While the Republican Party makes a strong case for their various platforms, too often they lose the marketing battle. Unfortunately, that is the only consequential battle in Washington D.C.

The power of marketing is derived from the astute ability to identify a target audience, craft a simple yet powerful message, and effectively disseminate it to voters. Unlike the Republican Party, Democrats have honed this ability for decades with powerful effect.

This is most evident in the early years of the abortion debate. In the 1960s, Democrats were concerned that the “right to life” slogan was far superior to their “pro-abortion” emphasis, which was synonymous with “pro-death” — an unpalatable phrase. Then, in December of 1972, an abortion rights advocate named Jimmye Kimmey wrote a memorandum to her colleagues with a heading of, “education campaign re: abortion rights.” She recommended a “right to choose” slogan as a shorter, catchier, less alienating phrase.

This shift, along with other marketing efforts, had significant impact. Surveys by the National Opinion Research Center found that approval of abortion increased from an average of 41% in 1965 to 68% in 1973. This was just in time for the 1973 Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade which ruled 7–2 in favor of a women’s “right to privacy” that protected a woman’s right to choose. The Democrats’ marketing efforts, having swayed public opinion, were inherent in the Court’s decision, resulting in over 62 million abortions since the ruling according to The National Right to Life Committee -NRLC.

Public opinion may have shifted since 1973, but the Democrats’ earliest effort is the most consequential marketing endeavor of the 20^th Century.

In addition, when it comes to marketing, Democrats play the long game.

The use of the term “illegal alien” has deep roots. From 1765 to 1769, an English jurist and politician named William Blackstone wrote a treatise on law that defined “aliens” as meaning “foreigner” or “outsider.” It was derived from the Latin, “alienus.” The U.S. has used the term “alien” almost since the country’s inception, having been referenced in the 1790 Naturalization Act that provided the first guidelines for granting citizenship. On January 1, 1808, a U.S. law then made it illegal to import new slaves into the country. When more were smuggled in, they became the first illegal immigrants. Soon thereafter, the term “illegal alien” became commonplace.

Those in favor of the phrase say it is simply descriptive. Liberals believe it to be dehumanizing, and they fired up the marketing machine.

In 2010, a “Drop the I-Word” marketing campaign was launched by The Applied Research Center to motivate media outlets to stop describing immigrants as “illegal,” which many now have. The marketing purpose was to downplay the criminality of entering the U.S. without proper procedures. Others concurrently sought to drop the term “alien,” with one proposed alternative being “undocumented immigrant.” A more dramatic change was recently proposed by President Biden, who prefers “noncitizen.” This is in conjunction with Democrat’s permissive policies that create sanctuary cities, halt deportations, continue catch and release, and fast track pathways to citizenship. These are short-term efforts, marketed in humanitarian terms, to achieve a long-term goal of complete decriminalization and overt open borders.

In politics, shrewd marketing influences public opinion, which empowers legislators, which changes laws. In many ways, politics is marketing.

The only recent, significant example of Republican leadership out-marketing Democrat leadership was the 2016 election. Then-candidate Donald Trump had a more effective, benefit-oriented slogan — Make America Great Again — versus Clinton’s non-benefit slogan — I’m with Her. He spent more time in key swing states, and he had a more enticing “product” which included tax breaks, employment initiatives, trade agreement restructuring, and plans to become energy independent. His rallies and his persona created loyal crowds, which in turn drew media attention that generated substantial awareness. Trump generated so much awareness for free that he won the 2016 election while spending about half the marketing dollars that Clinton’s campaign spent.

Shaken by the 2016 Republican win, the Democrats threw their marketing machine into hyperdrive. They “marketed” Trump as a Russian asset, and then plunged the House into an extended impeachment effort. Even though Trump was exonerated by the U.S. Senate, the perceptual damage took a toll. Democrats then “marketed” his policies as racist, including building the wall and closing travel from China in the early days of the COVID-19. Trump did not lose the presidency due to his policies. He was outperformed by far superior marketing.

Deepening the attack, Trump’s supporters were “marketed” as racist, sending many underground, unwilling to express their views for fear of reprisal. This began in 2016 when Hillary Clinton said that half of Trump’s supporters belong in a “basket of deplorables.” While her comment was met with short-term backlash, marketing has longer legs. It has evolved into aggressive efforts to “cancel” anyone associated with Trump or his conservative values. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez even suggested the development of a “blacklist.”

This has extended beyond the political sphere, with a recent example being Disney’s firing of Gina Carano, a star of The Mandalorian, for her conservative views. By labeling conservatives as racist, it allows some liberals to feel justified by such actions, a direct marketing attack on freedom of speech itself.

Democrats also use a broader array of marketing strategies and tactics. While Republicans try to persuade voters, Democrats aim to invent them, a classic marketing strategy. Democrats have expressed interest in bestowing voter rights to those more disposed to be liberal, such as children age 16 and prisoners. They have expressed interest in turning left-leaning D.C. and Puerto Rico into states. They attack voter identification laws to expand those who can vote, and they want to grant a pathway to citizenship to illegal aliens who they undoubtedly feel will be beholden to the Democratic Party. That might amount to as few as 16.7 million to as many as 22.1 million people according to a new Yale study, much higher than the generally accepted estimate of 11.3 million.

Liberals have also infiltrated important venues, most notably universities and the media which are marketing tools used to create and retain new Democrats. A 2016-17 study revealed that 60% of the college faculty identified as either far-Left or liberal. Only 12% identified themselves as conservative or far-Right.

This impacts classroom influence. A 2018 survey among financial journalists conducted by Arizona State University and Texas A&M showed that only about 5% of them claim to be somewhat or very conservative, though we might have expected financial journalists to be otherwise. It explains why 92% of news coverage on then President Trump from the big three broadcast networks was negative. The liberal media was the marketing arm of the Democratic Party, serving up an advertising campaign that ran 24 hours, 7 days a week.

A February 4, 2021 Time magazine article outlined other devastating marketing tactics used by Democrats, noting a “…constellation of operatives across the left who shared overlapping goals but didn’t usually work in concert.” It harnessed businesses and unions, pressured social media companies, and changed voting systems and voting laws. Changing the rules of the game is an essential part of marketing.

And despite the media’s chorus that there was no fraud in the 2020 election, there was. There is fraud in every election. We can disagree as to whether there was enough to change the outcome, but to deny it reveals one’s own bias. Though it is a nasty tactic, never to be recommended, fraud is a marketing tactic of the unscrupulous in every industry.

Liberal Democrats are also more likely to use boycotts to pressure conservative businesses for not being socially responsible or politically correct. That is marketing, too. Most Republicans abhor this tactic because of their pro-business philosophy. They resist putting jobs and livelihoods at risk, something that the Left does not hesitate to do. Republicans’ own morals put them at a marketing disadvantage.

These efforts are in addition to the more traditional aspects of political marketing, like get-out-the-vote efforts, buying votes with handouts, backroom deals, weaponizing news events, gathering donations, funding opposition research, using shrewd media buys, crafting a debate strategy, and kissing babies.

Throughout, Democrats do a superb job of thinking strategically and acting tactically, for the long game, which proves them to be master marketers. Republicans are simply not as skilled and are sometimes hampered by their scruples, and so they will fall further behind unless they understand that espousing sound policy is not enough. They need smart, more aggressive marketing that uses a greater array of tools.

It’s time to level up.

Gene Del Vecchio is a consultant and Adjunct Professor of Marketing at the USC Marshall School of Business.

The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu

Conservatives Are Woefully Out-Marketed By Liberals. It’s Time to Level Up.