The Republican Nemesis

James Kroeger has provided a great analysis of the successful strategy the Republicans have used to reduce the Democratic Party to its current marginalized status. It's called The Republican Nemesis. Here are some excerpts:

"When historians look back on the current era in American politics it will likely stand out as the period when Republican cunning & marketing savvy completely dominated the political landscape. Obliging Democrats have thrown themselves into the fray with enthusiasm, armed with idealistic visions of civil “discourse”, only to be humbled repeatedly by their political masters. Republican strategists have been able to blend their astute grasp of marketing principles, human nature, & social psychology into a formula that delivers almost guaranteed success at the polls. While Democrats knock themselves out every election cycle trying to talk to Swing Voters about The Issues, Republicans have calmly focused their attention on winning The Image Campaign. Quite simply: Democrats lose because they don’t understand what moves their target audience..."

"...Republican strategists know they would rarely win if election results were always determined by a logical discussion of The Issues and nothing more (they know that most voters would benefit more from Democratic economic policies than from Republican policies). They know they must win the Image Campaign to have any chance of winning. That is why they are committed, now and forever, to negative campaigning. Republicans have never forgotten a key stratagem they perfected during the Reagan Era: DEMONIZING YOUR OPPONENTS WORKS..."

"...The most important reason why negative campaigning has worked so well for the Republicans is because their negative attacks on the Democrats create a positive impression of Republican candidates, who appear---in contrast---to be individuals who do not possess the defects that they have accused others of having. They define themselves (positively) by defining their Democratic opponents (negatively). On a visceral level, what the Republicans actually “stand for” in the minds of Swing Voters on election day is that they are not Democrats—those defective people who seem to have been born to ruin everything..."

"...Consider the phony outrage that Lynne & Dick Cheney expressed after the third debate. At a time when it was crucial for Kerry to continue to build momentum after a solid debate performance, his advisors ended up losing the post-debate spin. They lost it because they didn’t understand how crucial Kerry’s response would be and they didn’t understand how a candidate absolutely must respond to an Angry Outrage Performance if she wants to win. The big story that Swing Voters saw on TV the next day (those who didn’t watch the debate) was that the Cheneys were really angry that Kerry had called their daughter a lesbian on national TV. What turned this into a home run for the Republicans was Kerry’s unfortunate response; a written statement that sounded a lot like an apology. The overall impression this gave to Swing Voters was that Kerry had apparently done some “dirty politicking.” Then, after the Cheneys apparently called him on it, he offered a weak apology and then tried to change the subject."

"Whenever Democratic candidates are the target of a Republican politician’s expressed anger, it is crucial that they respond properly if they want to win The Image Campaign. Impressions formed during such confrontations are usually remembered on voting day. John Kerry should have responded emotionally by calling for a televised press conference, and then using the spotlight to laugh at the Cheneys’ phony display of anger. Laughter is the appropriate emotion for a candidate to feel and express when he is guilty of no wrongdoing whatsoever. After laughing at the Cheneys, Kerry would then have been able to focus the media’s attention on the real story, which was/is the clever manipulations and deceptions that the Republicans always use to mislead voters. Anyone remember what Karen Hughes did to Al Gore in 2000 with the same kind of expressions of emotion (outrage, indignation)?"

"With this kind of response, Kerry would have told Swing Voters how they should respond to the reports they’re hearing. (Human Nature 101: people depend on you to tell them how to perceive you.) Generating a ‘rapid response’ doesn’t mean much if your response doesn’t communicate a message that will help your campaign. Additionally, holding a press conference would have given Kerry an opportunity to enjoy the humor of the situation with the members of the media who were present (it encourages the media to have a favorable impression of you as a candidate). In his initial remarks to the press, he would have wanted to smile broadly, shake his head, and express mild but sincere amusement at the Cheneys’ performance. Then, he would have wanted to review with good-humored stabs of ridicule the many times that the Cheneys had, themselves, mentioned their daughter’s lesbianism to the public."

"After dismissing the phony outrage in this way, he should then have seized the opportunity to get on a soapbox and explain how this incident illustrates the great threat that The Cunning Republicans represent to the average American. In a more serious tone, he could have taken the time to explain what the Cheneys were doing and why they were doing it (& how it was a classic example of the conniving sort-of-thing that the Republicans always do to win elections). He could have turned the whole episode into a complete disaster for the Republicans by focusing attention—with first hand evidence—on the characteristic duplicity of Republican politicians. Swing Voters would have perceived that John Kerry appeared to be innocent of wrongdoing because he showed no fear in the face of the Cheneys’ anger. They are then finally left with the image of Kerry earnestly warning them of a grave danger that they face. Kerry & The Democrats would have once again been presented to Swing Voters as their protectors & defenders from something that seriously threatens them. Kerry’s advisors should have recognized that the overreaching Cheneys had actually given them a tremendous opportunity to further define the Republicans in the eyes of the Swing Voters as manipulative shysters whom they should fear."

As you can see, James Kroeger really does get it.

Linette

I never understood how the Mary Chenny thing got to be such a big deal. My Republican friends thought it was no big deal (and they admitted this when challenge) until they were told by Fox and the RW that it was a big deal.

The latest thing with Durbin illustrates that the dem leadership still hasn't figured that out, though. :-(

This is the type of response that Durbin, et. al. should provide when the rethugs use this cheap tactic:

"Whenever Democratic candidates are the target of a Republican politician’s expressed anger, it is crucial that they respond properly if they want to win The Image Campaign. Impressions formed during such confrontations are usually remembered on voting day. John Kerry should have responded emotionally by calling for a televised press conference, and then using the spotlight to laugh at the Cheneys’ phony display of anger. Laughter is the appropriate emotion for a candidate to feel and express when he is guilty of no wrongdoing whatsoever. After laughing at the Cheneys, Kerry would then have been able to focus the media’s attention on the real story, which was/is the clever manipulations and deceptions that the Republicans always use to mislead voters. Anyone remember what Karen Hughes did to Al Gore in 2000 with the same kind of expressions of emotion (outrage, indignation)?"


That ONE THING will prove a highly effective antidote to 'outrage'.

that elements in the national party apparatus were and are 100% complicit in their own "decline", they would rather rule in the rubble of a "defunct" party than allow the party to be genuinely democratic.

But if somehow people can get the big mo going behind some movement (idea -- or whatever), then all these establishment types are confronted by three choices: get out of the way; get swept away -- or get out in front of it. And, in practise, a surprising number may choose the last option.

It would be nice to become truly democratic (and it's a goal), but all we really need is to have enough (key) players that do certain things that we want -- and don't do other things that we don't want. And, personally, I don't care that much if they do this out of fear, or ambition, or true conviction... as long as they can be relied upon.

It is worth keeping in mind that the Democratic Party ELECTS it's presidential candidates. That right was won by the anti-war movement back in the VietNam days. We have thus had two presidents since then selected by the people rather than the party hacks: Carter and Clinton. I was not particularly happy with either, but they were selected by the people, and that is why they were undermined and attacked continuously throughout their terms in office.

Republican presidential candidates are still selected by the national party hacks, and that has a great deal to do with the rightward bias of the oligarchy, they cannot rule through a party which must be accountable to it's members at the ballot box.

The oligarchy is still trying to undo reforms that were brought into being in the VietNam days, e.g. FOIA, and we can still rise up and force them out of office and install men of the people in offices of power. And we should.

were favored establishment candidates.

There is no way Clinton could have survived the Gennifer Flowers scandal otherwise.

He had the money and the backing from both the David Rockefeller-sponsored foreign policy elites and the DLC to ride out the storm.

Mario Cuomo knew this and it's one reason he didn't enter the race in 1992.

Carter was a charter member of Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission and was its first presidential candidate.

Always follow the money. Our "democracy" is a sham and always has been.

One of my favorite sayings goes as follows:

"If your vote really mattered, you wouldn't have been allowed to vote in the first place,"

Remember "Billy Beer"?
Do you hear about the Bush family in the same way in the MSM?

That said, you are correct in a certain sense. Both were more interested in joining the establishment than dismantling it, a fatal weakness. And both had their supporters, but you don't get to be President with no support.

I was pointing to the obvious difference in the attitudes of the state propaganda organs to the various successful and unsuccessful Presidential candidates. Consider the treatment of Raygun vs that of Carter, and it's a perfectly clear point, and it is certainly no accident. It has always seemed to me since the VietNam days that the most significant distinction in the eyes of the state propaganda organs is the enthusiasm with which a politician views foreign wars. Complete fools and loons like Raygun and B1 Bob Dornan are worshipped, while otherwise utterly conventional and honest people like Carter are savaged.

of being some (evil, or at least not good) "opposite" of your candidate's "good" qualities can be an effective tactic... particularly when you can take something truly ugly about your own candidate, like single-minded and willfully-blind pig-headedness, and turn it into something "good", like "having faith" or "having resolve"... or "being loyal". (Of course, having that media-money-thuggery "machine" to hammer your "message" into people's heads helps a great deal.)

The neocons love the lowest imaginable denominator attack -- which can be effective even though it has no basis in reality, because many people are all too quick to believe the worst about others (those different) -- especially if this fits into the overall scheme that they've bought into.

But we will labor for a long time yet before we will be able to offset the advantage that their "machine" gives the neocons (if we don't get equal "play", the field remains uneven), so simple-to-understand policy separations on the important issues of the day also loom large. (For example, many people might actually "get it" if the Dems (help) beat CAFTA. -- And we can always remind them of our role, if they forget.)

conference if Kerry had called one however, not in it's entirety. They worked for the Republican party almost exclusively during the campaign, remember their whoring behavior. They may have been forced to cover it, but who knows what else they would have taken out of context or chosen to cherry pick as far as sound bytes go.

Are you kidding? The media love all of the fighting stuff. It's the one thing they feel safe in broadcasting.

Dems need to use it more. Quit leaving the public confused. Bi-weekly updates. CONs update one a week.

Truth only works as well as truth sinks into brains. It's no longer fast enough.

I would rather we sold truth than "marketing". Truth lasts.

Isn't it true that the vast majority of Americans are truly threatened by Republicans' control of their government?

Isn't it true that the vast majority of Americans are truly threatened by the Republicans' misrepresentations of the truth? By their skillful manipulations and clever distractions?

Why would you think we would be "lying" if we "defined" the Republicans in those terms?

Wouldn't we actually be telling the truth to the American people?

Do not blame the misuse of marketing on marketing.

That's like claiming Bill O'Reilly lied on his show therefore all TV shows are lies. NOW that's not true.

We need to package the truth. Get it to resonate with a wide variety of voters. Kerry failed to package the truth around Swift boat lies, thus my relative told me he shot himself in the foot to get a medal. She wouldn't believe me. The lie had been packaged better.

Because we are packaging the truth, rather than O'Reilly's made-up-on-the-spot-lies we have to work ten times harder. We still have to package it.

We need to market.

I agree Linette, James Kroeger DOES get it.


"...would have perceived that John Kerry appeared to be innocent of wrongdoing because he showed no fear..."

That really makes the point - people have been tricked (by the BushCo's) into being afraid over the last 4/5 years. And they were being manipulated thru the whole campaign into staying afraid. You cannot answer fear with reason and logic; a large chunk of the population want reassurance and a show of strength instead.

When our Dem leaders apologize and act all namby-pamby it does NOT inspire confidence in those leaders; it only shows they are fallible mortals. WE can appreciate the difference, but most of the cowed and fearful populace don't THINK critically - they REACT emotionally. And they don't understand that their cowed fearfulness is a result of the deliberate manipulation of an uncaring public for political and financial gain.

does fall short and they can't rest easy they quickly and naturally moved to greater cheating, even widely known and open cheating protected by their faltering PR, to keep power. It would happen anyway but they HAD to cheat to win despite the media and money advantage.

Also, they CAN't come up with intelligent charismatic candidates because of the sludge and dreck of the human soul they represent. Another Teddy Roosevelt even sneaking in the back door is one of their greatest nightmares. DUmb stooges who are dependent on FAKE imagery are needed for the power model. With incipient dementia all the better.

don't respond to fake outrage as if it's real, call them on their bullshit and make them look pathetic.

If Kerry had dealt with Bush like a real person instead of being deferential and polite in the debates, he not only would have won the election, he probably would have made Bush wet himself since he has been protected by servants from the natural consequences of his own incompetence and ignorance.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

Humor is a dangerous weapon.

but the link takes me nowhere.

Welcome to DU, Linette! :hi:

The link worked when I just tried it.

Maybe the server got too busy?