By Daniel Rigney
Consider this rather cynical question. Are democratic elections now essentially marketing surveys? I'm fighting the impulse to respond: "agree."
In light of the seeming corporatization of every aspect of American life (including semi-privatized government), are political corporations such as RNCo and DNCo offering voters much beyond the civic equivalent of the Pepsi Challenge?
Are elections mainly a metric that political operators use to measure how effectively they've manipulated consumer attitudes and behavior?
Of course I’m not the first traveler tempted to descend down this road to cynicism. Many others have beaten me to the unblinding insight that political candidates are marketed like commodities on MallMart shelves.
Social scientists, consumer researchers and political consultants have proposed a variety of machiavellian market models to describe how politics now works (at least for some) in the United States.*
Here's one version of the political marketing model in brief:
In the corporate/political world, candidates, parties and policies are “brands.” Political campaigns differentiate themselves from opposing campaigns by selectively contrasting their political "products" with those of competing brands.
Political jurisdictions are “markets,” each with its own distinctive consumer demographics. Political parties compete for market shares of key market segments in key regions, striving to achieve market dominance.
Citizens are “customers” (and, if they have substantial resources, “shareholders" or "stakeholders.")
Public opinion polls, including those held at the election polls themselves, are surveys of customer taste and brand preference. While some political consumers are brand-loyal, others are independent and persuadable. Wooing the latter is the key to achieving political market dominance.
Politics is public relations (when it isn’t just good old-fashioned backroomocracy). It’s mainly about image, not underlying reality. ("I've got one word for you: Optics.")
Nearly all political media are, quite literally, corporate media. Their ultimate aim is not to inform the public but to profit themselves, often by any tabloid means necessary.
And government is just one among many major industries, alongside carbon (I mean energy), banking, tech and others, in the American corporatocracy.
This is the cynical view of American politics to which market models of democracy have led us.
And so, the cynic in me says, when we go to the polls at periodic intervals, we're expressing our market preferences for political Pepsi or Coke, with the occasional wildhair opting for a third-party beverage like green Mountain Dew or Red Bull. On most election days, though, most shoppers just stay home.
In the political marketing model, government comes to resemble a business like any other.
Is this what electoral democracy looks like now – a glorified consumer survey measuring preferences for competing brands? A political Pepsi Challenge?
To a point. But here’s where the Coke-Pepsi analogy breaks down. The differences between or among parties are not always as trivial as the differences among colas or uncolas. Party policy occasionally charts real and critical differences in political and historical direction.
From a progressive viewpoint, the difference between Democratic and Republican policy directions in recent years has been more than just a choice between Coke and Pepsi. It’s been a choice between visions of greater equality (economic, ethnic, gender) and less, between more environmental protection and less, between need and greed, between a real future and an imagined past, between “we’re all in this together” and “it’s everyone for himself.”
I don’t care whether Coke beats Pepsi or Pepsi beats Coke. I do care, though, who wins the democratic challenge. And while I’m far from happy with the Democratic Party and its performance in recent years, I’m a half-a-loaf kind of guy. Half a Democratic loaf beats the alternative -- a vault of Republican dough. It also beats, in my view, the splintering-off of third parties that would undermine an urgently needed progressive center-left coalition.
So … How satisfied are you with the prevailing market-survey approach to democracy?
Would you say you are (a) very satisfied; (b) somewhat satisfied; (c) somewhat dissatisfied; (d) very dissatisfied; (e) don’t know; or (f) don’t care?
Respond now. Don't make me robo-call you during dinner.
Danagram
*For more on corporate marketing approaches to politics, check out these graphics and this overview of literature.
Consider this rather cynical question. Are democratic elections now essentially marketing surveys? I'm fighting the impulse to respond: "agree."
In light of the seeming corporatization of every aspect of American life (including semi-privatized government), are political corporations such as RNCo and DNCo offering voters much beyond the civic equivalent of the Pepsi Challenge?
Are elections mainly a metric that political operators use to measure how effectively they've manipulated consumer attitudes and behavior?
Of course I’m not the first traveler tempted to descend down this road to cynicism. Many others have beaten me to the unblinding insight that political candidates are marketed like commodities on MallMart shelves.
Social scientists, consumer researchers and political consultants have proposed a variety of machiavellian market models to describe how politics now works (at least for some) in the United States.*
Here's one version of the political marketing model in brief:
In the corporate/political world, candidates, parties and policies are “brands.” Political campaigns differentiate themselves from opposing campaigns by selectively contrasting their political "products" with those of competing brands.
Political jurisdictions are “markets,” each with its own distinctive consumer demographics. Political parties compete for market shares of key market segments in key regions, striving to achieve market dominance.
Citizens are “customers” (and, if they have substantial resources, “shareholders" or "stakeholders.")
Public opinion polls, including those held at the election polls themselves, are surveys of customer taste and brand preference. While some political consumers are brand-loyal, others are independent and persuadable. Wooing the latter is the key to achieving political market dominance.
Politics is public relations (when it isn’t just good old-fashioned backroomocracy). It’s mainly about image, not underlying reality. ("I've got one word for you: Optics.")
Nearly all political media are, quite literally, corporate media. Their ultimate aim is not to inform the public but to profit themselves, often by any tabloid means necessary.
And government is just one among many major industries, alongside carbon (I mean energy), banking, tech and others, in the American corporatocracy.
This is the cynical view of American politics to which market models of democracy have led us.
And so, the cynic in me says, when we go to the polls at periodic intervals, we're expressing our market preferences for political Pepsi or Coke, with the occasional wildhair opting for a third-party beverage like green Mountain Dew or Red Bull. On most election days, though, most shoppers just stay home.
In the political marketing model, government comes to resemble a business like any other.
Is this what electoral democracy looks like now – a glorified consumer survey measuring preferences for competing brands? A political Pepsi Challenge?
To a point. But here’s where the Coke-Pepsi analogy breaks down. The differences between or among parties are not always as trivial as the differences among colas or uncolas. Party policy occasionally charts real and critical differences in political and historical direction.
From a progressive viewpoint, the difference between Democratic and Republican policy directions in recent years has been more than just a choice between Coke and Pepsi. It’s been a choice between visions of greater equality (economic, ethnic, gender) and less, between more environmental protection and less, between need and greed, between a real future and an imagined past, between “we’re all in this together” and “it’s everyone for himself.”
I don’t care whether Coke beats Pepsi or Pepsi beats Coke. I do care, though, who wins the democratic challenge. And while I’m far from happy with the Democratic Party and its performance in recent years, I’m a half-a-loaf kind of guy. Half a Democratic loaf beats the alternative -- a vault of Republican dough. It also beats, in my view, the splintering-off of third parties that would undermine an urgently needed progressive center-left coalition.
So … How satisfied are you with the prevailing market-survey approach to democracy?
Would you say you are (a) very satisfied; (b) somewhat satisfied; (c) somewhat dissatisfied; (d) very dissatisfied; (e) don’t know; or (f) don’t care?
Respond now. Don't make me robo-call you during dinner.
Danagram
*For more on corporate marketing approaches to politics, check out these graphics and this overview of literature.
No comments:
Post a Comment