“Sweet title, bro,” most friends would say. Or, “I don’t care about that crap.” See any numerous lists of offsets that people – especially our in-their-20’s population – will use to discount their political moldability. Yes, we just invented a word and a phrase, and, no, we don’t suggest it in passing.
Political marketing is employed in radicalizing and stratifying the American ideological divide. We hear it more often these days but what does that really mean? Simply put: R’s talk is getting more holy, anti-governmental, and biting towards the left, and D’s speak is becoming more secular, less hands-off, and caustic towards the right. What is just, as we all know, is somewhere in between, or a more-than-bipartisan system – but that’s another opine for another day.
More important than our political divide is that the political molding problem persists and evolves – it feeds off its own press. Call it a parasite; call our strata a parasite. But certainly don’t blame marketing.
The obstacle is our general complacency towards the problem itself. Take this and our general malaise towards each side’s proposed solutions and you enter the political mold. Meanwhile our political races are being overshadowed by the advent of Super-PACs that fuel such mind-bending marketing. That’s Super Political Action Committees, and what’s so super about them is they are almost completely unregulated, can say almost anything negative about political candidates, are at the forefront of every major candidates’ campaign, and most importantly, are financed by millionaires and elites who don’t have to disclose any donations – just like the PACs themselves. Whoa, buzzkill bro. That’s right, right? If only this was the model of normalcy in life, we could, say, spread libel and slander about any job competitor at will, unregulated, and publish it everywhere without any consequences! Holy sweet idea, Batman.
Here’s the problem: we can’t, nor should our ideological system be rooted in, much less evolving towards, such a polarizing concept. Like it or not, as is, you are one of the moldable. You’ve found yourself hating the other side for their tactics; just the same as you praise your own side’s efforts at spreading the “good” word. And, for goodness sake, please quit fooling yourselves with the concept that “outside-the-mold” candidates such as Ron Paul or Ralph Nader are any different than the characters of the mainstream ilk. They aren’t. Each does, or would, have their own Super PAC, given the chance. You want a crazy, off-the-wall concept, see above not-so-bipartisan suggestion.
But for more information in the interim, educate yourself:
Brookings’, “The Great Divide”
The Economist’s, “The Hands that Prod, the Wallets that Feed”
Now, to the point of this long-winded rant: don’t blame political marketing. After all, call it what you will, this is all a paid form of intelligent marketing design. You know, the old adage: don’t blame the messenger. At worst, marketing’s a conduit for sales; used effectively herein, it’s a genius mechanism for molding your conceptualization of reality. I charge anyone to really, truly, think hard about what they believe in – and then to really, truly, analyze it against the platform of their party’s beliefs these days. If you find that they fall fully in line, then we really, truly, call you a dunce. And we have no remorse in doing so.
So, what’s left? Another charge: learn from it, grow from it, realize marketing is the bees knees, and realize that this negative form of political marketing should stop at ideological concept, or dare we say, evolve justly.