With whom would you prefer a lager?

An often effective method of persuasion is to change the topic from what the argument is about to who the arguer is. It’s known as a fallacy because, according to the Nizkor Project, “the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made)”: the topic in the presidential race isn’t what the President will do, it’s what kind of person he is. As Crooks & Liars pointed out last Spring

The data is clear. If the election is about the economy, health care and Iraq, John McCain cannot become the 44th president. Only if the GOP succeeds once again in transforming the race into a media medley about lapel pins, angry ministers and Muslim-sounding middle names can the Republicans hope to maintain their hold on the White House.

And so, [w]hile their man [or woman], be it George W. Bush or John McCain [or Sarah Palin], is the ‘authentic’ guy [or girl] you’d “’ike to have a beer with,’ the GOP drives the media conventional wisdom that paints the likes of Al Gore, John Kerry and now Barack Obama as effete, out-of-touch elitists whose positions change with the wind.”

So it shouldn’t be a surprise that today the Washington Post quoted Rick Davis, campaign manager for John McCain’s presidential bid, claiming that “[t]his election is not about issues,” said Davis. “This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.”

[This leaves aside to me a truly astonishing question: what is it that makes Barack Obama an elitist but not John McCain?]

The creative mind is the one that can master these methods, take them apart when they’re being used against him, and come back with an even more effective strategy.

But what would I know? I blog about law and creativity, and I’m an academic who used to work with a major law firm and at that time lived in Manhattan. I must be an out-of-touch elitist.