Progressives and Democrats: Assert Your Brand!
by Thom Hartmann
Politics is all about branding. And brands are not about
issues or details - they're about identity.
When progressives and Democrats think of how Bush voters
understand the word "Republican," they assume these folks are
thinking "pro-life"; "moral values"; privatization and
deregulation; "free trade"; lower taxes; and stripping power
from what Republicans call "special interests," like labor
unions and groups advocating rights for women, gays, and other
minorities.
But that's not the picture average Americans think of when
they hear the words "Republican" or "conservative."
Instead, like any good brand, the words "Republican" and
"conservative" evoke feelings as much as pictures. The main
feeling is one of identity: "My tribe." The main picture is the
brand's logo - the American flag. At a deeper level, they carry
pictures, stories, and feelings of NASCAR, Budweiser, the
American flag, "standing tough" and "standing tall" in the
world, and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps
Not only are most Republican voters largely unaware of the
details of the issues facing our nation, studies show that most
are badly misinformed. In some part this is the fault of the
media, but the larger reason is that when a person has bonded to
a brand, it becomes part of their identity. They then develop a
psychologically sophisticated and largely unconscious internal
system to filter out and reject contradictory information.
Progressives, liberals, and Democrats have failed to apply
this simple reality, and therefore have allowed conservatives to
define our brands for us. The very sophisticated effort to do
this has been led by Gingrich, Luntz, and Limbaugh, three men
who understand the psychology of branding, and have used it to
sell the Republican party and the word "conservative" to
Americans with all the zeal - and all the cash - used by other
famous brands like Coke, Levi's, and Wal-Mart.
This is not rocket science, and it's not a secret. There's an
entire industry devoted to teaching these concepts (in which I
worked for two decades).
So why haven't progressives and Democrats figured this out?
We're still letting cons define our brand for us, and they're
still doing it aggressively. In the month of February, 2005,
timed to coincide with the Academy Awards, a con group has
rented prominent billboards in Hollywood that will show a
smiling picture of George W. Bush with the slogan: "Thank you,
Hollywood!". In a row under the prominent and smiling Bush are
less flattering photos of Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, Ben
Afleck, and other outspoken liberals.
There are no Democratic billboards showing the biggest
supporters of the Republican Party - corporate fat-cats like Ken
Lay, with private jets and limousines, living in baronial
mansions.
In classic marketing theory, there are two foundational
concepts. Features ("what is it?") without benefits ("why should
I care?") lack relevance. And, benefits without features lack
credibility.
Once these are mastered, you "chunk up" (to use NLP
terminology) to branding: "Features and benefits without
identification ("Who am I when I use this product?") lack
"stickiness" or persistence.
Progressives and Democrats are still working on features -
the details of programs.
Most progressives know all the features they're interested
in: Universal single payer health care, a viable social safety
net, prison and sentencing reform, a livable wage, support for
unions and the repeal of Taft-Hartley and its heirs, voting (and
voting machine) reforms, revoking corporate personhood and
getting corporate money out of politics, moral leadership in the
world, and working for a reduction of crime and poverty at home
and towards stable, lasting worldwide peace (to name a few).
But there's no "benefit statement" in lists like these. Sure,
some people think they're obvious, but the cons know - as does
any good marketer - that you have to lead with the benefit, and
only then do you follow with the features. Sell "lower taxes" to
everybody before rolling out tax cuts for the wealthy. Sell
"personal accounts" for Social Security before rolling out
benefit cuts for future generations. Sell "protect your
children" before rolling out homophobia and theocracy.
And, even worse, the left hasn't yet defined its brand.
What is our logo? Bill Moyers briefly talked about wearing a
flag on his lapel, trying to re-brand the flag as the logo of
the liberals, but because there was no national effort behind
it, it died.
What is our identity? The cons have succeeded in making much
of America think that to be liberal is to either be a wealthy
actor or a scruffy gadfly. While many people wouldn't mind being
either, few identify themselves in such terms.
The largest lights of the Democratic Party - it's founder,
Thomas Jefferson, and it's two most famous recent presidents,
FDR and LBJ - knew their brand and their identity, and brought
the majority of Americans along with them. The largest landslide
Democratic election victories of the 20th century were FDR's
after he introduced the New Deal, and LBJ's after he introduced
the Great Society. Their logo was the flag, and their identity
was average working people, and those who aspire to the economic
and educational middle class.
Jefferson not only defined the identity of the Democratic
Party that he founded - the longest-lasting political party in
world history - but defined the identity of America as well. He
defined us in positive terms (what we're for) in the Declaration
of Independence, as well as in contrasting terms (what we're
against like the "ban on monopolies in commerce" he tried to
write into the Bill of Rights).
For example, in a February 8, 1786 letter to James Madison,
Jefferson made clear his thoughts on what he considered a great
international immorality - national belligerence that leads to a
war of choice.
"And it should ever be held in mind," Jefferson wrote, "that
insult and war are the consequences of a want of respectability
in the national character."
Later, Madison - also a member of Jefferson's Democratic
Republican Party (which dropped the "Republican" from its name
in the 1830s, although the
www.whitehouse.gov website now lists Jefferson, Madison,
Monroe, and John Quincy Adams - the first four Democratic
presidents - as "Republicans") would write, "No nation could
preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
FDR brought us back to Jefferson's ideals with his third
inaugural address, sometimes called his "Four Freedoms speech,"
on January 6, 1941, when he said:
"The basic things expected by our people of their political
and economic systems are simple. They are :
"Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
"Jobs for those who can work.
"Security for those who need it.
"The ending of special privilege for the few.
"The preservation of civil liberties for all.
"The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a
wider and constantly rising standard of living.
"These are the simple, the basic things that must never
be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of
our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our
economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to
which they fulfill these expectations."
In that, FDR created a brand, a packaging concept, a place
for people to anchor their identity. It's name was the New Deal,
but it was far more inclusive than just that.
Twenty-three years later, in his first State of the Union
speech after the death of JFK, Lyndon B. Johnson said:
"This administration today, here and now, declares
unconditional war on poverty in America. ...
"These programs are obviously not for the poor or the
underprivileged alone. Every American will benefit by the
extension of social security to cover the hospital costs of
their aged parents. Every American community will benefit from
the construction or modernization of schools, libraries,
hospitals, and nursing homes, from the training of more nurses
and from the improvement of urban renewal in public transit."
In declaring his Great Society program and starting the
Medicare program, LBJ cut poverty in America in half. And he,
too, created a brand. (Had he not gotten caught up in Vietnam,
he may now be remembered as one of our greatest presidents, as
the impact of his social programs on America were tremendous.)
And, like Jefferson, both FDR and LBJ were overwhelmingly
re-elected by the American people after declaring sweeping
social programs that benefited average working people and those
who aspired to the middle class.
The brand - the identity - of progressive ideals doesn't need
to be reinvented. It's been with us since the founding of this
nation. It long predates the Republican's Faustian deal with the
Robber Barons and war profiteers. And when the Democratic Party
has been strongest, it's been because Democrats have asserted a
clear brand that stood in opposition to Republicans and their
fat-cat owners. We are the - truly - We the People.
If the Democratic Party is to survive, it must embrace the
progressive concepts that led to its founding in the late 1700s.
It must tell average Americans what's in it for them, and once
again give Americans a "brand" with which they can identify. It
must stop playing defense, letting the Republicans define the
agenda of public debate, and instead reinvigorate traditional
progressive rhetoric, legislation, and identity.
Democrats must reassert their brand, and establish their
identity. To do this, the Party must say, loudly: "We're for the
average working stiff in America, and we'll prove it by bringing
jobs back from overseas by pulling out of the WTO and NAFTA,
supporting organized labor, strengthening the social safety net,
and keeping government from being a honey pot for either
churches or corporations." And then they must come up with a
simple name for it, like Newt's "Contract" or Roosevelt's "New
Deal" or LBJ's "Great Society" to provide voters with a hook for
identification.
They must further back this up by working with Greens and
progressives for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), the end of
Republican-affiliated corporations programming our voting
machines, and advocate social, economic, and environmental
reforms - and bringing them into the Party.
Only then will the Party of Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Johnson
again be able to advance social justice at home and peace around
the world.
Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project
Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a
nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show.
www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are "The
Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal
Protection," "We
The People," "The
Edison Gene", and "What
Would Jefferson Do?."
###
Published on Thursday, February 10, 2005 by
CommonDreams.org