Hard to believe it’s a year after the Democratic convention. It got me thinking about this again.
A little more than a year ago, when it was clear he was going to be the Democrat’s nominee, I got to thinking about a slogan, a phrase, that would sum up the case for John Kerry. In early June I got it:
A Fresh Start.
I did more than think of it: I got it to the Kerry campaign at a high level in June, with a detailed memo on why those were the EXACTLY RIGHT WORDS. The go-between was a prominent official in the Clinton White House.
In fact, in October John Kerry campaigned with this slogan (“A Fresh Start for America.”) It was on banners behind him, and on the front of the podium where he spoke during his last campaign swings. It was singled out by Craig Crawford in the Congressional Quarterly: “I could see the mood in the nods of agreement in an airport lounge recently as a television news clip showed Kerry saying the country needs `a fresh start.’ This could be the most powerful phrase in Kerry’s arsenal during the closing days.”
I never found out whether it was my memo that convinced them to consider it. I never got credit for it, and needless to say, I didn’t make a cent on it.
But a year later, I’d really like to know just how my memo figured into the decision to use this slogan, if it did.
Details and the memo follow.
The memo I sent in June 2004 identifies me. I hesitate to identify the Clinton official I sent it to, without his permission, but you would know his name. We knew each other from college.
It wasn’t until after the election that I asked him whether he had sent the memo on, and he said he had. He said (in an email) he would try to find out what had happened to it, but he’s a busy guy.
But I didn’t just send the memo through him in June. I sent it directly to someone at the kerry.com website, and to Mary Beth Cahill by mail. I posted most of the memo on my blog on July 22. At some point I posted a shorter version of the memo on the Kerry.com blog.
If I had simply come up with the words, it could be coincidence. But read this rationale—I think I made a good case.
It was a thrill to see John Kerry campaign on those words. But I find myself still wondering, should I get some credit?
But it also occurs to me now that it could work even better in 2008.
So here is the original June 2004 memo:
William S. Kowinski is the author of THE MALLING OF AMERICA, a regular contributor to the San Francisco Chronicle, an elected John Kerry delegate chosen to address the Humboldt County Democratic convention on Senator Kerry’s behalf before the CA primary
who earnestly entreats a few moments of your attention to the rationale for a THEME/TAG LINE that could help WIN THIS ELECTION.
It’s just three words:
A FRESH START
Not just the concept, which is said and implied in many ways now, but the exact words. There are many ways to say it, but most of the formulations have been overused or are too abstract: time for a change, a new day, a new America, etc.
A FRESH START is fresh, it’s more concrete and action-oriented. It has emotional resonance, connotations that are both exciting and warm.
Break it down:
A: An indefinite article. It doesn’t directly blame. It doesn’t start an argument immediately by claiming too much (such as “this candidate is THE perfect answer to make everything better,” which puts a lot of people off.)
FRESH: has good associations, to fresh food, fresh air—something brand new, untainted. Fresh air is bracing, so it’s exciting. Fresh bread is warm. FRESH is POSITIVE, in its literal meaning and its emotional message. But it also distinguishes from something that is not fresh, that’s old, that leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Something that’s fresh doesn’t directly imply a change from something that’s stale or decaying, but it is the desired alternative to something stale or decaying. It has associations of health, of flavor, that it will FEEL GOOD.
START is an action word. Start your engines! It is exactly paired with FRESH in its music.
The literal meaning of A FRESH START has everything to do with now and the future. FRESH is immediate. START implies action that goes on into the future.
But in this context, A FRESH START implies a repudiation of the past and of past mistakes, without actually saying it. Lots of people have made up their minds that Bush has made serious mistakes. Even if thing suddenly improve in Iraq, nothing changes the fact of the mistakes and the terrible costs of them. This is a way of making Bush accountable for mistakes without being negative, or only negative.
It is also less tied to “different directions” or different policies—for example, it will be argued that Kerry’s plan for Iraq is basically Bush’s new plan (even if based on Kerry’s ideas.) But no one can argue that the assertion of “a different direction” is wrong because the direction isn’t really different—A FRESH START can in some cases mean simply a new person, without the baggage of the past.
But it works equally well on issues (like health care) that are based on a new policy direction or different approaches. And for those predisposed to want a different direction, and those who want Kerry to bring a different direction, they will read all of that into A FRESH START.
And it will WORK no matter what happens in the future, because it implies a repudiation of the past: of the horror this administration has forced on us all, no matter how it seems to be turning out at the moment—the horror and shame of Iraq, the pain inflicted on the unemployed and those without health care, etc.
A FRESH START appeals to the base: those who want nothing more than to get rid of Bush. But it can also appeal to INDEPENDENTS READY TO JUMP who are troubled if not appalled, and who are almost ready to hold Bush accountable for mistakes, regardless of how they feel generally about his policies or his personality.
But the real key is that it can also appeal to OTHER INDEPENDENTS AND EVEN REPUBLICANS who need a nudge to use the secrecy of their ballot to vote for A FRESH START, for somebody new, without the emotional turmoil of admitting they were wrong to back Bush, or without the appearance of being disloyal to their party or ideology or religious congregation.
A FRESH START doesn’t require anyone to admit that they fault Bush specifically. They might fault others in his administration. They may not fault anyone—they just want all this bad stuff to go away, and they’re afraid that with Bush it could continue. They don’t want to see the awful pictures and terrible headlines. They want it all to be over, but they don’t want to appear disloyal to a president in wartime. A FRESH START is unthreatening language. It is optimistic, forward-looking, and very American.
A FRESH START works even for those who don’t really believe that a change in administration will make much of a difference. But at least it will be a change, a chance that things will be better. Even when people are afraid to criticize, they can be persuaded by the sensible American idea that if things aren’t going well, it’s time to give somebody else a chance.
A FRESH START allows Kerry to be the candidate of change and hope without forcing him to take radical positions to prove it.
A FRESH START is a tag line to be used relentlessly until everyone knows it, until comedians are making jokes about it. But it is also a concept around which the candidate can build positions, and can show his personality. IT TURNS THE FACT THAT MANY AMERICANS DON’T KNOW KERRY INTO AN ADVANTAGE. He’s new and therefore fresh, and imagery can reinforce this naturally by showing his family, his friends, his background—all new to the public.
When FDR was first elected, Will Rogers commented that if he had simply burned the White House down, the country would have said, at least he got a fire started. The electorate isn’t that desperate yet. But there is a layer of something like desperation, and certainly deep dissatisfaction and disquiet, that is ready to be tapped. How do you do it without forcing anyone to feel guilty? How do you overcome the fear of change? Just a nudge might do it, just three words: A FRESH START.
