Politics & Other Mistakes: Hard sell

6 mins read
Al Diamon
Al Diamon

Politics – like almost everything else except getting herpes – is about marketing. Candidates are sold to the public in the same way as poorly constructed automobiles, ineffective deodorants and phony erectile-dysfunction pills. Which explains why, when confronted by difficult issues, they break down, smell bad and go limp.

Effective campaigns aren’t about issues, which are complicated, messy subjects that require considerable research to understand and unbiased analysis to develop workable solutions. Instead, candidates’ inner circles focus on branding – finding catchphrases that capture the public’s attention, even if they have nothing to do with solving problems.

So far in this election cycle in Maine, Republicans have been doing a far better job of sloganeering than Democrats, who appear to have taken ersatz ED meds.

Take welfare, for instance. The average taxpayer believes that sizable numbers of those receiving food stamps, Medicaid and general assistance are gaming the system. Sure, they base this assessment on what the Dems disparage as “anecdotal evidence.” But when nearly everyone has a welfare-cheat story to tell, the anecdotes outweigh the studies that claim abuse is rare because hardly anybody gets convicted of it.

What those studies really show is convictions are rare.

The GOP upped the ante when Gov. Paul LePage announced he would no longer reimburse municipalities for general assistance payments to illegal aliens. Democrats howled that this was unconstitutional, but no matter how loud they shrieked, all the voters heard was something about stopping illegals from getting public money. That sounded pretty good to them.
The Dems have a valid point here. The LePage edict banned not only those who’ve slipped across the nation’s borders surreptitiously, but also immigrants seeking asylum, who aren’t necessarily here illegally. But valid points are not the same as telling points, and, when it comes to welfare, the Republicans have all of those.

According to Democratic leaders, Medicaid expansion is supposed to be the issue that decides this election. They blather on about the myriad consequences of not expanding eligibility to 70,000 more people. But while the Dems are making their complex arguments for this program, the non-Medicaid-receiving taxpayers are hearing the debate through the GOP’s filter. More Medicaid isn’t about increasing revenue to cash-strapped hospitals or improved preventive care. It’s about giving more welfare to the same slugs who are already ripping us off.

Democrats have also bungled the nursing home issue. Members of Maine’s older demographic are scared to death they won’t be able to get quality long-term care at facilities in their communities. Of course, being scared to death means they’ll never have to worry about that problem. Nevertheless, both parties have strongly supported increased funding for nursing homes.

But only one party gets credit for that.

In the final days of the last legislative session, LePage introduced a bill to hike state reimbursements to these facilities. As with most of the governor’s last-minute initiatives, it was crudely assembled, particularly its funding mechanism. Legislators, who’d already passed a significant increase in nursing-home funding, set about trying to find a fast fix for LePage’s flawed proposal, but the governor announced he’d veto the bill if it was amended. Democrats decided that rather than fighting the clock and LePage, they’d let the measure die.

And just like that, Republicans had won the branding battle.

The GOP launched a relentless campaign claiming the Dems didn’t care about saving nursing homes. LePage demanded they return to Augusta in a special session to reconsider the matter. Donkey party leaders, suspecting that such a session would degenerate into chaos, declined. Which was just what the governor hoped they’d do. After a couple weeks of lambasting the do-nothing Dems, LePage unveiled a quick-fix, short-term bailout for nursing homes. It does nothing to correct the systemic problems that mean you’ll likely spend your declining years in a cardboard box under a bridge, but it allows Republicans to claim they’ve saved the state’s nursing homes.

That’s marketing. That’s a campaign slogan. That’s a winner.

Taking the time to find a proper funding mechanism that will deal with the problem for decades to come? Not so much.

LePage has repeatedly run into trouble for saying stupid things. But when it comes to marketing, blunt oversimplification works. Democrats have yet to grasp that concept, which is why their gubernatorial candidate – whose name escapes me – has yet to open a lead in the polls that’s greater than the margin of error. It’s also why most of the seasoned political observers I’ve talked to think the GOP will retake the state Senate in November and make significant gains in the House.

Republicans – they’ve got what it takes.

A brand.

Apply your hot iron to my hind end by emailing me at aldiamon@herniahill.net.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

24 Comments

  1. Sad to say, Al is absolutely correct with this. AND… it won’t just be the state, it will be the national elections too.

    As bad as things might be with the democrats in charge, it will be way worse with republicans, at least with the current bunch of possibles. We could use another Eisenhower.

    There are no candidates from either party, that truly inspire on any level.

  2. Wrong snowman. .
    I’m inspired.
    I was inspired enough to switch from being a registered rep to independent.
    The demo have always inspired me to stay away from their hypocritical junk.
    Cutler is inspiring me to yawn…
    I’m inspired…

  3. It doesn’t take that much inspiration to change that “GOP filter”; just read different articles and avoid FOX News, pretty simple really.

  4. My thoughts on all this is if, we needed someone to stand and be heard it’s not anyone that I know that is running on any level of Government or the State level. It’s all be heard before. What we need is a person to understand we need to bring our jobs back to this country to get people off from welfare. With full time hours and benefits. subsidize the workers in this country with baby sitting monies and housing. It’s cheaper than welfare. Not to mention it would help the economy.

  5. Indeed, there’s no reason to watch FOX News. Our liberal friends watch it 24/7 and are always eager to pass on what they’ve learned.

  6. “Frostproof
    July 29, 2014 • 4:59 am
    Indeed, there’s no reason to watch FOX News.”

    See, Frosty? That’s how Fox News takes things out of context and twists them into another meaning. Just like most Tea Party/GOP talking points that end up in this forum.

    The anti-welfare, anti-Medicaid expansion, anti-immigrant screeds may be “successful”, but that doesn’t make such positions appropriate for helping those most vulnerable because of hunger, ill health, etc.

  7. I just had the thought, that if the conservatives in the US got what they want, our country would be like Imperial Japan was prior to WWII.
    Militaristic, isolationist, racist, Jingoistic. Politically inflexible. One religion. one language. one race. No welfare.

  8. Laura: What exactly did you mean by your comment? Please explain.

    Yes, ma’am. Did you see this one?

    Actual News
    July 28, 2014 • 1:13 pm
    It doesn’t take that much inspiration to change that “GOP filter”; just read different articles and avoid FOX News, pretty simple really.

    Actual News presents himself as an expert on FNC. He is making assumptions or passing along hearsay – surely he wouldn’t do either – so he must watch a lot of it. Now see …

    Actual News
    July 29, 2014 • 7:56 am

    I can’t parse this one at all, but it sure reads like more assumptions and hearsay, sprinkled with the left’s usual ad-hominem snarkiness. I am not a member of the GOP or the Tea Party, nor do I watch TV “news” – when I watch fiction on TV, I prefer to enjoy myself. Just to clarify things …

    I am anti-welfare for those who choose it as a career. I am anti-Medicaid expansion to those same people. I am anti-illegal-immigration. If that makes me a militaristic, isolationist, racist, jingoistic, politically inflexible, Christian, English-speaking, white guy … so be it.

    PS to snowman: For extra credit, to which political party belonged the president who, during WWII, created concentration camps for US citizens of Japanese descent? (Cue the annoying Jeopardy theme.)

  9. Frostproof:
    If you followed my comments in other recent posts you would have seen that I recognize that our past presidents and elected officials- from all parties, are guilty of serious breaches of our constitution and the rights provided by it.
    Whenever I hear people lament that our country is no longer the great nation it once was I feel the urge to point out that our nation is, (I hope) a work in progress.

    In the words of our constitution itself, we must “continue to strive for a more perfect union.”

    So yes, FDR locked up legal and lawful citizens, solely because they were of Japanese ancestry. The same also happened to some people of German background. He also turned away a boatload of Jewish refugees, most of whom eventually perished in concentration camps.
    Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus- one of the rights spelled out in the Bill of rights.

    Many of us who are citizens, got that way because our ancestors were illegal immigrants.

    Cutting aide to those in need is the same as whipping a horse that can no longer pull the cart. The only way that horse can pull again is if he is restored to health. All whipping will do is wear out the whip and your arm and make that horse never want to work again.

  10. I’ll have you know that Fox News is by far America’s most popular “news” channel. In a related story, Justin Beiber and Mily Ray Cyrus are America’s most popular “musicians” and Mc Donalds is our country’s most popular restaurant. In the deep south Sarah Palin is considered a genius. If you are not scared,you are not paying attention.

  11. Al:
    The argument for Medicaid expansion is not complex.
    70,000 Mainers would have had fully federally funded health insurance under the Katz/Saviello bill that was vetoed by the governor. Now they won’t and hospitals, premium payers, and Maine taxpayers will foot the bill when these folks inevitably get sick or injured and can’t afford to pay. This is not fiscal conservatism. If one requires a GOP filter for this, perhaps they should speak to Sen. Saviello.

  12. Sarah Palin at least able to get her name on a presidential ticket…….I’d say she is more “genius” than any of the posters listed here.

  13. Thanks Actual News for providing even more inspiration to stay clear of the hypo dem’s..your “simple” suggestions provide another reminder of the mindless tunnel vision that keeps you “partisan” types…arrogantly clueless to the fact that you are exactly like those you scorn…
    (THAT’S THE HYPOCRISY I REFERRED TO IN MY EARLIER POST).
    THANKS FOR THE DEMONSTRATION..
    UGH.

  14. Elmer:
    Sarah Palin has indeed shown a genius ability for PR. She’s accomplished what Paris Hilton has but without a fortune behind her and without a sex tape.

    I would no sooner vote for her than Paris Hilton to any office of government, but she certainly has managed to keep herself in the national media all the while accomplishing nothing at all.

    Future generations, if they are not sweltering in a desert or desperately trying to tread water, will certainly have a god time laughing at us and our silliness.

  15. True Elmer,and she cost Mc Cain the election for which we owe her a debt of gratitude. However she recently appeared on Fox as a “military analyst” I’m not making this up. Apparently Ted Nugent and Dick Cheney turned down the position.

  16. Al is mostly right. Politics is, for the most part, theatre. Scripts are changed to suit the political winds. There are so many truly uninformed citizens that no serious scripts, which convey the complex facts, would be of any theatrical use, because those scripts would be too boring, i.e. bad theatre..

  17. Ahhhh, the Bulldog Pundits (self-appointed of course), they continue to entertain.

  18. The Nation of United States was a promise, and agreement, a contract that we all have agreed to, with some basic premises about who is responsible for what. We the people were promised that we would be self governing.
    The mechanics of providing that self governance is outlined in our constitution.
    The question to be asked and answered is whether those mechanics are still, (if ever) adequate to fulfill our promise to ourselves.
    If the mechanics of the system that we use is inadequate then it must be fixed!
    Electing new people will never fix the system, there is no election currently being considered that tackles the inadequacies of our systems. None.
    We see our elected officials behaving as rulers, making laws that benefit them and their interests, while explaining that we, the common people cannot object, because they have information that we don’t. They have secrets. They act on secret information. They have become de facto rulers.
    Being ruled by secret tribunals was never part of the promise, the agreement we accepted as our constitution.
    Unlike previous victims of predatory rulers acting in secret, we have a precedent of legal authority to remove ourselves from an oppressive or inadequate system, and to install a better one.
    To remove the current system, without having another installed is to be an anarchy, and invite a dictatorship. With that said, the next question becomes, how shall we design a new system of mechanics that is adequate, and that retains the promise of liberty, justice and responsible self governance that is the foundation cornerstone of this nation?
    We have seen many attempts at differing systems in history, however the conditions in which they were designed were always much the same, communication was always limited to the speed of a horse.
    Technology has advanced such that in a great majority of the earth, communication is nearly instantaneous. That simple, single fact changes the entire field of possibilities.
    Why are we reliant on a system designed to operate in a time that communication was transported by horse??

    We now have the opportunity, for the first time in human history to design a system of mechanics that allow self governance of the people, by the people, WITHOUT “rulers” deciding our fates.

    I propose a system that uses technology to place the authority and responsibility to enact law directly into the hands of the people.
    We need an executive branch, we need a judicial branch and yes we need a congressional branch, however in addition we need a public branch of government.

    We remove the authority to enact law from Congress. Congress would be tasked with writing law, but have no power to enact law.
    Congress crafts potential solutions, then passes those to the Judicial branch.
    Judicial branch reviews the proposed laws for legality. Does the proposed law meet tests of constitutionality? This is done BEFORE enactment!
    If the law is bad, legally, it is sent back to congress with suggestions for a fix.
    If it is good, legally, then Judicial passes it to executive, which reviews it for plausibility. Is the law proposed likely to solve the problem?? Is the law going to fall within current policy? Is the law accurate in the definition of the problem and are the costs and methods of payments accurate?
    Once a proposed solution passes the 3 branches, it then is presented to the public branch, which is the ONLY branch authorized enact law. Once the public has voted to enact a law, the executive then signs it as law.

    Who is the public branch? How can that be organized?
    We are the public branch. The entire citizen population.
    We claim and hold the sole authority and responsibility for our self governance. (was that not the original promise??)
    Each person may choose a representative, or we may choose to vote on each law ourselves.
    Note that a representative is not elected, a rep is chosen by consent and at will. A Rep controls only the number of votes that individuals assign, and that assignment can be changed at will, by individuals. As long as a Rep is voting in line with an individuals choices, then the individual, by consent abdicates authority, and is freed to go about his business without undue concern about the absolute details of the laws being passed.
    However that abdication by consent may be rescinded at any time, and that full authority can be held and exerted by an individual at any time, and for any reason.
    The public branch cannot, will not ever be tasked with crafting of laws, that is the sole responsibility and authority of Congress. Elected to represent the best minds to craft the best solutions.
    The Judicial branch goes to work. They no longer get to cherry pick the work they do. EVERY law will be reviewed and will be judged legal before enactment. There will be no more misery foisted on the public by rulers passing bad law, illegal law, that must be fought back into the courts. At great public expense and pain, division and anger, we the people have been forced to live and work under illegal law, until a court could be convinced to judge the work of lawmakers. NO MORE. Being a judge is not a vacation, get to work!

  19. What bothers me about those people who insist that more people should vote in elections, is that what they really want is to have more people vote, who agree with their own views.
    I never hear of people who are democrats saying that more republicans should vote.
    I never hear of conservatives saying that if more liberals would vote, then we could easily solve more problems.

    The problem here is that generally speaking, the ratio of yay and nay votes on any issue or candidate will be unchanged, regardless of the total number of votes, (with the exception of course when the number approaches zero).

    The result is that regardless of whether EVERY person votes, or a mere subset of the eligible, the outcome of the elections will generally be unchanged.
    I challenge any one who advocates that, more people voting will substantially affect the situation, to clearly articulate just HOW that reasoning works. I dare ya, I double dare ya!

    My thrust here is to argue that merely inciting, or forcing, more public participation in the system, will not substantially change the probability of the success of our government to solve the problems we face.
    The reasonable conclusion is not to have more people participate in an inadequate system, but rather to participate in building a better system that IS adequate.
    I reiterate that our current system adequacy is very much like a group of monkeys attempting to launch a space shuttle using a horse and buggy.
    Every two years we change the horse, every 4 years we change the driver, but no one considers that the system will never work, no matter which part of the system is replaced with the same technology.
    Regardless of how many monkeys agree to change the horse or driver, it will not work.
    The argument, by the monkeys is that it WOULD work, if only ALL the monkeys agree that it will work

  20. The framers understood from a historical perspective that democracies invariably degenerate (which is why they created a constitutional republic).

    Politics is patronage and the Pols realize they can bribe the folks with rented money. 1/2 the population receives some form of government assistance.
    If the people actually had to pay for their government- instead of borrowing and printing the money to support it’s programs and functions- they’d vote for a lot less government.

    Remember the license plate that said, “I’m spending my grandkids inheritance”?
    Mission accomplished.

  21. Mr. Anderson has a point. I believe it was either Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clark, who had the idea for voting by light. The international space station would monitor light levels emitted from the US (or wherever). People could vote either for or against a proposal by turning their lights on or off. This was even worked into the plot for a movie.
    It doesn’t take much thinking to see how this system could be cheated. No matter how sophisticated or simple, a voting system can be manipulated. Yet, at the same time, it’s frustrating to think that we can’t apply more modern technology to improve our democratic process.

    The problem with a pure democracy is that the majority isn’t always right. The ancient Greeks (where democracy was born and from whence we get the word democracy) found this out the hard way. The majority voted to go to war and they ended up defeated and that was the beginning of the end of Greek democracy.
    The book, “Profiles in Courage”, by president Kennedy, highlights some moments and individuals who exemplified through their actions, the superiority of a democratic republic vs a pure democracy. It’s worth a read, regardless of how one feels about kennedy.

    Our founding fathers knew their history and that is why they decided on a democratic republic. It was and is, an experiment. it has a long, long way to go before it can deemed a success.
    The Roman republic outlived ours by several centuries. It gave way to the Empire and that lasted far, far longer.

    Being as a government is constructed by man, to govern men ( I use men to encompass all sexes) and man is flawed, so too must government be. There cannot be a perfect form of government. Our system is pretty good, but it has some serious flaws. Those flaws have been exploited in the past few years by those in the minority party. Since the minority party is subject to change, the majority is also reluctant to change the system.

    The parliamentary system of government is very popular and has withstood the test of time longer than our system. It too, has flaws, but it doesn’t have all the same flaws as ours.

    Wise men have contemplated various ways in which parliamentary rules could be worked into our democratic republic system. It is worth thinking about.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.