Occam’s RazR

(the following is not an endorsement of any candidate, just an examination of the power of a symbol)

Patrick McGoohan created what may have been television’s first and only classic piece of art, The Prisoner.  His enigmatic protagonist – a spy who knew too much – was never given a name.  In an effort to strip down his psyche and find out why he quit, his tormentors tried to bust him down to just a number.  In his case, Number Six.

One of the great mysteries of the show is why the number Six?  What is so special about that particular number?  Number One and Number Two are easy enough to figure out, but given the nine-digit monstrosities that make up identification for citizens, inmates, students and the like, why just a Six?  My theory is that the shape provides the information.

McGoohan’s Number Six fell into a situation he could not escape.  Trace the numeral from top to bottom and you end up in a loop.  There’s something about that interpretation that seems to resonate with most “Prisoner” fans I’ve shared that with.  McGoohan himself might not even be aware.   The point here is that symbols and shapes do carry powerful meaning (and I highly recommend a parallel track with Joseph Campbell, author of “The Power of Myth” among other works.)

Symbol minds

So, what does this have to do with politics?  Everything, if you are to believe the following:

• Candidate Fonts
• McCain’s Optimum Look
• Brand Obama, a Leader in the Image War
• Expertinent: Why the Obama “Brand” is Working

There has been more emphasis on font and weight in this cycle than any other.  That can be attributed to many things, including a ridiculously long election cycle with more time to fill, more idiot pundits to fill that time, and a greater penetration of desktop publishing applications that makes our public-at-large more “font cognizant.”

A prevailing theory here is the electorate – being too dumb to make decisions on issues – will be drawn to the hidden messages inherent in the imagery.  Serifs, slants, and pantone color choices will subconsciously affect us.  And who knows?  The 1988 Democratic National Convention replaced the Red White and Blue with a more muted color scheme:  Salmon, Eggshell, and Azure.  (Because pastels portray such strength, and we all know how well that worked out for Michael Dukakis.)

When image is everything

You might think I’m a little crazy here, but Obama’s biggest hurdle is the notion that he is too slick a politician, and doesn’t have enough of a track record for us to know his positions.  He’s been criticized for trying to be all things to all people.  And those carrying these attitudes aren’t necessarily able to put their finger on the source for the sentiment.

So let’s look at the Obama campaign logo.

The letter O is there, plain to see even where obscured by the mostly opaque striped banner that rolls across.  It says heartland, and carries enough of the darker color tones to avoid the Dukakis Pastel Curse.

This is just the base logo, though.  In typical Web 2.0 fashion, Obama supporters are asked to mash it up with whatever they like – and based on the number of free tools available, just as many detractors are having fun with the tool.

And this is the thrust of the problem: if many are expressing an uneasy sense that Obama is essentially empty, and only reflecting back what his audience wants to hear, can you blame his logo variations for burning that into our brains? Would Obama be better served by tightening up the controls on his brand, and in the process make a statement about consistency?

This might be a chicken-and-egg problem, where a candidate in need of an identity wandered into a logo that prevented him from cementing one. The amorphous idealism may have played well so far, but is it time for the campaign to color in that void in the middle for us?

[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, Obama, politics, symbolism, marketing[/tags]