Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Last week, President Obama told the American people he was the underdog in the coming 2012 election. This is the first step to victory.

In 2008, Senator Obama led one of the great underdog-insurgent campaigns in American history. And today, the only way forward to a second term is waging an underdog-insurgent campaign for the future of his presidency.

The Administration's current challenges can be traced back to key strategic decisions that operated from the perspective of the "top-dog" or incumbent—playing defense, outsourcing policy to the Democratic leadership, waiting for political rivals to move first or thinking inside the box of a broken congressional institution. Similarly, following 2010's bitter mid-term election defeat, some of the Administration's best moments have come from the perspective of the underdog or the "insurgent"—passing a series of bills including, for example, the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and planning and executing the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden.

Winning a second term demands this same kind of underdog-insurgent strategic thinking and execution:

First: Position as the Insurgent against an Incumbent Congress. Incumbents in politics—and business—tend to play defense, embrace the status quo and celebrate too soon. Again, at every key juncture of the 2008 campaign, the Obama team attacked and defined itself as aggressive underdogs; they fought as if they were behind, and they invented new tactics.

In 2012, President Obama must position himself against an incumbent Congress with an 11% approval rating. He must communicate better solutions than a rightist-Tea-Party-controlled House of Representatives. And he must support calls for an independent bipartisan committee focused on reforming outdated congressional institutions. Finally, President Obama must position his eventual Republican opponent to the far right as he himself owns the vital center and attracts the independent voters necessary to win.

Second, focus on LEADING more than campaigning. This means operating more as president than candidate—and specifically working to unify differing parties across a long-term process of creating concrete and pragmatic solutions for America's future.

For example, the Obama campaign's current focus on the richest of Americans' need to pay higher taxes is but a piece of an economic solution. And it runs along the failed campaign trajectories of Walter Mondale in 1984 and Al Gore in 2000.

By contrast, focusing more on leading than campaigning means forgoing the temptation to whip-up the democratic base. It means, for example, talking more about tax reforms as opposed to tax hikes and creating a series of solution-planning meetings that involve a bipartisan assemblage of players. Furthermore, focusing on leading more than campaigning means pushing long-term policies focused on immigration reform, trade deals and programs that put America at the frontier of new energy, pharmaceutical and educational technologies.

In 2012, more specifically, there are two fundamental principles that should be at the center of the Obama campaign's strategic approach:

Policy solutions must be communicated in the LARGER strategic context of where they are GOING—as a series of steps that will, over the next ten years, restore America's fiscal health and prosperity. The Obama jobs bill, if it passes and succeeds, will add as many as 1.9 million jobs—but that is only a small step in putting nearly 14 million people back to work. An example of communicating and working in the larger strategic context is the Bowles-Simpson report, the product of the President's own bipartisan commission. President Obama should get back to the strategic soundness and comprehensiveness of this approach.

Lead as a UNITER: because dividers do not generally win elections. One exception to this is President George W. Bush's decision to run hard right in 2004 to mobilize his own base—a winning campaign strategy, but a strategy that made it significantly difficult to govern. In 2012, we will see bitter bipartisan debate, more and more public protests and the potential for one or more third party candidates. As a result, the candidate who is seen as a strong uniter more than a divider will win.

Third, play offense and drive an optimistic message: One reason the Obama campaign is an underdog in the coming election is this: The consumer confidence rating of winning incumbent presidents averages 95, while the average for losing incumbent presidents averages 76.

Today's consumer confidence rating is 55!

Of course, part of this paltry consumer confidence flows from the debt crisis debacle—and the sense that today's economic problems have far outstripped government's ability to manage them.

But the antidote is playing offense with a focused and optimistic message and a series of proposed policies building beyond the 2012 election. Forget outsourcing policy to the Senate Democratic leadership, forget waiting for the other party as a negotiating strategy and forget politics as usual with today's incumbent congress. The way to play offense is to lay out the steps to job creation, comprehensive tax reform, infrastructure investment and debt reduction.

President Obama, for example, should immediately appoint an independent bipartisan commission to develop a ten- and twenty-year strategic plan for America. This commission should prepare a prioritized and de-politicized plan to be delivered to the next president, Democrat or Republican, in December 2012.

In the 2008 Obama campaign, one person, one underdog, was most convinced about the need to deliver a bold, courageous, truth-be-told and game-changing speech on race in America. That person was Barack Obama.

Similarly, leading as a bold, unifying and optimistic underdog is the only path to victory in 2012.

# # #

David Morey, Vice Chairman of Core Strategy Group, has helped direct over 12 winning global presidential campaigns—and is co-author of the award-winning book, The Underdog Advantage (McGraw-Hill). He advised the Obama campaign on strategy in 2007 and 2008.