Yes We Can...create hypnotic political videos empty of content :)
Posted on Feb 20th, 2008
by 
Duff
Duff
Ok, I admit it. I'm completely non-involved in American politics. I'm a bit embarrassed, honestly, but trying to give myself a little tiny education in the issues and current state of things by...*ahem*...watching YouTube videos.
Obama's video gave me goosebumps:
But then I didn't realize until about 3/4 of the way through that there isn't one bit of content in the entire video. What an excellent example of hypnosis!
This video contains exactly zero specific agendas or claims or platforms whatsoever. Just celebrities, an optimistic tone, and an upbeat pop tune in a major key. Oh, and nominalizations like "justice" and "equality"--static words devoid of any specific meaning. Is campaign finance reform "equality"? Is the war in Iraq/Afganistan/Iran "justice"? These things are left unspecified. Why? So you can fill in the blanks unconsciously and then feel like you agree with Obama, even though you know nothing about his platform at all.
This is not a critique of Barack Obama in anyway whatsoever. This is how politics (and hypnosis) works. This is merely my observation of the mass hypnosis that is political campaigning, which I find fascinating! :)
In a hypnotherapy session, the therapist might say "As you breathe out, you might imagine going to a place that is peaceful and relaxing...". This statement says nothing--on purpose--so that the therapist can fully honor the client's experience while also leading them to relax. These words make it seem like the therapist specified the location and therefore client and therapist are in agreement.
When Obama says "Yes we can heal this nation," this implies a response to someone saying "no, we cannot heal this nation," which is a fiction, but creates a "hallucination" or even a false memory of someone claiming this--especially some other political leader. It also leaves completely unspecified what "healing this nation" looks like in terms of specific political agendas, which means everyone can agree!
Wow! What fun.
Obama's video gave me goosebumps:
Yes We Can - Barack Obama Music Video
But then I didn't realize until about 3/4 of the way through that there isn't one bit of content in the entire video. What an excellent example of hypnosis!
This video contains exactly zero specific agendas or claims or platforms whatsoever. Just celebrities, an optimistic tone, and an upbeat pop tune in a major key. Oh, and nominalizations like "justice" and "equality"--static words devoid of any specific meaning. Is campaign finance reform "equality"? Is the war in Iraq/Afganistan/Iran "justice"? These things are left unspecified. Why? So you can fill in the blanks unconsciously and then feel like you agree with Obama, even though you know nothing about his platform at all.
This is not a critique of Barack Obama in anyway whatsoever. This is how politics (and hypnosis) works. This is merely my observation of the mass hypnosis that is political campaigning, which I find fascinating! :)
In a hypnotherapy session, the therapist might say "As you breathe out, you might imagine going to a place that is peaceful and relaxing...". This statement says nothing--on purpose--so that the therapist can fully honor the client's experience while also leading them to relax. These words make it seem like the therapist specified the location and therefore client and therapist are in agreement.
When Obama says "Yes we can heal this nation," this implies a response to someone saying "no, we cannot heal this nation," which is a fiction, but creates a "hallucination" or even a false memory of someone claiming this--especially some other political leader. It also leaves completely unspecified what "healing this nation" looks like in terms of specific political agendas, which means everyone can agree!
Wow! What fun.
Access: Public
hypnosis
April 2008 
Don't you just love marketing? :) I do. And you're right, this is just extremely clever marketing devoid of any real meaning. But that's the beauty of it, the consumer (we as voters) are supposed to fill in the blanks so the message can be spread amongst a wide group of people.
I dig it for the art of the craft, but perhaps it would be better suited for a Nike commercial.
The problem is not with the video; it's with the people who only watch the music video and not the speach itself. Yes campaigning is a lot of marketing; but their is more being said and it's not all with music. Listen to the speech that also accompanies this music video and you will hear Mr. Obama's stand on the war, health care, drug companies, sending jobs overseas, and tax breaks that are being given to large corporations. It's there you just need to look for it. (smile) the answers are always right under our noses.
Obi–yes I do love marketing! I think it's fun. And yes, it is a beautiful marketing piece.
Shea-bird–are you referring to this video of Obama speaking in New Hampshire? Only 574,397 people have viewed that video compared to 4,579,590 with the video I embedded into this post.
I believe that is because we are more interested in the feeling someone can generate in us than in the content of the message. This has its advantages and disadvantages in the political sphere–some of the key disadvantages being that someone with superior ideas could lose to someone with superior style.
And to me it indicates how political candidates are actually chosen–not by their platforms, but by their ability to hypnotize groups.
I understand that but does that mean that Bush generated some feelings in the people who helped him get the votes in Florida (Water over the bridge-yes I said over the bridge)? Oh well people usually see what they want to see. There are those of us who actually do look at the lines before and after we read between them. I like what you had to say though; because it's true for a lot of people. I just wish there were more who did the research and didn't depend on emotion to sway their vote.
I totally agree that Bush, and in fact all politicians use emotion to sway the vote.
In my opinion, pretty much nobody votes on the basis of “fact” or even political platforms, in the same way that almost nobody buys anything on the basis of features. I voted for Ralph Nader in all 3 elections based on his amazing platform, but not many did!
People buy what they think will make them feel good. It appears to me that we do the same with politicians.
I like you and it's not because of your marketing (LOL). Your platform moves me. ( she smiles and knows he will too). Stay blessed.
hahaha, thanks. :)
Nice obverservations. The only thing I'd note is that this video wasn't made by Barack, it was made by Barack supporters. It's meant to energize a base already commited to Barack, not convert/convince anyone. This is such a fascinating election because it's the first time we have candidates & supporters that are both consciously competent and aware of the power of the net and technology in politics.
I totally think this election will be looked back upon just like the 1960 kennedy/nixon debates….but regarding the net instead of TV.
But I agree, no one is really talking about the frame in this whole election cycle. Whoever decides to challenge that itself will win hands down.
Fascinating info, Jason.
I love how the internet is starting to play a significant role in politics.