Does anyone remember this article by Louis Menand, from August 2004?
In every Presidential-election year, there are news stories about undecided voters, people who say that they are perplexed about which candidate’s positions make the most sense. They tell reporters things like “I’d like to know more about Bush’s plan for education,” or “I’m worried that Kerry’s ideas about Social Security don’t add up.” They say that they are thinking about issues like “trust,” and whether the candidate cares about people like them. To voters who identify strongly with a political party, the undecided voter is almost an alien life form. For them, a vote for Bush is a vote for a whole philosophy of governance and a vote for Kerry is a vote for a distinctly different philosophy. The difference is obvious to them, and they don’t understand how others can’t see it, or can decide whom to vote for on the basis of a candidate’s personal traits or whether his or her position on a particular issue “makes sense.” To an undecided voter, on the other hand, the person who always votes for the Democrat or the Republican, no matter what, must seem like a dangerous fanatic.
More after the fold, with a poll.
Ever wonder what politicians do with the money you give them? They give it to consultants that give them advice like the following:
However, uninformed or undecided voters will often choose the candidate whose name and packaging are most memorable. To make sure your candidate has that ‘top-of-mind’ voter awareness, a powerful logo is the best place to start.” You want to present your candidate in language that voters will understand. They understand colors. “Blue is a positive color for men, signaling authority and control,” another article advises. “But it’s a negative color for women, who perceive it as distant, cold and aloof. Red is a warm, sentimental color for women—and a sign of danger or anger to men. If you use the wrong colors to the wrong audience, you’re sending a mixed message.”
What about the Green Party? What about an informed republic?
What horseshit.
(Altho I did once read a graphic artist’s critique of the sucky signage that Kerry/Edwards put out … the alignment of the font characters, etc. was all screwed up. )
I see red and I charge!
Nah. You’re a “red”. When you see bull you charge. 🙂
was my vote and the attitude I want our next Democratic candidate to have.
yeah, but what color tie should he wear?
maybe he can consult his wife. Unless the candidate’s a woman.
… in which case, maybe she can consult her wife.
Hmmm…. yellow. Goes with the purple suit.
It’s been years since I’ve womanized!
But seriously. I’m an idiot asshole, and I provided some good advice. However, my last campaign wasn’t so good. I actually thought my NC metropolis wasn’t so bigoted as to fall to the Robinson/Foxx who hates gays/blacks/liberals more campaign style.
Turns out, we really ARE that bigoted, and we really, really like saying so. I mean really. We had people in OUR campaign say “you know, we really should offer something to counter Robinson.” Dipshit, we WERE. Counter means NOT BIGOTED. We made it a point not to blitz the airwaves with “get rid of the gays.”
Wonk:
Wonk was originally a 1960s slang word applied to an excessively studious person (equivalent to “grind” or “nerd”). The origins of the term are obscure. It has been described as a simple reversal of “know,” linked to an obscure Old English word, and attributed to Royal Navy slang for a learned but inexperienced midshipman.
Leave it to Wikipedia to define the consultants.
I learned long ago not to assume that other people think like me, but I still think the emphasis on packaging is a big part of the problem. I abhor the stupid political graphic designs the same way I abhor the theme music and logos television news comes up with for major events. If I’m buying an item in a store for $24.95, I expect packaging. I also expect that if the packaging is deceptive, the worst that can happen is that I’ll be out $24.95.
When someone is asking me to vote for them to be President of the United States, I want to look in the box before I buy. I assume the packaging is misleading the same way that I assume the “new and improved” stamped on every other box in the store is misleading. The difference is that the consequences of being ripped off are a hell of a lot more serious than a few bucks.
When I see a “powerful logo”, I smell bullshit. I want powerful ideas. I want vision. I want personal integrity. If you can’t communicate that to me with your speeches and writings, your stupid blue sign with the inevitable star and red-and-white ribbon design is not going to sway me.
Mind you, I’m not a typical swing voter — I am a hard-line ideological voter, not a party-line voter, and I have voted for the occasional Republican. (It may be a cold day in Hell before I do that again, but I digress.) If the best the powers-that-be in DC can give me next time is a Vichy Dem and a powerful logo, I’ll vote third party. And yes, I know that’s throwing my vote away, but so is voting for a full-of-shit major party candidate.
wouldn’t we be better off sterilizing anyone who doesn’t know who they are going to vote for President by October?
Oh yeah, that will get ’em on our side.
you know, it’s an evolutionary strategy. It takes time to come to fruition 🙂
Yeah, I understood the joke you were trying to make. I used to have a button that said “Think of it as evolution in action”. I find the Darwin Awards funny, in a very twisted sort of way. But these days it stops being funny to me when people joke about taking an active roll.
I know, I know, it’s only a joke …
Ah, at last I see why we haven’t been winning: their consultants are better than ours.
Personally, I’d rather defenestrate all these worthless leeches than engage in sexual congress with them, but maybe that’s just me. I chose that last option anyway. Before I donate to a campaign again, I’d like to have a better handle on how that money would be spent. I’m not inclined to give to a campaign that’s spending wads of cash on a handful of insider consultants and their focus groups.
Here’s my free advice to any and all politicians and aspiring politicians: It’s the grassroots, stupid! But I suppose since I don’t wear a power tie and fancy tassled loafers, this advice can be safely ignored.
I was told many years ago (by the youngest person ever to serve as speaker of the Missouri state house, and a longtime Democratic activist) that it was common knowledge among politicians that blue always trumps red in campaign logos, bumper stickers, billboards, yard signs, etc. And green doesn’t get taken seriously.
It could be something in the hard wiring, who knows, but he swore by it.
I didn’t like the answer, but then I didn’t have the knowledge or experience to argue with him, either.
Silly me, I thought people informed themselves and made choices based on issues and facts. The years since 1980 (for the most part) have certainly made me question that notion…
That kind of color theory is crap (the consultant,not the pol) because it’s too exact. On the other hand, I doubt if there has been a successful candidate whose logo didn’t had red, white and blue, or at least two of them.
Like it or not, graphics is part of the package. We aren’t just thinking people, we’re feeling as well. Why have campaign rallies, when you could read the speeches? Campaign rallies are about touch. Even for partisans, well designed logos add to your sense of this is the right candidate. You have to wear the buttons, after all. You don’t want them to look dorky.
Kids will put up a campaign poster in their room just because they like the poster. Their parents then see it every day. You can’t buy that kind of exposure.
We’re human beings, with eyes, ears, sense of touch, an aesthetic sense. We learn from colors and shapes just as animals and insects do. Add to that the dominance of advertising—people making quick decisions about buying a particular brand of beer, car, computer,based on the ads, and on how the product looks—and all this stuff can’t be ignored. Obviously it should be secondary in politics. But it’s part of it.
But I trust the judgment of the guy who got it through experience and intuition over the consultant who cites some focus group study.