Digital Journal The good ship Democrat has pulled into Boston for the Kerry coronation, which means the world will soon be treated to a healthy dose of Bush is a corporate stooge and unilateralist-cowboy agitprop. In real-time, Republican spin masters will fire off a countering salvo of Kerry is a Brahmin with flip-flopper rhetoric. Continuing the descent, the Democrats will levy a tablespoon of Cheney is a warmonger bagman, to which the GOP will respond with a pinch of Edwards is a pretty-boy ambulance-chaser.
Welcome to the age of politics through branding.
In a shift from corporate advertising, politicians have chosen to brand their opponents. A stop at the official websites of either campaign will make you dizzy from all of the spin. After all, if you’re continually framing the other guy, you can avoid telling people about yourself. In today’s political climate, that’s a good thing.
One doesn’t have to look very far to see that John Edwards’s own life journey debunks his “Two Americas” stump speech, or that the Bush/Cheney “Yes, America Can” slogan is sound and fury, signifying nothing.
This phenomenon is not confined to the United States. Here in Canada we’ve recently emerged from a six-week campaign that was as branded as any in recent memory. Martin and his team played up fears of a social conservative takeover that would contravene “Canadian” values, while Harper focused exclusively on the Liberal-as-thieves angle.
The Liberal brand stuck. All it took was a couple of dubious comments from MPs like Cheryl Gallant and Randy White to turn the Liberal-pitched brand into reality. Never mind that several prominent Liberal MPs were also pro-life and anti-gay marriage. And when we look to Team Red for answers, we find that Martin still hasn’t clarified what happened with the sponsorship money.
But none of this matters. The real issues arise from one simple question: Why do politicians and their backroom operators use branding? The simple answer is that it works, and it works best in the crowd all parties are most anxious in bagging: young adults.
The sons and daughters of the boomers have been pelted with branding and advertising from the moment they were old enough to want their first tricycle. As a member of this group, I can say that branding is how I was introduced to most new things. My generation responds to messaging. It likes to be told what’s cool.
We also tend to be liberal. You say Harper represents a band of socially conservative zealots? That doesn’t sound like my bag. Besides, Sam Roberts wore a “Stop Harper” button at the MuchMusic Video Awards. And I like Sam. I think he even played an NDP benefit concert. Or maybe that was the Barenaked Ladies? Who did Harper get to play for him? Nobody. Conclusion: Harper is not hip.
Notice the discussion hasn’t moved to: What are Harper’s positions on health care, taxation, and national defence? For that matter, what are Martin’s positions on those issues? Or Layton’s? Or Duceppe’s? Wait, isn’t Duceppe that separatist? Pass. The bottom line is that platforms aren’t dazzling. They can’t be distilled into a snappy slogan sexy enough to get an apathetic backside to the polls.
What politicians and youth fail to recognize is this branded approach to politics only re-enforces cynicism towards civic duty. The more politicians pander to us, the more we become jaded when they fail to live up to expectations. If you don’t believe me I invite you to check out the voter turnout numbers for the 18-30 crowd.
The real damage of branding our politics emerges when we realize that the issues facing today’s world cannot be distilled into handy all-encompassing slogans. I didn’t fully realize that myself until 9/11. While the rubble was still smoldering, I went out and bought a dozen books about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, about Islam, and about U.S. foreign policy. I wanted to learn why and how this happened. Here’s what I found out: The world is gray. It’s not as easy as “the U.S. is the problem”; or “Islam is the problem”; or “poverty is the problem”; or “globalization is the problem”.
While I’m confident any member of my generation could tell you who Paris Hilton is dating this week or what movie is number one at the box office, I’m not confident my generation could summarize the last 70 years of Iraqi history although that doesn’t seem to stop us from espousing an opinion on the current situation. We need to put the gossip rags down, roll up our sleeves, pull out our reading glasses, and do some homework.
After all, propaganda and spin are less likely to work if you have a broad base of knowledge. Most of us aren’t blessed by being an economics major with a minor in international affairs. Most of us don’t even read the front section of the paper every day. Instead we form our opinions with the help of polemicists and media magicians like Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh people who are under no obligation to produce a balanced opinion.
We’re the ones who vote people in. We must demand better. Wait, that’s catchy. Wasn’t that the latest Conservative campaign slogan? I had better change it to something cooler.
