Branded
In the twisted conversation that is our American political discourse, one critical factor is how issues are labeled, or “branded.” As difficult as it has been to have any kind of common discussion, with alternative facts (branding of a lie) abounding; how we consider an issue depends on how we phrase it.
The upcoming elections of 2018 will be a test of competitive versions of branding. Will the “Tax Cuts and Job Acts of 2017” (the formal title) be labeled as tax reform, tax breaks for the rich, or an economic stimulant? This will, in part, determine the success of one political party or the other. “Billions for the rich, nickels for you” or “a middle class tax cut”: which “brand” will catch on?
Who wins the branding issue often controls discussion of the topic. One of the most inflammatory issues of our time is about the use and availability of abortions. This controversy has been branded as “pro life” versus “pro choice”. The “pro life” side has won the branding contest: can there really be a choice about protecting life? If the labeling was “pro birth” versus “women’s freedom” would the conversation be the same?
One of the goals of Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is the “reform” of entitlement programs. He wants to cut the amount of money spent on programs like Medicare and social security. It’s easy to talk about cutting “entitlements,” it’s like cutting the amount spent on a recurring gift, like a birthday or Christmas. However, if the programs are branded as “earned benefits,” benefits paid for through a lifetime of work, it’s much more difficult to talk about cutting them. They become something earned, not given.
Former Trump aide Steve Bannon has worked to rebrand parts of the American government. Civil servants working in the bureaucracies of intelligence and law enforcement, have become “embedded liberals” in the “deep-state,” something much more nefarious. What is particularly surprising about this re-labeling is that Republicans were the most supportive of agencies like the FBI, and Democrats were the ones poised to attack. Now Democrats are rising to the FBI’s defense, quite a switch from October of 2016 when the “Comey Letter” re-opened the Clinton email controversy.
Many colleges have established “safe zones” where students can be free from controversial speech which might challenge or upset them. If those same zones have been branded as “restricted speech” instead of “safe,” would they have been accepted by students?
As we move from the relative “quiet” of 2017 (that’s mis-branded) into the rancor of the 2018 election year, how issues are labeled will determine political success. It is important to recognize the “branding” for what it is: an effort to control the discussion to “win” the issue.
And because I can’t help it –
If you were of age to watch television in 1965, this article might have brought a show to mind: “Branded!!!” starring Chuck Connors – remember???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV-7D4io1Rs
