Political Labels Part III

The notes that I took directly underneath the “pinnacle versus progress” had a little diagram. Bear with me while I try to explain it. I wrote four words: Liberal, Republican, Conservative, and Democrat. Connecting the words in a circle were four arrows. In the big empty space in the middle, I wrote Meaning.

The lecturer had started out his talk with an example of advertising in politics. Rather than advertising just now creeping into politics, that was always the purpose of advertising. The father of modern advertising was Sigmund Freud’s nephew. Now, I don’t believe in nepotism or even hereditary gifts (you know, that somehow the nephew was born with all of Freud’s knowledge), but the point made was that the nephew very well knew of his uncle’s legacy. The nephew (didn’t grab his name, too lazy to google) made no bones about using advertising for political purposes. His book on the subject was allegedly titled “Propaganda.” That was before the word got such a negative connotation. Anyway, this was in the early twenties.

What I’ve noticed since that time, is that politcal movements are increasingly advertising oriented. One of the main concepts of advertising, as I understand it, is to sell something to someone that they don’t really need. The most effective way to do this is through branding. Advertising spends billions of dollars getting us to associate certain brands with certain experiences. Likewise, in politics, advertising brands politicians (and oh how I sometimes wish it was with a cattle brand) as representing this or that. In Montana, politicians always represent Montana values, while never really explaining what those values are. We saw branding in the last senate election when Jon Tester was shown holding a hunting rifle on his ranch when he apparently had not had a hunting permit for a number of years. However, a good advertising campaign (campaign — such a war-like word except the war is for your brand loyalty and association) will convince us, usually psychological techniques that anything can represent anything else.

Now, let’s take a little side trip. I’ve recently become interested in tribalism. No, not those tattoos or even Native Americans, but humans tendency to form little tribes, clans, or BFFs. We congregate with our sports teams, represent our local city or state, or defend someone’s musical selection as long as it matches our own. Tribalism, I believe, held an important key to Homo Sapien Sapien’s survival into the modern era. Humans want to engage in tight-knit groups. It’s only since the French Revolution that we’ve really stepped up nationalism. Before then, we didn’t really identify with a such a huge political entity as an entire country. So, it sort of makes no sense to only have two political parties represent a country that about as large than all of Europe.

Though, as many in the blogosphere know, we don’t have two politcal parties. I would argue that we actually have sort of a paradox. We have both numerous political parties and only one political party.

Numerous political parties: Each region has its own interpretation of the main political party. That’s how we can have a Democratic Governor in Montana and a Republican Governor in Massachusetts. Each region dictates its own interpretation of the political party.

One political party: Taking a far enough step back, you see both political parties saying essentially the same things while only changing the labels. Plus they flip-flop whenever political advantage might be had. Many of the same corporations are the top donors to both parties. Both parties are run from the top down with political consultants running from party to party, paycheck to paycheck, indifferent to any classical merit of the party.

That’s what I think my diagram was portraying: the one party system that seems to dance around meaning. The advertisers have gotten so good at building political brands that for a large swath of Americans, it doesn’t matter what their candidate actually does or says. A recent study showed that many ardent Bush supporters believed that Bush approved and was implementing the Kyoto Accord. Both political parties flip-flop their traditional stance every few years or even every few months.

But with humans tendency and needfor tribes, how does this actually translate for us? We pick a side and then we fight the other person. We subscribe to our media outlets. We support each other in branding the “enemy.” We believe that “God” or “Reason” or “Over-arching philosophical system” is on our side and the enemy is crazy, stupid, or heretical. We get caught up in this race, this dance to catch the enemy’s tail that we don’t even notice that a giant void opened in the middle, the void of “meaning.” (“Meaning” meaning actually agreeing that certain words mean certain things or that things should get done that help us rather than harm us.)

I don’t know how true this trilogy of tripe actually is, but it sort of makes sense to me. With all this partison bickering us constituents engage in, both politcal parties are accepting huge checks from most of the same corporations. And while the public continues to get this shaft in regards to education, transportation, prisons, health care, and trade, Corporations get NAFTA and a nice big war.

Gobs and Gobs of Money

Since Conrad Burns has raised approximately $8,300,000 this election cycle and now is not only drinking and cursing like sailor, but spending like one, I thought we might be able to help him come up with more creative ways to blow his wad of cash.

1: Have his mining buddies carve out some mountains in the form of his name.

2: Have an airplane fly a banner in the sky that reads: “Stop the War! Vote Burns”

3: Hire some marine buddies to forcibly tattoo “Dirty Liberal” on Jon Tester’s forehead.

4: Buy every paper in every rack in the state and replace it with “Vote for Burns” fliers.

5: Staple “Vote Burns” fliers on the backs of bums.

6: Host a pie eating contest. The winner is declared for the person who can dig out of Burns campaign button from the pie.

any other suggestions?

Massive Ads from Conrad

So I found this last week one thing that Conrad Burns is going to do for advertisements.  He is paying to have every single Missoulian newspaper wraped in a plastic bag that says “Vote for Conrad Burns”. 

Talk about something that really burns me up.  The carriers are even required to wrap the newspapers in these bags.  I’m not sure about any punishments they might receive for refusing to do so, but as they’re independent contractors I hope they refuse. 

Now, this might seem to be just another political advertisement and should be taken as such, but most ads appear on the inside of the paper.  Never before have I heard of a advertisement posted on the outside of the paper.  This is tantamount to putting advertisement on the front page.  Perhaps other papers put ads on the front page, but more ethical papers should have the first thing seen be news.