Political Marketing

I can tell by the comments I have received that I am not getting through to some of you on how the Republicans can get more votes in national elections. So let me give it to you straight up. Stop attacking the people (and by extension their friends) you want to get votes from. Bad experiences (attacks) gain ten times as many opponents as good experiences gain friends. That is a general marketing rule. It also explains why politics and politicians are generally despised.

Now how about a list. You are losing BADLY on drug prohibition. About 70% to 80% of the population favors med pot. Over 50% now favor cannabis legalization. The first Party that calls off the Drug War is going to get a significant number of those votes. Since they generally don’t vote Republican it is a huge opportunity. So:

1. Stop attacking pot users (about 10% of the population) and their friends (another 40+% of the population). At minimum your answer to the question should be, “It is up to the states”.

Gay “rights”. Well some gay people are obnoxious about it. No doubt. And unlike Maya Keyes many of them have supporting families. All of them have friends. Straight friends. And people don’t like seeing their friends attacked. Think about this from the link:

Maya Marcel-Keyes often sought friends that were outside the family’s conservative atmosphere, befriending those that began to introduce her to new ideas. During her teenage years, Marcel-Keyes began to evaluate her sexual orientation. She eventually came out as a lesbian.[1] The death of a close friend, a young man named Shymmer, presaged Marcel-Keyes’ entry into the public eye. Shymmer had been kicked out of his house at age 16 after revealing his sexual orientation to his parents, thereby forcing him to survive on the streets. After over three years living without a home, and facing many of the problems LGBT youth face while homeless — rape, beatings, prostitution — Shymmer died of starvation brought about by a severe case of anorexia nervosa.[2][3]

Why aren’t the Republicans saying anything about this? Why isn’t the turning out of children abhorrent to them? Why aren’t they standing against members of their own Party who do such despicable things?

I like Dick Cheney’s attitude much better. He is supportive of his daughter.

2. Stop attacking gays (about 2 to 5% of the population) and their friends (another 40+% of the population). At minimum your answer to the question should be, “It is up to the states”. This one may not make you any friends. But it will stop making you enemies.

Abortion. Now here the Republicans may be on to a winner. About 70% of the population opposes it. It should be a winner. But it is not. Why? Opposition to abortion does not mean that people think that preventing them is a job for government. That is especially true of women. So what can be done? Well you could pull a phrase from the Republican handbook (a dusty tome little read these days) “I favor a private solution.”

3. Stop trying to make abortion a government matter. At minimum your answer to the question should be, “I favor a private sector solution”.

The Republicans could gain a lot of ground if they quit thinking of Government as a tool for coercing the people they don’t like. Leave that to the Democrats. Become the small government party. In everything.

And the best political advice of all was given a few years back by a person many Republicans claim to revere as a great teacher and more. “Love one another”. And there is an earlier version, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” And if you want to be hard assed about it, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” But I like “Love one another” best.

Love will attract more votes more reliably than hate. Hate is strong to be sure. The power of the dark side. But it is in the long run limiting. It gains opponents. The longer it runs the more opponents. Give it up.

Immigration. It is true that illegals are a blight on the country. But they have friends. And people who identify with them. What to do? Well mass deportations and “self deportation” has an ugly sound. Many of them are running away from desperate situations. Dire poverty. A violent Drug War in Mexico that kills masses of people (courtesy of American Drug Prohibition). I think they deserve a little love. American love. A place at the table. We should do our best to turn them into Americans. Teach them English. Teach them the Constitution. We should do our best to bring them inside the circle. Hard? Yes. Expensive? Yep. But if Republicans put in the effort we will get their votes and the votes of their children. And possibly their children’s children.

4. So the answer to the immigration question is, “I favor turning those immigrants who want to stay in America into Americans. Americans who understand America and its laws. The world can use more Americans and I would be proud to have them as my fellow countrymen and women.”

The Republicans need to think about attracting votes. And they need to think even more about cultivating a loving heart.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

27 responses to “Political Marketing”

  1. tkdkerry Avatar
    tkdkerry

    Yes, yes, and yes. Absolutely yes on all counts. But the GOP won’t learn. At their core they’re simply nannies of a different flavor than the Dems. And as long as they keep nannying these issues, the Dems will gain ground. People recognize attempts to control their bodies long before they recognize control of their pocketbooks.

  2. Trimegistus Avatar
    Trimegistus

    Note that in most of these examples you are citing the Democrat strawmen rather than what Republicans actually believe or want to legislate.

    The solution is to stop the Democrats from spreading lies — which means finding a way to destroy their media monopoly. If every conservative in America sneaks up behind a liberal in the media and smashes a cinderblock over the liberal’s head, we may be able to do it. I can’t really think of another solution.

  3. LYNN Avatar
    LYNN

    I agree completly, and have been say so for some time.

    Now, I also think that since BO and the Dems “think” they have a mandate to raise taxes, do so. Make them Prove that it will work. When they go after the upper then middle classes for more money make BO and the Dems eat it.

  4. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Tri,

    Every time I post an anti-prohibition article the chorus comes in to tell me I’m ruining the country.

    And guys like Alan Keyes are the voice of the Party. Now I admit the press is biased against the Rs. But the Rs don’t do themselves any favors.

    This is how Romney – and by extension the Party – treated a med pot patient.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNv7lY-ZhKA

    You think that is going to get you votes? Is that showing any compassion?

    Now compare that with Ron Paul and the same guy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vPK6q-PSSE

    Yes the Party gets bad press. It has earned it.

    The base of the Republican Party treats the Party like it was a church. And expect others to do the same. Well I belong to a different “Church” and my “church” 3000+ years old – REQUIRES abortion in certain circumstances. I have yet to see a member of the Republican church address that.

  5. anon Avatar
    anon

    Agreed.

    But Romney didn’t lose because the folks he and the other “R’s” voted.

    Romney lost because millions of conservatives didn’t buy into his
    “severe conservative” spiel. They
    actually paid attention to how he
    governed in Massachusetts.

    Many millions more conservatives voted
    from him but kind of held their noses,
    so to speak.

    Of course relying on untested “get out
    the vote” software was a HUGE error in management judgement from the the guy who was supposed be the more competent
    manager.

  6. RuthR Avatar

    You’ve hit the nail on the head here! The Republicans need to pay more attention to the emotional impact on voters of the policies that they choose, and *how* they choose to present them.

    Slogans/memes/positions don’t work if you have to go through careful parsing and explanations to get people to understand why it isn’t an attack on them.

    The “makers and takers” thing is another example of something that feels like an attack to people who are suffering from the bad economy or bad luck, and are using some form of government assistance. We don’t want to attack those people – they’re our friends and relatives and fellow citizens. Be the real “big tent” party, and contrast that with the identity politics and divisiveness of the Democrats.

    I’m strongly in favor of the Republicans adopting a more libertarian position on all social issues. Say that it’s not the governments job to interfere on social issues. Support religious freedom. Show that it’s the Democrats that are trying to legislate morality.

  7. Trimegistus Avatar
    Trimegistus

    So we’re supposed to stop criticizing the entitlement mentality that’s bankrupting the country, and we’re supposed to ignore the social conservatives?

    Who the fuck is going to be left to vote for Republicans, then? Compromise all the principles of the party members and there isn’t a party left.

  8. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Tri,

    Well do you want to win elections or don’t you?

    Don’t criticize those on welfare. Say that they can do much better than a government hand out in a booming economy and you will make the economy boom.

    Marketing my friend.

    And yes socons are reducing R vote totals. As I said – do you want to win elections or not?

    If you intend to use government as a tool to beat people you don’t like don’t be surprised if they don’t vote for you.

    But fine. I can do well under communism. Can you? No matter who wins engineers will be needed. I’m set. You?

  9. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    And Tri,

    No one is asking you to compromise your principles. Perhaps your addiction to government has blinded you to the fact that government is not the only way to accomplish what you want.

    As to who will be left in the R party? Well look to California for an answer to that one: no one. The Ds now have a super majority. But the Rs remain pure.

    Nice church you have there. But I don’t think I will be joining.

  10. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    “I can do well under communism. Can you? No matter who wins engineers will be needed. I’m set. You?”

    M.Simon, yes some of us with certain skills will do just fine. I could always go back to teaching music if my business fails. Your statement reminds me of Karl Hess, a very interesting fellow. You know his story, but many don’t. He might be worth a whole article sometime.

    Here is a link to a little speech he gave 30 years ago after he settled in West Virginia and became a welder, and while working underground and not paying the government a red cent.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02otRHOMBNA

  11. Eric Avatar

    The GOP is hopeless right now, and the problem is compounded by those who think they are the keepers of the light of truth no matter what. They are proud to not compromise, and they don’t care about winning. The goal is being right.

  12. Davud Avatar
    Davud

    “But fine. I can do well under communism. Can you? No matter who wins engineers will be needed. I’m set. You?”-

    I have to assume this is some kind of a joke. Either that or you are a venal sociopath, as in, hey, everybody else will suffer but I’m set.

    Nobody does well under communism, except the connected apparatchiks. But fortunately there will be nice ones like you who unlike the rest of the now defunct Republican party (as will be the fate of every other dissenting party, well you won’t be so critical of the folly of all them miserable, suffering wretches who didn’t have the werewithal to be engineers and the like so as to thrive under communist rule… makes me want to rip up my E.E. degree right now… maybe you will be kind enough to visit me and my homies in the gulag every once and awhile, would you?

    “Perhaps your addiction to government has blinded you to the fact that government is not the only way to accomplish what you want.”-

    I’m still trying to decipher the bizarre logic of this one, wherein somebody who criticizes the institutionalizing of destructive (and as, Tri said, bankrupting), policies that are guilty of CAUSING addiction to gov’t in large swathes of the populace must thereby mean that said criticizer is HIMSELF addicted to gov’t.

    Yep, makes sense to me…

    I was willing to give your argument a fair shake, acknowledging that a marketing makeover might certainly be in order, but i can see that for you its all about crass self-interest. That’s why you’re so gung ho about winning elections at all cost, ‘cuz you’re “set” and all that, no matter what happens to anybody else.

    “Love thy neighbor”, huh? It will be easy for you when you’re on the winning side even in a marxist state, but you might not get so much love in return.

  13. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Well Davud let me explain a few things.

    I am a libertarian Republican. So I’m well acquainted with the party. I will get back to that in a bit.

    I would do better under capitalism. For sure. It is why I’m a Republican. But I’m not so identified with politics that I will not do engineering for the communists. I will not do surveillance or work on their social control apparatus. But I will work on machines. And tools.

    =====

    Well. If you are not willing to win elections at the cost of your social ideas – Drug Prohibition – Beating Down Gays – etc., then you are a Communist enabler. Just as the Social Conservative love of Prohibitions is a criminal cartel enabler. Objectively.

    You can’t have small government and have a War On Drugs, A War On Abortion, A War on Gays, and all the other Wars On that the Republican base loves. And not only can you not have small government. You will not get votes.

    A Fiscally Conservative Small Government Party without all the social control trappings could have won this last election. But instead you ran this guy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vklb9Wed8B4

    He is out of sync with the America that approves of med pot by better than 2 to 1.

    Well OK. I would prefer capitalism. But I’m resigned to communism. Because moral purity (in your eyes) was more important than beating the communists.

    Making you and the base of the party communist enablers. I hope you sleep well at night and can avoid the gulags. I have my preferences but will play ball with who ever is in power. It is my duty to my children. Sorry about you and yours. But you can hold your head up knowing that you held firm in your beliefs. Not a very engineering attitude (engineers adjust their designs to conform to the world as it is) but you did what you thought was right.

    Not only will you be losing (in the wider sense) your social values, but your economic ones as well.

    Good luck.

  14. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    And D,

    I’m sure the Marxists will not like me and I will not like them. But a modus operandi is possible.

    I’d like to keep as much of civilization running as possible. The ‘net. The electrical grid. Autos. etc.

  15. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Perhaps your addiction to government has blinded you to the fact that government is not the only way to accomplish what you want.”-

    I’m still trying to decipher the bizarre logic of this one, wherein somebody who criticizes the institutionalizing of destructive (and as, Tri said, bankrupting), policies that are guilty of CAUSING addiction to gov’t in large swathes of the populace must thereby mean that said criticizer is HIMSELF addicted to gov’t.

    Your addiction to government enforced prohibitions. The prohibitions are being dismantled and the enforcement apparatus will be redirected against you. I have been warning of this for several decades. It is now coming to pass.

    I’d crow “just deserts” if the results weren’t so bad for all concerned.

    An addiction to Power and Control is the most dangerous of all. Especially when power changes hands.

    And why is it so bad? Because the power you have amassed will be used against you.

  16. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    How did Drug Prohibition get ramped up? It got ramped up because Alcohol Prohibition agents were looking for work.

    You might want to study the life of Harry Anslinger to get some clues.

  17. Davud Avatar
    Davud

    Uh, Simon, where did I say I wanted any and all those gov’t enforced prohibitions? You’re putting words into my mouth and those of others.

    In point of fact I am much more libertarian than conservative/ Republican, and have been trending strongly in that direction for sometime now. I have never supported gov’t mandates (or any involvement on the federal level whatsoever) on any of the issues of gay marriage, drug prohibition, abortion, etc. I agree that conservatives not of a libertarian bent (at least not socially) should open their eyes to how arguing for gov’t involvement in these matters undercuts their argument for smaller gov’t in other areas and alienates voters who either are more libertarian on these social issues, or those such as myself who are personally sympathetic to alot of the socon’s views but view those who support gov’t activism in this sphere as fundamentally flawed and counterproductive.

    But your comments that say in essence that Socons will be the responsibility for the looming totalitarian state is frankly ludicrous and insulting.

    The culture that thinks its the gov’t’s responsibility to provide them free contraceptives for grown adults and has an inalienable right to take from others that which is not theirs is one in which the collective virtues of a society have been degraded to a tipping point of systemic economic and therefore societal collapse.

    As many others have said, the left’s main weapon is not to argue on economic grounds (where they know they have no standing) but on moral grounds. That’s why they always preach their secular religion based on “fairness” and the historical narrative of the exploiters & the exploited and the creation of all these subclasses of supposed victims in capitalist America that they nakedly appeal to.

    And it has worked.

    The left has won the argument morally & philosophically through lies and demagoguery, mind you, but it has worked.

    You instead merely would say to the voting public that there is nothing WRONG with their way of inculcating a take-by-force, we-are-all-victims ethos, but merely make an appeal only on the basis of self-interest & just tell the electorate instead that our way will economically work BETTER and make you richer, thereby simply avoiding the debate in the public square of the unethical underpinnings of the left’s political strategy, leaving it to be advanced unchallenged.

    The way I see it, if we were to take on the left’s arguments from an ethical/ philosophical perspective (as well as economic, which is only what Romney did as well despite your fixation on a few of his comments, which is ironic considering your specific criticisms of him)), this doesn’t ineluctably lead to & is NOT the same thing as saying to people, “Y’all freeloading scum”.

    It IS making an APPEAL to our collective virtue as a free American people, to the better angels of our nature as it were, making the moral/ philosophical argument for our case first and foremost that will lead to the material and overall societal well-being created by the “blessings of liberty”. This is clearly not arguing for some kind of religiously-inspired, gov’t mandated morality encoded in law.

    Seems to me Ronald Reagan understood this better than anyone. If you think this strategy is one and the same as, well, your vicious smear of the Socons you made elsewhere on the net in saying that all they want is gov’t to “smite the unrighteous” then either i have failed to make my point persuasively and/or you don’t agree, which is fine either way, I said my piece.

    BTW, Simon, you seem to have a rather sanguine view of being able to make it in a totalitarian society. Hope you’re right if it all comes to pass.

  18. RRR3 Avatar
    RRR3

    Great advice but look at all the venomous attack ads. that were aimed at Romney from B.O. and B.O. won. I think it has come down to the fact that most people hate white, patriotic, Christian, males but they feel their hate is justified.

  19. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    If Socons are driving away votes they are objectively responsible no matter what they intend.

    In engineering intentions are not enough. Results are all that count.

    RRR3,

    Well wouldn’t you hate a Party that is in the main behind arresting 43 million Americans? That is quite a reservoir of dislike not to mention animosity and hatred.

    And then you have the 30 million women who have had an abortion. I’m sure they look forward to the type of attacks dopers have been getting.

    Who is the face of Drug Prohibition? Richard Nixon. Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich. And all the major Republican politicians since.

    It doesn’t matter that Democrats are just as bad. It is the face/voice that matters in politics.

    Nice little video here on the Drug War done by a police officer:

    http://youtu.be/5PFr7hfx0mo

    The Republicans will have to scramble to rebrand. Instead they are sitting pat. All because of a very vocal group of social conservatives. Ah. Well.

  20. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    “This is clearly not arguing for some kind of religiously-inspired, gov’t mandated morality encoded in law.”

    What do you call drug prohibition?

    What do you call the proposed war on abortion?

    Did you know that for Orthodox Jews that in some cases Abortion is MANDATORY to protect the mental health of the mother? I have mentioned this numerous times and have yet to hear from the anti-abortion faction how Jews will be accommodated.

    It is not just government mandated morality. It is a particular brand of morality.

    Reform Jews have come out in favor of Med Pot. In 2004 IIRC.

  21. Davud Avatar
    Davud

    You either completely misinterpreted my comments and/or I wasn’t clear, and/or willfully ignored the main thrust of my arguments.

    I don’t support the drug war or war on abortion, as I stated at length. At this point I have to conclude you simply hear what you want to hear and debate is fruitless.

    At the risk of belaborment I will state my point one last time as simply and clearly as I can:

    A case should be made for attacking the left’s political modus operandi on moral/ philosophical grounds (as well as economic grounds) THAT IS APART FROM AND HAS NOTHING TO FUCKING DO WITH PROMOTING GOV’T INTERVENTION ON SOCIAL ISSUES!

    E.g., go listen or read some of Reagan’s classic speeches, he doesn’t bring up abortion, drugs or gays (at least in the speeches I heard/ read) but rather made a positive, inspired, populist philosophical/ moral argument for limited government and the promotion of liberty.

    And yeah, he met your criteria for winning elections.

    Yes, you have a strong point to be made that those who promote an intrusive gov’t for their own means shouldn’t be surprised when those diametrically opposed to them turn the their own weapons on them. But to ignore what the left is doing to purposely destroy our Federal Republic and place all the blame on Socons is perverse and likely inspired by hate.

    For all your rap on Love & Loving One Another, you only love those you, well, dont hate & scapegoat. You seem to think you’re above all that (you silly, stupid humans!) but ironically you come across to me exactly as you portray the Socons: holier-than-thou, mean spirited toward (at least some) of your selected political, ideological enemies & therefore hypocritical, despite the good points you have to make.

    I would entreat you to take a closer look at yourself when you present your case, as I and us all should, I suppose.

  22. fona Avatar
    fona

    this talking past each other drives me crazy.
    1) Actual individual “socons” less Santorum types, who are actually statist in disguise, and who are NOT the strawmen you take from Democrat maunderings, are not trying to enforce their beliefs on others. They want 1) to believe and teach their children to believe what they morally stand for. Somehow on “Gay Marriage”, a relatively new animal out there, it is not enough to say that there is no such creature – everyone has to joyfully celebrate it or be excoriated as a Neanderthal. Homosexuals’ need for approval (and tax breaks) must be extreme.

    2) abortion – if you believe it is murder of innocents, how can you not oppose it? At the very least, you would not want to fund it with your tax dollars and should retain the right to oppose it in the marketplace of ideas. Still I think back to Bilary’s “safe, legal and rare” – are we not even better at birth control now than in 1992? Why are abortions still so frequent? Margaret Sanger went down the memory hole. Is it hateful to remind people WHY abortion was popular in the twenties?

  23. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    fona,

    “If you believe” – and that is the problem. Not enough believers to win national elections.

    =============

    OK. Small Government Constitutional Party.

    1. Drug prohibition is unpopular.
    2. There is no support in the Constitution for such a thing Federally

    So where is the Constitutional small government party on the matter? MIA.

    ====

    Why is the R response to every social problem effectively – “lets use the government to make a black market” ?

    Why isn’t it: “None of government’s business” ?

  24. Kathy Kinsley Avatar
    Kathy Kinsley

    “Who is the face of Drug Prohibition? Richard Nixon. Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich. And all the major Republican politicians since.”

    Here’s where I disagree with you – Barack Obama, William J. Clinton, James Carter. it’s BOTH sides. (I only went back to Nixon, because I think he coined the “war on” bit – but it goes back long before that – on both side.)

    And, so, you could ask the same thing of the Dems…”OK, where is the “get out of our bodies” party?”

    And why is this one thing, for BOTH sides, “the government’s business?”

  25. Kathy Kinsley Avatar
    Kathy Kinsley

    Oh, yeah – and I know the Dems are no more real about ‘leave our bodies alone’ (they are likely to start the next alcohol prohibition – or maybe just Coke and Pepsi) then the Reps are about small government.

  26. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Kathy,

    Your analysis is correct. I’m speaking to perception. That may be changing. Thanks to ∅.

  27. physics geek Avatar

    Simon, I would like to quibble with your 4th point about illegal immigrants. You say “I favor turning those immigrants who want to stay in America into Americans. Americans who understand America and its laws. The world can use more Americans and I would be proud to have them as my fellow countrymen and women.” What’s missing from that sentence is the word “illegal”. I spent more than a decade in IT where a really, really large percentage of highly educated LEGAL immigrants from foreign countries (India, China) had to jump through hoops annually to keep their visas up to date. Some of them would take all of their vacation overseas to do that task as it was easier than trying to work through the consulate here in the U.S.. I will say that almost without exception, they are completely opposed to having the border jumpers get anywhere near the front of the legalization line. As for me, I’d open the borders for more LEGAL immigration; we need more people in this country who want to be here. but unless any proposed process does not push all of the illegals to the end of the queue, I will not be in favor of it.