¶ … Jamie Warner takes the position that while politicians use branding techniques they learned in the commercial marketplace -- to basically drown out viewpoints that aren't their own -- some scholars insist that diverse, rational points-of-view should be allowed to be heard. One of the key arguments in this article is that the dynamics that democracy depend on (an open dialogue on important issues and concerns) seem to be of little concern to "political elites and their consultants" (Warner, 2007). Moreover, those elite politicians that Warner refers to prefer to use the power of the media and their propaganda to "crowd out" other voices so their own political agenda can dominate the airwaves. Among the pivotal points that Warner makes is that in response to the political branding techniques used by "elite politicians," there is now a push-back against that rhetoric and propaganda called "culture jamming" (Warner, 18). Among the tactics used by culture jammers is the use of "rhetorical sabotage," which is turning the loud, brassy messages of the political elite -- and conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity -- back on themselves, Warner explains (19). Mentioned as a prominent figure in culture jamming is Jon Stewart, whose program, "The Daily Show," is essentially a parody of political events, of politically motivated news sources like Fox News, and a sharply-honed parody of the voices of conservative politicians whose sometimes lunatic, far right rhetoric should be called into question by any fair-minded, democracy-loving American citizen.

From this main point Warner goes into a discussion of branding, and why politicians and consumer marketers use branding strategies. He...

He also mentions Adbusters, another culture jamming organization, that also uses parody and irony to turn the tables on branding and advertising.
An original argument based on the reading

The article by Warner doesn't mention the "Citizens United" decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010, which basically open the floodgates to allow millions of dollars to be spent on political advertising -- with absolutely no accountability as to who or what organization spent millions to defeat certain candidates. Not surprisingly, the High Court's vote was 5-4; five Republicans and four Democrats. The essence of the decision was that corporations are "people" -- and as a result they are protected under the First Amendment (i.e. freedom of speech means you can spend $40 or $50 million on political advertising that attacks liberal candidates because spending that money is allowed under your freedom of expression).

A strong argument can be made that notwithstanding the popularity of Jon Stewart's brilliantly-produced show -- and Adbusters along with other media presentations that are culture jamming, along with the millions of viewers who laugh at Stewart and Steven Colbert -- the Citizens United decision by the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) has changed the way the American democracy functions. Some believe that democracy as the Founding Fathers had attempted to…