Politics, Money, and Branding

¶ … 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 alludes to the fact that most Americans are too busy to do the research on products and politicians, so when they are bombarded with messages that are designed to "cultivate an emotional preference" for whatever brand is being promoted / marketed, whether it is Budweiser or a Tea Party candidate for Congress (Warner, 20). 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 shape it no longer exists. That is because a candidate for office can win not because he or she has the best ideas and the most credibility, but rather because he or she has the financial backing to pay for effective attack ads (that demean the opponent) on television. The elite political backer has a war chest readily available for the conservative candidate who can "drown out dissident messages" from the liberal candidate (Warner, 17).

Perhaps a stronger way to phrase the influence of "dark money" (cash by the millions that buys attack ads but has no identity as far as who provided it) is that when it comes to national politics, pure democracy is irrelevant. Yes, people still vote, but as was pointed out in the Warner article about branding, people rely on emotional rather than rational appeals (18). Like selling Popsicles or panty hose, it is truly "brand hegemony" when attack ads paid for by an unknown person who has a personal ideological agenda can bury the positive ads produced and paid for by a liberal candidate's campaign.

And how can Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert -- or Adbusters -- possibly disrupt the transmission of tens of thousands of attack ads aimed at worthy progressive candidates who have proven records of accomplishment? The Stewart show (and Colbert's show, which came into existence after Warner's article) is great entertainment, but since Warner's article appeared in 2007 a great deal has changed in the American political milieu.

What is relevant today, seven years after Warner's article was published, is the bundle of millions of dollars that mystery billionaires like the Koch Brothers -- helping to build the brands of right wing candidates whose ideology matches theirs -- are spending in elections.

Speaking of the Koch brothers, Jon Stewart had some fun with the conservative billionaire brothers on his show in late October, 2014. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that Koch Industries is the "second largest privately held company in the U.S." And because of the negative publicity progressive groups have generated against the Koch brothers' pumping of millions into attack ads against progressives, the brothers are buying ads to soft sell their image (Connelly, 2014). They even ran a spot on the Stewart show, with a baby featured in the ad, as the voice explains that Koch Industries "…make better food, clothing, shelter, technologies and other necessities" (Connelly, p. 1).