Skip to main content

There has been a lot of talk about the Republican Brand in the years since the Bush administration. Whether positive or negative, a lot of voices have chimed in about the strength of the party's brand, what its message is, its viability, and its best way forward.

In his book Brand Risk, David Abrahams identifies two contributing factors to successful brand identity: exclusivity and consistency. Having exclusive ownership of your brand identity means that no competing brand can claim to have the unique characteristics that your brand has. Consistency of your brand means that this identity does not change in major ways.

Over the years the Republicans have been very disciplined about staying on message and have often used identical talking points in interviews. Their ideology was clear, concise and consistent and they often mopped the floor with the democrats, who by contrast appeared riddled with conflicting messages and competing factions including a fairly sizable number who could be counted on to vote against their own base. The Democrats have, through all these inner rumblings, adopted a willingness (or a defeated acceptance?) of compromise with each other and with republicans that knows almost no bounds.

An orthodox position like the conservative platform of the Republicans works best when it has an orthodox enemy whose ideology is equally uncompromising. Communism worked extremely well as an enemy for example, providing a rallying point for the republicans when they needed it most. Religious terrorism has perhaps been even more powerful. When the differences between two sides are this clear, the arguments in favor of Republicans are almost unbeatable. Who better to side with than the good guys who see things clearly in terms of a battle between right and wrong, good and evil?

It’s when the opposition is full of consensus-driven centrist compromisers that a clear "Us vs. Them" argument becomes harder to win. How do you portray your opposition as Freedom Hating Evil-Doers when they all seem so riddled with self doubt, tangled up in nuance, and half the time end up giving you everything you demanded from them anyway?

(Well, you can lie about their positions of course, but that's only a short term solution and one that silently eats away at the confidence in your product. In the marketplace of ideas, lying might buy you time, but it is not a solution.)

Genuine disagreement is not just important in politics, it basically is politics. It differentiates the philosophical difference between one party and another, otherwise what's the point? But even more for an orthodox party like the Republicans, disagreement is survival itself. It amounts to proprietary control over one's own values. Consensus does nothing but threaten this.

Compromise is kryptonite to an orthodox party because it eliminates the exclusivity of their brand. In order to exist the Republican Party needs to be able to explain to its voters (and donors) what they are getting when they support republicans that they would not get if they supported the democrats.

As testament to the all powerful sense of humor of God in America, it turns out that the philosophizing, Doubtful Democrat, willing to compromise if only as a scientific experiment to test a theory, has struck on the very thing to which the Republicans have no effective defense: Republican policies are only Republican if the Democrats disagree.  

This is why Republicans don’t the take excellent deals offered them by Democrats, and why they walk out of talks even if they’re ahead. It’s also the reason they have lurched so far out to the right that they have found themselves attacking such mainstream American concepts as the Geneva Convention and birth control. With compromise itself as the enemy, Republicans need to be on the other side of a line which the democrats will not cross. And as we have seen, that line is way, way, way out there.

The Compromising Democrats are now so far right themselves they would not be recognized by a time traveler from just a few decades ago.  Democrats now support free trade, individual mandates, warrant-less surveillance and even drone strikes for crying out loud! How could the GOP walk its own radical positions back without sharing territory with their conservative fellows? Not only would this force them to compromise, it would destroy their brand. The GOP is out on an island without the ability to return.

Done in, ironically, by the overly capitulating democrats.

"Will Republicans in Congress be successful at finding a way out of their current mess? Who knows. This year, the most well-funded Republican candidate in history, with the most professional campaign, supported by the most sophisticated super-PACs, proved unable to find a path to victory—even though such a path was eminently findable. Republicans in Congress are equally capable of winding up on the losing side of the equation. So 2012 could end up a lost year for the GOP.

"And 2013? Politics is full of surprises. The Grand Old Party sure seems to be in a grand old mess. But messes can produce moments of opportunity, lemons can be turned into lemonade, and it’s always darkest before the dawn.

"Except when it turns pitch black."

William Kristol, Weekly Standard 12/10/12

http://www.weeklystandard.com/...
"If Republicans continue to be led around by, and live in fear of, a base that denies global warming after Hurricane Sandy and refuses to ban assault weapons after Sandy Hook — a base that would rather see every American’s taxes rise rather than increase taxes on millionaires — the party has no future."

Thomas Friedman, New York Times 12/22/12
 

http://www.nytimes.com/...

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  when GOP ink-pushers turn against them (0+ / 0-)

    you know things are bad.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 08:25:09 AM PST

  •  But compromise is the first step to schism, and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet

    that leads them to fragmentation and loss of power.

    They hang together because they most assuredly would swing in the breeze if they were apart.  

    There is some motive in them all huddling together in their freaky extremism and it is the twin objective of money and power.  

    Those of them that actually have a clue know that the demographics are against them in the fullness of time, and thus the rear-guard action (voter suppression, immigrant vilification, handing indulgences to their big-money contributors, etc.) will continue as long as it can.

    Business 101: If you have a cash cow, milk it.  When the cow runs dry, go find another cash cow.

    Has nothing to do with care and feeding of your cow.  Just ask Romney.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 08:45:15 AM PST

  •  Whither the GOP?.....Where's the freshest rabbit (0+ / 0-)

    hole?......You'll find them there.

  •  Yep, the brand/marketing metaphor only goes so far (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mike101

    when applied to politics.  If Apple seduces me into buying a new sleek mini iPod, okay, not that huge a consequence.  I'll gradually earn another spare $400 and there are a million products and choices out there.  

    But politics is a different thing - it's actually one thing; it is not multiple politics-es. It's the messy business of us all (citizenry) continually tackling this ever present question: under what rules and policies and structures will we all, the citizens, live together as a nation?  We cast votes and we live with the consequences every day.

    The GOP is in trouble for many reasons, but one is that their contempt for government itself has started to show itself more nakedly than before.  The contempt, and the way that contempt translates into bad performance.  As so many on DailyKos have pointed out, if the Republicans are interested in proving that government sucks, they will be interested in providing a government that sucks.  

    It took a while but I think one key reason that Obama won reelection despite a still-not-that-good economy, is because enough voters recognized basic competence in his leadership and administration - after eight years of Bush/GOP.  Most voters still recognize today that Bush/GOP, more than Obama, was much more to blame for the 2008-2009 recession that was almost a depression.

  •  Republicans fear primaries from the right (0+ / 0-)

    That is the main fear preventing compromise these days.

    The only real base the GOP has is a really crazy, Bircheresque, tea party.

    They can win primaries.

    "Work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed." -- Vaclav Havel

    by greendem on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 11:34:12 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site