Campaigning is a brand statement. Political races are run no differently from corporate sponsorships or marketing campaigns. In age of constant media bombardment, consistency in messaging is vital, as brand marketers know. A big chunk of the message attempts to get viewers (voters) to identify with the candidate.
Barack Obama's campaign of 2008 heralded grand new visions of change and hope as their cornerstones. What we get at the end of the long campaign road may not be what is promised. Then again the product -- the candidate -- is only bought every four years. Voters may be more apt to forgive flaws and cracks in their purchase -- little inconsistencies they may be able to overlook when next it comes to time to buy.
Nowhere did we see this more clearly than the devolution of Barack Obama the Campaigner to Barack Obama the President. In the former, we have someone we want to believe in; a source of hope. In the President Obama, we have a cold tactician willing to compromise anything, with anyone. Barack the Campaigner was likable, a celebrity, someone you could see yourself drawn to. Barack the President is "the decider," a Byzantine clositered emperor who negotiates with men of power to get things done, Chicago-style. Untouchable, distant, impersonal. Sanitized.
Unlike a free market where consumers are free to buy any number of products, we in the American political process are limited to a choice of two. Or possibly three, if you include the Tea Party, which is supposedly a choice within one of the two. "Cream or sugar?" the marketers might ask. "Sugar," the purchaser might answer. "Nutra-low or regular?" the server might inquire and we'd answer.
In the same way, the Tea Party presents itself as just another flavor within the existing political grid. It's not changing the system by itself, simply trying to alter the political dynamic to reflect an under-served constituency.
The tactic of trying to dumb-down one's image and impressions to connect to White folks isn't the same as the general population. For one, the states with large Latino voters -- key to winning for the GOP -- might not like Tea Party support for Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law, which they saw as racist.
The only guarantee in a system like ours is that talk is cheap. I don't know if perception is reality, no matter how many times the impression of a candidate is made in our message-weary minds. And the two parties really aren't all that different. Sure, one comes in and another out, but the more things change, the more they stay the same, as the French say.
Impacts going forward
Tea Party candidate numbers will be insufficient to accomplish change, yet they could be a catalyzer -- enough to redirect policy changes. Congress -- the only avenue open to Tea Partiers at the present -- requires building constituencies through compromise in order to pass meaningful legislation.
The Tea Party aims to do great things but won't constitute anywhere near a majority for several more election cycles. The intervening period offers plenty of opportunities to fall from their principles. Also, sustaining a political organization requires iron-like discipline -- a gang of Karl Roves who relentlessly attack the talk shows, radio, the Web, on a nightly basis, then get up at first light to fax out talking points to party activists, media figures, and sympathizers. It's precisely because maintaining a consistent political message requires organization that organizational hierarchies, authority, and control overshadow whatever individual positions candidates hold.
And I guess the first goal of every Tea Partier elected will be, you guessed it, re-election. Once made insiders, how can they preserve their outsider status -- linchpin of their popularity -- two or six years from now (the time span until the next election for Federal office)?
While an overabundance of popularity may get candidates elected, it's infinitely harder to keep voter interest over periods which may span several years. It's easy to get and stay excited about a candidate when an election's just a few months away; far harder it is for the public to like them -- or much less care -- months into office, especially if things aren't going too well for them.
Primaries won by TPers have limited choices to Tea Party versus Democrat in the General Election (GE). Demographics for the GE are really quite different from primaries in most states. Whereas single-issue voters can shape primary wins, the GE is more about where candidates stand on a broad number of issues.
This presents a new dynamic to manage and requires a cadre of highly trained professionals to sell a different message. It won't be enough to overpower Establishment candidates within the GOP. Cowboy boots and country roots may not be enough to win. And, on this issue, race could greatly smear the Tea Party as its extremist elements advocate greater freedom for the States in their fight against illegal immigration.
The American population has been racially diversifying for years now, to the point that Hispanics, African Americans, and Asian -- largely a group that votes Democratic -- now combine to more than 40% of our population. This demographic change sets a largely non-White audience against some messages which were designed to woo GOP voters.
Any candidate seeks to identify with the broadest possible audience. To avoid alienating as many people as possible, Establishment candidates need to be careful not to denigrate the TPers for whatever principles they have. Nor should their opposition -- which appears at present to be solely Democrats.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
