political marketing

There’s a long road to the 2016 election, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Much is being said about changing state demographics and psychographics and how it will affect the electoral map. Chris Ladd sounded the alarm in his post-2014 analysis, noting the electorally rich Blue Wall and the electorally sparse Red Fortress. Many argue that leadership can cause blue states to turn over, but the swing state math means putting a diverse set of states into play. This would mean states like Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico from the West; Iowa, Wisconsin, and Ohio from the Midwest; Virginia; and Florida.

The ideological rhetorics in #hashtaggable quips have solidified over the years to create meanings for ideological clusters. Perhaps the thorniest issue for both parties will be the size and scope of the government. Pew has been developing political typologies for about 25 years and the latest highlights political fragmentation:

The GOP is faced with two factions that want different things. The Steadfast Conservatives and Business Conservatives differ on social issues and immigration. There isn’t a core, but 2 cores that are distinct. The populist aspect of the Steadfast Conservatives can make Business Conservatives uneasy when there’s talk of going after crony capitalism and use of rhetoric like Codevilla’s “country class” versus “ruling class” dichotomy. Republicans could court Young Outsiders, but would need to moderate on social issues. The Faith & Family Left are religious and have concerns about the country’s morality, but are proponents of the social safety net, as are the Hard-Pressed Skeptics. Democrat core typologies also create factions of Solid Liberals, Next Generation Left, and the Faith & Family Left.

I think we’re guaranteed to see the Obama Administration systematically lobbing issues at the right to create tensions between Steadfast and Business Conservatives. I would surmise that part of the strategy is to get Republicans to despise their own opposing faction and set up a particularly brutal primary season with the tagline of Who Is Most Conservative? Already, the Twittersphere and punditsphere are calling into question Chris Christie or Jeb Bush’s qualifications as true conservatives. In the power struggle, it’s not as if either side will defect from the GOP (both came out or Romney in 2012 & Republican Congressional candidates in 2014). The danger is turning off the other political typologies. While Republicans made inroads with the 2014 election with respect to all of the typologies, it was without a center ring battle of what the party represents and its platform:

The Democrats might have a few more degrees of freedom with respect to strategizing in the next 20 months. They can never be a “small” or “anti” government party, but they could articulate being a “smart” government party knowing full well that they will never convince their detractors. This would allow inroads in swing states into the Next Generation Left, the Hard-Pressed Skeptics, and the Young Outsiders. Of course, a shift could occur and these political typologies might morph or dissolve with new ones forming.

It will be interesting how things shape up in 2015.

This fall, a friend of mine in northern California reminded me of the Little Green Footballs blog, which had a reputation for covering Middle East issues [1].  Earlier this month, I remember seeing tweets on the author, Charles Johnson, renouncing his ties to the right, but I saw his post as part of a larger issue.  The decline in influence of “intellectual conservatives.”  Johnson’s list on “Why I Parted Ways with the Right” reads like a declaration of principles::

“1. Support for fascists, both in America (see: Pat Buchanan, Robert Stacy McCain, etc.) and in Europe (see: Vlaams Belang, BNP, SIOE, Pat Buchanan, etc.)

2. Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.)

3. Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.)

4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.)

5. Support for homophobic bigotry (see: Sarah Palin, Dobson, the entire religious right, etc.)

6. Support for anti-government lunacy (see: tea parties, militias, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc.)

7. Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc.)

8. A right-wing blogosphere that is almost universally dominated by raging hate speech (see: Hot Air, Free Republic, Ace of Spades, etc.)

9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.)

10. Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source)  And much, much more. The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff.  I won’t be going over the cliff with them.”

This got me thinking of how the intellectual right, and perhaps intellectual discussions, period, are being eclipsed by the showiness of what some call “populist conservatives,” which is what I see as the target of much of Johnson’s criticism.  Naturally, much of the attention that populist conservatives received are from visible figures in the media, such as Glenn Beck.  Frontpagemag.com had two special editions in the fall on the topic of “bold talk radio hosts” and the conservative movement in America, providing a forum for two conservative intellectuals, David Frum and David Horowitz, who disagree on the issue.  Here’s Round One and Round Two.

Frum has a problem with the “in your face” politics of what I would call populist conservatism, which Horowitz embraces.  In round two of the Frontpage.com posting, he offers::

“The kind of ‘in your face’ conservatism that you laud makes all these problems worse.

You challenge me to notice that the ’embarrassments to our cause – the shrill, the enraged and the paranoid – who in your mind – seem to be Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and now Glenn Beck’ are also our ‘most powerful and feared and charismatic conservatives.’

I challenge you to notice that all three of these people repel and offend many millions more Americans than they inspire and attract.” [2]

Horowitz offers a different take on Beck and Roger Ailes’ Fox News::

“I will agree that it is a fair comment that Beck has something of a random walk in him – though not as random as you seem to be suggesting – and could wind up in places that would make me uncomfortable. Foreign policy is one such area. But by his own admission Beck is relatively new to politics and is learning. Cut him some slack. In any case – and to repeat — he’s not a politician; no one is being asked to vote for him and put power in his hands. If he veers into directions that you’re not happy with, it’s still just about ideas. Argue with him. Don’t ban him.

I couldn’t disagree with you more about the talk-and-Fox complex as you put it that Roger Ailes has created. Far from marginalizing Republicans it is the most energetic, dynamic and expansive part of the conservative movement.  Or is it your view that the decline of the leftwing network news operations has no positive impact on conservative prospects? In fact, the party identification poll numbers for Republicans are currently rising right alongside and in step with (and because of) the rising Fox ratings. Thank you Roger Ailes.” [ibid]

I tend to agree with Frum and pragmatically speaking, political power is garnered through winning over the moderates.  Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama all played that game.  Is the intellectual right dead?  No, it’s just not going to get coverage.

I know this will seem overly simplistic, but I truly believe that much of what is going on here is a manifestation of marketing and celebrity culture in the political realm in the era of the 24-hour news cycle.  Let’s face it, Glenn Beck is a savvy pitchman::

I’ve always stated that Fox News was a stroke of marketing genius.  Position a news network as far as possible away from the “liberal media bias” as possible, differentiating the network as distinct from the rest of the pack.  After the establishment of Fox News, MSNBC is doing the same type of positioning with the centre-left.  News?  Meh, the public really wants “stylized facts” and good theatre, and there need not be a smoking gun memo to make it so.  Marketing research is the holy grail.  Ask CNN where “news” is getting them in the ratings war.

While everyone is talking about having “debates,” what’s really going on is shouting at each other.  Rhetoric is dead, as few have the chops to fuse intellectual arguments {from conservatives or liberals} with dramaturgical flair that garners ratings.  At the risk of polluting the world with yet another neologism, it’s polititainment—hey, at least I didn’t coin it, but Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are perfecting it.  Will we get ever beyond the shouting, so that there are real debates on the issues that people {i.e., voters} actually pay attention to?  I’m not holding my breath.

Twitterversion:: Is intllctual consrvatsm dead?As Glenn Beck-like populsm rises,R #marketing & #polititainment real culprits? #ThickCulture @Prof_K

Song:: “Time for Heroes”-The Libertines