A historical disquisition of the success of the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign, reveals the extent to which how a political narrative was identified by a political scientist-cum-pollster and how the narrative was cannily crafted into a political slogan that has all the characteristics of historical legend. In choreographing the genesis of what later amounted to the focus of Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign and its populist but sophisticated slogans like "It's the economy, stupid" and "Putting people first", Washington Post legend, Bob Woodward, acknowledged the stupendously wise-cracking pollster-cum-political scientist, Stan Goldberg, with encapsulating the political narrative of the time into a political message that had the tantalising propensity of catching and sticking with the popular imagination. This accreditation of Goldberg with Clinton's powerful but simple political message that struck a chord with ordinary and sophisticated peoples alike came from Goldberg's long-held view that America's next major socio-political crisis was what has been effectively dubbed the gradual decimation of America's middle classes or America's "declining middle"; i.e, the current inability of or difficulties associated with the average American to live the American Dream of "a good job, a college education for their kids, owning a home, affordable health care, and retirement with economic security." To the extent that this was true of America in the post- Reagan years, Goldberg felt it was the ONLY message that was a seller and a winner. Bob Woodward writes: " Greenberg had been advising Clinton since his 1990 gubernatorial campaign. In 1991, he gave the governor a draft of a long article he was writing for the American Prospect, a liberal political journal. In part a review of three books that examined what Greenberg called "the Democrat's perceived indifference to the value of work and the interests of working people," the article was the culmination of a lot of analysis and polling. It was also a personal manifesto of sorts. Greenberg was devoted to studying the crisis in the Democratic Party and the defection of middle-class and working whites - the so-called Reagan Democrats - to the Republican presendential candidates in the 1980s. These voters held the balance in national elections, and Greenberg argued that they wanted to return to their party, to come home. Party leaders had to reach out to this disaffected and forgotten middle class, which saw itself squeezed - paying for programs for the poor and tax breaks for the wealthy, while getting little in return from government. The middle class crisis presented an opportunity for the Democrats." [Bob Woodward, The Agenda - Inside the Clinton White House, pp. 24-25, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1994] It is worth a moment's pause to free myself of what could later amount to a contextual obfuscation of my lifting of the above passage from Woodward's book. Let me categorically state that i do not and never will view the current Gambian as a class problem; i.e., that is to say that i do not see the Gambian crisis as one precipitated by a crisis within one class or a pitting of the classes against each other. Whilst i remain loyal to my trenchant bourgeois convictions, obsession with social status has never and never will factor in my outlook. I lifted the Woodward passage for comparative contextual purposes; and not necesaarily believing in every jot and tittle of Goldberg's convictions. Rather, as would be crystal clear later, the above passage typifies how political narratives for a political struggle are encapsulated into a simple but sophisticated theme that easily strikes a chord with all constituents alike. To the extent that this is the case, the Alliance - as a first measure - ought to engage in a dialectical exercise of the current Gambian crisis and broadly define the forces that are at work; how it ought to be tackled; and most importantly, the manner and ways in which it ought to be tackled. In this, there is both a good and bad news for the Alliance. The bad one first. It seems to me that the fundamental defect of Gambian Opposition since July 22nd 1994 has been one of selling a coherent, simple and sophisticated message to those constituents that had been lulled into a trance by the AFPRC/APRC's populist and simplistic narrative; especially, the bits embodying its grotesque infrastructural developments as signs of changed times for better. Indeed, the Opposition has identified the lies behind the fabrications that Gambian lives have improved since 1994 and effectively debunked them. But beyond the sophisticated urbanites, their message has left much to be desired. Because the message has, to this day, not changed, it means that what in other ways, contexts and eras resembles an ingredient for mass agitation and disaffection remains a body of complacency and indifference. This is the deficit we ought to correct if we are going to impact upon those still lulled in the trance of Jammeh and the APRC. Now the good news. The dialectics of the current Gambian crisis has been pretty much fleshed out by rigorous debates. Suffice to say that when it comes to the intellectual and moral case against Jammeh, it is a foregone conclusion that on these grounds by themselves alone, the Alliance wins hands down. In essence no serious or credible intellectual and moral arguments persist today that in effect primes another day of Jammeh as Gambian president. That has always been the easy bit. The earnest emptiness and evilry of the Jammeh era is self-evident: all the stuff that makes up a crackpot African dictatorship are all evident in Jammeh. The extra judicial killings of innocent Gambians; the plundering of scarce Gambian resources by Jammeh; the abrupt withdrawal of basic civil liberties; the absence of a judicial regime that rigorously upheld the Rule of Law; the continued fettering and harrassment of journalists; distate for democratic and governance values; and the refusal to acknowledge the essence of dissent in a polity purportedly buoyed by liberal democratic politics. This list, is by no means exhaustive. We can spend the rest of the day here stating the intellectual and moral case against Jammeh. The case against Jammeh is simply overwhelming. The problem that faces us now vis-a-vis the manner and ways in which the Alliance conducts its campaign, is to glibly translate these intellectual and moral arguments against Jammeh into a common populist language without so much losing the essence of its moral and intellectual roots. When Goldberg identified the enemy as the decimation of the middle-classes, the trick was to communicate this newfound moral and intellectual truth in a way which will strike chords with not only the mentioned middle-classes but those also aspiring to be one. The message has got escape the quirky bounds of intellectual and moral rigour and populism be breezed into it without compromising the coherency, effectiveness and seriousness of the message. This is the first point. The second point is one of looking beyond the crisis and enacting a proactive mechanism that will sufficiently address the problems that gave imptus to the crisis. It is simply not enough to tell Americans that the middle-classes are fast disappearing; and it was caused by reckless Republican tax cuts for the upper classes. That way you are embroiling yourself in un-necessary class warfare and unproductive arguments. Rather, you have got to imagine ways in which the highlighted crisis can be seriously and effectively addressed. So instead of empty anti- upper class rhetorics, you come up with effective slogans like "its the economy, stupid" or inclusive ones like "putting people first". That you are not smeared as a bunch of firebrand leftist class warriors. Similarly, and with regard to the Gambian context, when the Alliance incessantly highlight the human rights abuses and other anomalies associated with the APRC, and engage in fiery rhetorics of justice, they always risked being described as a violent and angry bunch of vindictive politicians who, by virtue of their angry and vindictive rhetoric, have the propensity of creating social upheaval in the event of their ascension to power. Indeed, intellectual detractors of the Alliance enjoy nothing more than doing just exactly that; especially during the presidential elections of 1996. One recalls the columns of papers like Foroyaa, which wasted no time immediately after those elections to caricature the UDP along those lines. To avoid the current presidential elections being dragged into such ignoble intellectual distractions and frivolities, the Alliance must temper its rhetoric with the message of moderation that is inclusive and not divisive. For instance, whilst it should uncompromisingly state that there would be enquiries into the April Massacres, it ought to state categorically that there would be no witch hunts and any or all political actions will primordially follow the due process of established laws and civil liberties will be respected. That way we eradicate any mention of angry vindictiveness from the message. 'Cause we are moving on without Jammeh. To sum up my argument, i will humbly suggest that we learn from Goldberg and the New Democrats when they successfully took on the Republican incumbency of Bush without attracting their endless spins, control freakery and tackiness. We have got to translate the intellectual and moral narrative of the current crisis into a message that connects with Gambians of all walks of life. In this scheme of things, the moral and intellectual arguments against Jammeh ought to be neatly incorporated with the Alliance's Social, Economic and Political Rectification Programmes. Out of this incorporation, we mustcannily craft a message that strikes a chord with ALL Gambians irrespective of social, economic and political status. To this end, what undergirds the Alliance's message and overall agenda is - to paraphrase from a slogan from my compatriot, Kebba Dampha - that after 7 catastrophic years of Jammeh, Gambians are now MOVING FORWARD. And what slogan exists today that best encapsulates this fundamental moral truth than saying that after the October presidential elections, the Gambian Peoples will begin a journey of what signally promulgates a national sense of Gambians MOVING FORWARD? To localise the slogan, the Alliance can easily refer to it as "Nyato" in Mandinka or "Siikanam" in Wollof. The slogan can easily be translated into ALL the local languages of the country. That way, we will effectively succeed in informing the Gambian Peoples that it is about time we begin MOVING FORWARD from the barbarism and decadence of the APRC era to a new era of decency, liberty and the Rule Of The Law without alienating any constituency. Hamjatta Kanteh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask] if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------