spin requires a resistance to knee-jerk response, fuller understanding of counter-intuitive options, and complete understanding of the full spectrum of influence strategies. There are 23 plays that can defuse or flip an aggressor, not two or three.
powered by …