Strategic Communication: lessons from President Trump

There appears to be considerable unease both globally and within the USA about the Trump presidency, what it will mean for America and its European allies, and how it will eventually impact on the lives of people across the world. Natalie Campbell-Rodriques I am not as alarmed as many people seem to be. In fact, I believe some of those anxieties can be put to rest. Why? Because America’s democracy and institutions are deep-rooted and resilient. There are checks and balances, and adequate means available to the public to exert their will on the government. The country will most likely weather the storm. Financial markets may react erratically and the media may get into frenzy in the short-run, but when we take the long view of history we see that, in spite of all the alarms that have been sounded about various American leaders, the sky still has not fallen. Society adjusts. Markets adjust. Life goes on. Now, to the real issue I want to address. Trump’s victory last November teaches us a lot about something quite important - effective communication. Outside of the comedy and cartoons, the 597 days of the American political campaign also gave us a free course in effective communication. I hope many people took note and learned. Let us ask ourselves this question: how often does ‘taking the high road’ (“when they go low, we go high”) lose out to pursuing a narrow self-interested agenda? The answer: more often than we realise. In the US elections we saw the Democrats carrying what many would have thought to be a strong message: let us choose unity, togetherness, love, tolerance, etc. over fear. “Together we are stronger!” A strong message for sure, but not necessarily the most effective in winning an election. The truth is that in politics as in everyday life, the message that we should do good is often less powerful a motivator of human action and behaviour than the message that we should avoid harm. At the end of the day, when ordinary people weigh their interests, they often only find it intellectually appealing to idealise about the benefits of working together for the common good. Ultimately, what concerns many is how things will impact on their personal welfare. Sounds Hobbesian I know, but history provides an abundance of examples of this reality. A simple case in point: Jamaica, March 2010. “The Haitians are coming!” screamed the newspaper headlines! Hundreds of poor Haitians were flooding in by boat, looking for refuge. As a people, Jamaicans had always sympathised with the plight of the Haitians, and always encouraged the USA to accept Haitian refugees. I can recall how angry some of my friends became when we saw American naval boats turning back the Haitians at sea. But then something happened in 2010. This time, the Haitians were coming not to the USA but to Jamaica. A statement from the Jamaican government read: “We are cognisant of all of the challenges people are facing in Haiti, but we have to be responsible in terms of our responsibility to our Jamaican people. (With) the times and the situation that we are facing, it is difficult for us to continue spending funds (on the refugees) that we could be spending here on very essential services.” The refugees were sent back. The sentiment of the government was also shared by the majority of Jamaicans. Yes, it would be nice to take care of our brothers and sisters, but what if we are finding it hard to take care of ourselves? In the US election, President Trump presented the choice in starker terms for the American people. His message: millions of immigrants are coming, some are terrorists, many have intent to rape our people, some are bringing drugs, they will take our jobs and hurt our country. Contrast this with the Democrats’ message: “We are all stronger when we work together.” Fear trumped idealism. But that was not all. Trump appeared to have understood that the art of communication is (a) simple messages, (b) with emotive words, (c) repeated often. This is textbook communications strategy. A simple message with emotive words that is repeated often is almost always far more effective than a convoluted message. Consider this: “Lying Ted”, “Crooked Hillary”, “Little Marco” (Rubio), “Low Energy Jeb” (Bush), “Immigrants are coming to rape”, “there are terrorists and bad people coming across our borders.” Simple, emotive, repeated often. The labels stuck. Images were created in people’s minds. Compare these with: “We want to know why Donald Trump will not release his tax statements” ; “do you know that he may not have paid taxes for 18 years?”; and “Donald Trump is not fit to be president.” On one side the issues seemed to be mere curiosities (why isn’t Trump releasing his taxes), while on the other side a clear and present danger to America’s interest was being presented in vivid and emotional ways. Hillary not only lacked charisma and charm, but she lacked simple, emotive messages that could motivate action… The other side conveyed powerful images that shaped how people saw the candidates and the issues. This is what the art of effective communication is about. Of course, there are many other reasons why Trump won, but I believe we can learn a lot from the effectiveness of his communication strategy. The writer is a development consultant and owner of Forrest Jackson Relocation Services

Opinions

Strategic Communication: lessons from President Trump