A couple of years ago, I started getting shocked by a trend I was seeing in some private research.  When the company where I work (Qorvis Communications – I co-founded), sets out to develop a communications campaign for a client, one of our first steps is to conduct research to understand the thinking of the audience we need to reach. Because we work with a diverse group of clients, we research a broad range of people, from government procurement officials to buyers of lottery tickets, and we ask a wide variety of fairly unique-to-the-audience questions.  But over the years we have asked one question in common in virtually every poll:  “Do you believe the country is heading in the right direction?”

Of course, this question isn’t unique and polls asking the same question have been generally available to the public.  But what shocked me about our private polls was the consistency of the trend among very disparate groups.  When 60% of government procurement officials were saying the country was going in the wrong direction, a similar 60% of consumers who buy food products were saying the same thing.  As it went past 70% in one group, it hit the same mark with the other groups.  The phenomenon continued as the level of dissatisfaction with the direction of the nation climbed.  The sense that the country was going in the wrong direction was not confined to any economic class, geographic location, level of education, type of job, age group or race.  By the time of the Presidential election, the feeling that “things stink and are getting worse” had, for all practical purposes, become universal.

Although The Readiness Factor Was Broad, Before Obama, The Political Passion Existed Only At The Extremes.

I am not a political expert, but I do discuss political strategy with some of my friends and colleagues who are, and have had extended chats with a few political leaders with whom I have built relationships.  Plus, I’m pretty much a news junkie.  And by virtue of all that, I came to accept as true the maxim that in politics the passion is at the extremes.

I’ve see it at work whenever we have a client who wants to build a major development.  As soon as the plan becomes known or even rumored, vitriolic noise and energy immediately erupt from those fiercely against the idea and those just as fiercely for it.  The actual numbers of both groups are usually quite small, especially relative to the population of the entire region that would be affected.  But the people who have the extreme passion for the issue win control of the debate because the passion that drives them to get involved also led them to help elect the politicians who are the ultimate decision makers.  The people in the middle may have some rational opinion about the project one way or the other, but not enough to get involved in the debate.  And that’s another way of saying that the Middle abdicated real political involvement to the extremes.  And we are surprised at partisanship?

Obama changed that. To a degree never seen before, the Obama campaign appealed to – turned on – engaged – the vast political and economic middle.  They did that by running a campaign with two core characteristics:

• They expanded the middle by marginalizing the debate on the hot issues and shifting the focus to the mood that resonated with the middle.  Do you remember any influence this presidential campaign from “I’m for ERA [or NRA or fill-in-the-blank] and I vote”?  The highly focused and passionate single issue voter lost influence to the more broadly concerned voter who bought into the unspecific message: “We will change this awful direction; yes we can.”

• They were consistent in message to an unbelievable degree.  Obama stayed on point and successfully defused even major attempts to pull him off point.  When McCain swerved from one extreme to another, his consistency translated into credibility.  This was reinforced by his very style and demeanor, even the style and demeanor of his family and staff.  As Brand Obama was created, it gained credibility.

These two core factors allowed Obama to run not as an ideologue but as an activist populist pragmatist – sounds cumbersome, but that’s his positioning.  He told his supporters that he would be their advocate, and that’s the way he is framing his agenda.  He refers to his campaign over and over, holding his constituency together by saying: “Remember this is what you got turned on about; this is what you wanted; we’re going to do it; now give me your support.”  In fact, he is doing a great job, exploiting every distribution channel just as he did for the campaign (digital media, traditional media, extremely high quality events, media relations, etc.).

Now he can reach and move a large and truly passionate constituency.  People believe in him.  Their hope is invested in him.

But what happens if Obama loses their support?

Will they retreat to their former passivity?  Or will they splinter off to online groups of people who share their problems?  Will an implosion of the broad Obama coalition mean an explosion of narrow-interest groups?  And if that happens, what would the chances be for anything other than political gridlock?  Think that’s possible?  Then think what would happen to the economy if that happened.

I am not certain where events will take us and whether they will be for good or bad over the long term.  And I worry about a politician in a globally connected world who ascends to mythical status, as Barack Obama appears to be doing, at least so far.  But I also worry (more so, I think) about what happens if he loses his constituency.  Those who hope he does should consider the possible consequences of an implosion of the political middle.