America entered the 1960's as a simple and trusting nation in many ways. One was that we liked to believe that the election of a president was a serious, thoughtful, and intellectual exercise. However, in 1969, I read a then-controversial book by Joe McGinniss entitled The Selling of the President 1968.
McGinniss' book showed us that electing a president of the Free World was not unlike getting a housewife to pick a detergent at the grocery store. A particular presidential candidate was just another product to be sold.
A week ago, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote a column entitled "Flood the Zone." In it, he discussed the one-sided advantage that liberalism has over conservatism, i.e., understandability. If someone says to me "the government will remove the uncertainties of economic cycles, ill health, old age, poverty, and so forth from me," I understand there is less for me to worry about. However, if someone says to me "it is a complex but wonderful world out there, which will help you with your uncertainties," then I understand I still have much to worry about.
In other words, conservatism does not lack compassion. It lacks clarity. It lacks sound bites.
A few days ago, a friend wrote an excellent piece on the Brooks column, pointing out that conservatives do a poor job of selling an approach that is demonstrably more effective in solving the problems of uncertainty, almost begging the question of how to "sell" conservatism, which lacks that understandable clarity and, more important, lacks those critical sound bites.
Most marketing professors would argue the first step is to develop an inclusive marketing plan, and I would agree with that, except WHO has input into developing that plan. Developing that marketing plan, in public or in private, would be a hugely difficult task, even though it would be well worth it.
If I could make one contribution, I would suggest that the old construct of "liberalism vs. conservatism" be discarded in favor of Ayd Ryan's construct of "statism vs. freedom."
Joe McGinniss would probably argue that selling an idea is still no different than selling a President . . . or even selling a detergent.
McGinniss' book showed us that electing a president of the Free World was not unlike getting a housewife to pick a detergent at the grocery store. A particular presidential candidate was just another product to be sold.
A week ago, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote a column entitled "Flood the Zone." In it, he discussed the one-sided advantage that liberalism has over conservatism, i.e., understandability. If someone says to me "the government will remove the uncertainties of economic cycles, ill health, old age, poverty, and so forth from me," I understand there is less for me to worry about. However, if someone says to me "it is a complex but wonderful world out there, which will help you with your uncertainties," then I understand I still have much to worry about.
In other words, conservatism does not lack compassion. It lacks clarity. It lacks sound bites.
A few days ago, a friend wrote an excellent piece on the Brooks column, pointing out that conservatives do a poor job of selling an approach that is demonstrably more effective in solving the problems of uncertainty, almost begging the question of how to "sell" conservatism, which lacks that understandable clarity and, more important, lacks those critical sound bites.
Most marketing professors would argue the first step is to develop an inclusive marketing plan, and I would agree with that, except WHO has input into developing that plan. Developing that marketing plan, in public or in private, would be a hugely difficult task, even though it would be well worth it.
If I could make one contribution, I would suggest that the old construct of "liberalism vs. conservatism" be discarded in favor of Ayd Ryan's construct of "statism vs. freedom."
Joe McGinniss would probably argue that selling an idea is still no different than selling a President . . . or even selling a detergent.
