It’s all about the marketing.

And remember, it’s always easier to understand politics when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

Priceless

That’s the last line of a scary column I just read over at Fox. And while this is yet again another Democratic bashing rant, the point of view is something I’m not used to. The intent seems to be the solidification of the cult of personality of Obama. His message of Change is actually a way of discrediting both political parties, with the desired outcome, I suppose, a one party system with Obama at its head.

Brand Obama’s accomplishments are Brand Obama’s. They are not the Democratic Party’s. If anything, for Candidate Obama to become President Obama, the Democratic Party was as much, or more, of a stumbling block than John McCain. The fact is, when Obama was railing again Washington on the campaign trail, the Democrats were in charge on Capitol Hill and part of that railing was directed at them (and the people loved it).

Brand Obama knows the difference between his brand and the Democratic Party. As a consummate brand manager you can bet that he’s going to take every opportunity to underscore that difference

Well, we’ve been seeing that just today (and we’ve been screaming it at the top of our lungs for the past year), what with Obama’s stance on detainees in Afghanistan, just the latest in anti-liberal stances since he got sworn in.

The problem is not that the Democrats are somehow hamstringing Obama, the problem is that Obama is not, and has never been, a Democrat.   His “brand” exists for one thing only, to further himself and “the brand”.  It has nothing to do with helping the American people or making our world safer and more just.  And while I disagree with the author that being like Reagan is a good thing, I do agree with the comparison,

Brand Obama is proclaiming (just like Brand Reagan did) that he is not of Washington and that he is taking action with the people and for the people. He’s saying “It’s not about you politicians in Washington; it’s about us folks in the heartland and what we need.”

Actually, he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, just like Reagan.  A faux populist whose real interests are more in line with his moneyed backers than “us folks in the heartland”.  But Reagan got away with it, so why wouldn’t he emulate him?  But now that Obama is on top, he needs to distance himself from the Democrats, because, well, he’s really not got that much in common with real Dems.  The really dangerous part about this kind of rhetoric coming from Obama’s most ardent supporters is that it undermines the very foundation of our democracy.  The argument against “bipartisan politics”, and the “old school” bickering is laced with soaring ideals of togetherness and unity.  But if you really look at what their saying, it’s just a call for one party (or brand) rule.  I found the following one of the most fiendish ways of defending this yet.  Our information culture makes competing politicians irrelevant.  The Leader has his finger on the very pulse of what his followers are feeling and acts on their behalf.

Old-style politicking just won’t work anymore, because people aren’t going to put up with it. After decades of marketplace choice and with the rise of an ever increasingly interactive Internet, they want and expect results from their government.

Here’s what I mean:

Politicking equals meeting voters’ perceptions in order to stay in power. This has nothing to do with satisfying real needs and everything to do with controlling the way things are perceived by the voter.

It is also issue– and ideology– based, meaning that the politician says what people think he or she wants to say. This is like putting a product on the market before test marketing it and shaping it to genuine needs —- a bad idea.

But Real Marketing — which is the foundation for poli-marketing — equals discovering real needs and then satisfying them. In poli-marketing this translates to a politician identifying the real needs of the voters and then setting about to address them whatever it takes. It’s simple —- move from the issues-based politics of the past to needs-oriented politics.

Success in politics is performance-based like never before because President Obama’s victory gave the electorate a renewed sense that they had power to change their government. I’m not saying all the old political realities are gone, but the ratio of poli-marketing to politicking has shifted distinctly in the former’s favor.

Maybe we should just get rid of elections all together and just start picking our leaders with focus groups.  Anyway, I guess we just have to assume that Obama really does have our best interest at heart.  Yeah right.  Success in politics is performance based like never before???  I’d say it is more image based than ever before.  Obama’s performance (or lack thereof) is immaterial.  He IS the agent of change.  They’ve branded him that way, and that’s all that matters.  There isn’t any real substance behind it.  And by the time the shit hits the fan and we’re all standing in bread lines, most Americans will be too freaked out to speak out in opposition.  As for that “renewed sense of power” to change government, that’s about as real as the “renewed sense of power” from taking that Enzyte crap.    And when something does go wrong, he can always blame the Democrats and that way remain above the fray.

If this stimulus fails, he can throw Congress under the bus by blaming them for originating it (”I had to sign it because we had to do something!”), but if it succeeds, he’ll get the credit

How does that help the people in the heartland?

And while we’re at it, let’s use Obama’s own corrupt Chicago politics background to elevate his stature and bash the Democrats at the same time

For example, just look at Illinois Senator Roland Burris raising the specter of corrupt Democratic politics and the whole raft of ethical problems that confronted cabinet selections. Or the entire State of California sinking under debt and an obstinate Democratic political machine.

Because Obama has NOTHING to do with that fiasco, right?  But getting back to the Dem bashing/Obama fluffing, let’s nip that idea of holding the criminal Republican administration responsible in the bud before all you “Democrats” start getting any crazy ideas.  Remember you’re Obamans now, and that kind of interparty bickering is so last century:

Now you have the possibility that the Democrats are going to run some kind of “Truth Commission” to scrutinize the Bush years.

Wow. What a terrible idea.

Who exactly is calling for this move? The American people? Hardly. This is old school: when you’ve got the upper-hand you stick it to the other guy and bet on the voter not caring or noticing. This is not needs-oriented and so the Democrats must drop this because it is a risk a political party cannot afford to take today.

My guess is that President Obama is going to reject this idea outright and decisively. He’s got to, because even the most solid brands have limits and an investigation of a prior president by a sitting president could badly wound his brand since it could not help but be seen as a partisan act.

And “wounding his brand” would be bad for the American people how?  Oh, I forgot, because their every happiness depends on the glorification of everything Obama.  It is an end unto itself.  If the brand is untarnished the American people will be happy.  It couldn’t be that his cronies don’t want anyone looking too closely at their wheelings and dealings, could it?  Nope.  So here are  your marching orders all you ex-Democrats:

The Democrats would do better with the following basic approach:

1) drop all thoughts of re-visiting the past (accept President Obama’s advice and look to the future and solving the problems of the American people)

2) generously give President Obama the victory in the stimulus and get behind him across the board (don’t jostle for the spotlight)

3) give him support in his mortgage plan and go a step further by insuring that Republicans can get firmly on board this one

4) hit the road, get out of Washington and show that Brand Obama has opened their eyes to poli-marketing and that their concern is the American people and not inside-the-beltway squabbles.

In other words STFU and get with the program. Oh, and while you’re at it, stop whining about us acting like Republicans.  Because we’re totally not. And not because we aren’t caving to their every whim, but because we are BEYOND politics, so there.  Isn’t that what they’ve been saying to us Hill supporters since last February???

So let me get this straight.  When things go wrong, blame Democrats. When things go right, credit Obama.  When Obama acts like a Republican, that’s because he’s transcendent.  When he disagrees with Democrats it’s because they’re not embracing change. Gotcha.

Since I started this post at the end of the article, I’ll finish at the beginning of it.  The author makes the following statement to Democrats.  The irony is that it is the exact message that Democrats should be sending to Obama:

Too much pride in oneself or in any accomplishment inevitably leads to a fall and there’s an even bigger fall coming if you are proud for all the wrong reasons — especially when those reasons include mistakenly thinking that someone else’s accomplishments are your own.

But who needs to worry about a fall when you have your own political party to blame all of your mistakes on. Now that’s what I call marketing.