A Tale of Two Politicians

In this post, I plan on merging two things that really shouldn’t be merged, politics and business, or for that matter, politics and just about anything. I am, by nature, a cynic, so discussing politics with most anyone seems to boil down to a few fairly fatalistic points, and those who don’t understand that about me, or my style of argumentation, can become frustrated. If my audience falls into this group, I apologize in advance.

After seeing the segment on Frank Luntz on The Persuaders, it seemed as though marketing and politics had reached a nearly perfect point of unison. If, as Luntz contests, the correct wording makes all the difference, and simply rephrasing the issue can change (modify) the way your constituents think, feel, and act about an issue, the way I view modern politics may be drastically changed. The idea that a politician, with the right market research, can position anything to masses in the most favorable possible light, is a bit frightening. Not that this is an entirely new concept, or even something that isn’t already prevalent in many other fields (namely sales, where the importance of framing something “correctly” can make all the difference), but it can be frightening to contemplate the possibilities. Calling the privacy violations/travesties of the Patriot Act “information sharing” or raising taxes as “adding value to America” would certainly be more pleasing to the ears and minds, but is essentially nothing more than keeping a population lax and copacetic. Yet for politicians, it is adding value where that level of experience was not previously, one of, if not the most basic functions of marketing; modifying our experiences to sell more ideas, simply by a careful selection of words.

Which brings me to a tale of two politicians, whose level of success certainly varied, but their constituent experience was certainly one of the driving forces in their campaigns, and in many ways, their destinies. Granted, every campaign greatly depends on enthusiastic campaigners, but both movements seemed to have an unheard of level of support in modern politics.

Our tragic hero would be the infamously radical one man island, Dr. Ron Paul. I am fairly hesitant to disclose around mixed company that I was once highly involved in his campaign (MANY of his supporters are those I would consider mentally unsound, and I’ve taken efforts to dissociate myself from them), helping coordinate his rally on campus, participating in the Austin Tea Party rally, campaigning in Iowa just before the caucus, and donating to the campaign. From an insider’s view, it was the grassroots movement that could. The experience was built around an uncompromising man, who had no problem ruffling feathers and standing up for what he believed was right, even if he was the only person to do so (or occasionally joined by a very similar Dennis Kucinich). The idea seemed beautiful and simple, a firm dedication to the most American and revered of documents, the Constitution, will ail most of society’s ills, and the rest will follow into place. And it attracted a few million of the nation’s most ravenous supporters, fundraising an incredibly amount of money, in a small amount of time, from an even smaller group of people. Yet the position was simply…off. From a pragmatists point of view, while the constituent experience for the Ron Paul’s campaign worked very effectively, there were very few “passive” Paul supporters, his message (and certainly the way it was presented) turned off a large number of potential supporters. Not to say his stance would have won over everyone if positioned correctly (it was far too radical for that), but it seemed the campaigners could care less about attracting voters, and more about pushing their beliefs. Having rolled my eyes countless times after hearing campaigners, or even Dr. Paul himself in public situations, refer to taxation as “legal theft”, or proposing a return to the Gold Standard, it really brought to light the idea that “one man’s garbage is another man’s treasure”. The constituent (customer) experience was brilliant conceived, and captivating, but only to a very shallow, and niche market, settling the campaign as nothing more than the brilliant grassroots movement that could.

On the other side of the fence, now President Barack Obama crafted a brilliant campaign around….essentially what people wanted to hear. That is not to say the campaign was not genuine, or that the ideas were fabricated in any way, but it is not hard to imagine the words “hope” and “change” being isolated by a man like Frank Luntz as keys to the campaign. So much so, that the user experience became “Hope” and “Change” in a time when every politician, democrat, republican, or other, was trying to distance themselves from Bush and doing so by contrasting how things would change, or be different. So much so, that Barack began to receive a projection of “hope” and “change”. College students and minorities, two typically underrepresented voting groups, came out in full force. There were many reasons for this, but encapsulating two ideals, making a group of seemingly disenfranchised voters believe their vote could actually encapsulate “hope” and “change”, is certainly one of the reasons.

“Hope” and “Change” are not issues, but rather ideas with very individual connotations. For America, in 2007 and 2008, a politician could do no better than to self brand themselves behind these ideas, regardless of party, platform, or values. Both Barack Obama, and Ron Paul rallied supporters behind these cries, but different segments and in different numbers altogether. Where Ron Paul preached for the “revolution” (something that worked very effectively, for the radicals) Barack preached for “change”. As an ex Paul supporter, with this insight, I truly wonder if the campaign ever wanted it to be viable, or simply ruffle as many supporters as possible, and network the diehards for further battles. The defining slogans and campaign experience would lean toward the latter. As a student of marketing, I can say with certainty the experience created around hope and change was strong enough to aid our current President into office, and will certainly play its roll in defining his legacy.