(I try not to resort to profanities, but sometimes "f-ing" is the perfect adjective.)

[ 26 September 2008: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

quote:

---

“It's a cosmetic and branding issue and it has to reflect substantial change before it will be acceptable and authentic to a new party,” Mr. Swann said in an interview. “But it is not the first thing it's the last thing that needs to be addressed.”

---

Should they be ? I think the shortcomings of that way of thinking are starting to become obvious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
Because political communication is run exactly the same as ad campaigns are, political parties ARE brands.

---

They are certainly brands during short, intense electoral campaigns. But not in the larger, everyday picture.

If I join a party, I will understand that it is an organization that must impose some discipline and present a reasonably coherent image to gain wider public support. But I will also accept that there may be a myriad of views and variations of views within the party, as part of the reality of
the democratic process.

I think a lot of people choose political parties because those are the people they identify with - their fellow country club members.

as far as the "F" word - I think it's a f'ing great adverb.

[ 07 October 2008: Message edited by: SwimmingLee ]

quote:

---

I think a lot of people choose political parties because those are the people they identify with - their fellow country club members.

---

Yes, identity is an important part of advertising, and politics.

In other words, she is similar to George Bush in looking at the War on Terror in religious terms. She would be very effective at killing civilians in Muslim lands. She practices the selective blindness so prevalent in America - if a bunch of Muslim guys kill civilians, it's terrorism, if the US does it, it's patriotic.

So she has the pre-requisites in terms of her personal beliefs - the support of AIPAC & Israel, and all the military and Christian compatriots of mine.

Plus she's a good politician. Got a nice wink. Connects with the common American pro-war idiot. She can skin a moose. Her husband is a snowmobiling champion.

As far as whether she was a good pick, I guess that's another thread. She mobilizes me to not vote Green Party, that is, to vote for Obama, to help make sure she doesn't end up in office.

Others might say "I have always been a Conservative", even if they may have supported the Reform or Progressive Conservative parties in the past.

The BQ does well in Quebec because most Quebecers think of themselves as Quebecois first and Canadians maybe. Therefore "I am Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois speaks for me".

Even the Green Party's brand closely connects it with what it wants voters to believe about it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle John:
This in my opinion is one of the problems the NDP has. "New" and "Democratic" are pretty vague when placed together, although as I have stated before I think simply "Democrat" would be a very strong brand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle John:
The branding in politics is more about what the voter identifies himself or herself as, and how the parties connect themselves with that. Thus many people say "I am a Liberal", which is the strength of the Liberal brand.

---

Why are you unable to say a phrase like: "it's the strength of the Liberal 'party' "?

Uncle J, words matter. Before this dumbing-down took place, people would describe personal identification with a party as a "political affiliation," "party preference," or "party membership." Are such phrases too long for you, or the concepts too complicated?

A political party is a fundamental institution in a democracy, which Canada presumes to be. A political party is, and should always be, something vitally more complex than a brand. Branding does take place, but at a superficial level. It is going too far to call the party itself a "brand", thereby subtly suggesting that during elections voters are choosing among nothing more than brands, as if between Coke and Pepsi.

Or, are you resigned to the prospect that election campaigns will inevitably be reduced to nothing more than advertising wars, the biggest winners being the advertising companies? The biggest loser being deeper, critical democratic thinking?

Identification with a party should involve an examination of not only its image, leader, candidates, and policies, but also of its fundamental philosophies of how people should live together. A political party is a far more complex entity than any consumer product.

Democracy, public policy, public life - these are things in which citizens participate; they are not merely things to be "bought" and "consumed."

[ 09 October 2008: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

quote:

---

Democracy, public policy, public life - these are things in which citizens participate; they are not merely things to be "bought" and "consumed."

---

You're quite right, which is why democracy is purty well nothing more than a rotting carcass on this continent.

Most political parties are represented by little more than slogans and logos, thus the difference between the Liberals® and Conservateurs® isn't any more significant than the difference between Coke® and Pepsi®.

quote:

---

They are certainly brands during short, intense electoral campaigns. But not in the larger, everyday picture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
You're quite right, which is why democracy is purty well nothing more than a rotting carcass on this continent.

---

Well then, I want to start a new political brand that will cover up the stench with a sweet flowery smell.

Or, nah, maybe I'll just get used to the stink, I've been living in it so long already.

Like someone living in a slum.

[ 09 October 2008: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Further, Canadian politics are brokerage politics which is to say political parties tailor their message and image to appeal to the greatest number of voters - the lowest common denominator - just like new improved Tide.

---

So let's call it the NDB from now on - the New Democratic Brand.

quote:

---

So what if it did?

---

By doing so it would become part of one of the main things that's wrong with this world.

It seems as if most people today today motivated by whatever illusion strikes their fancy; from buying illusory stocks on the market, to watching their favourite TV shows to choosing between phantoms on election days.

It's not so much the sausage skin vest as it is that damned hat... it looks like something a mule-skinner would wear in a B-grade Hollywood western. I know Sheriff Steve is an import from Central Canada, but you really think someone in his party would have known that there are only two acceptable cowboy hats here: Smithbilt white stetsons for locals, and those cute purple plaid ones that are for Japanese tourists (and it is obvious from their giggling that they are in on the joke, so don't be protesting on their behalf).

[ 10 October 2008: Message edited by: bagkitty ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Define a frill?

---

Hmmm, define the basics, then I guess what's left are the frills.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
what is a political brand other than selling the illusion of change or progress?

---

Is this what the NDB is selling? Or is the NDP working towards real, substantive change?

[ 11 October 2008: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

quote:

---

...And the very popular local MPP, Cheri DiNovo, is frequently at Ms. Nash's side - driving her to all-candidates meetings, dropping by the campaign office on a Friday to help out, and appearing alongside her in a photo that graces a campaign leaflet. An experienced team of NDP organizers have helped secure election for the lot of them, defining a Parkdale-High Park NDP brand in the process. Only a couple of Mr. Kennedy's key election staffers are holdovers from his MPP days.

---

Before the dumbing-down of referring to entire political parties as "brands", it was common to refer to a faction within a political party as "a brand of party X." For example, the Harper brand of social conservativism vs. Peter Mackay's Red Tory brand. In this usage, "brand" simply means "type." This usage recognizes that there is a variety of views within a political party.

In contrast, when the meme "brand" is creepingly mutated to describe an entire political party, as in "Canadians are losing confidence in the Liberal brand", it implies that because a political party presents a uniform image, that it is a uniform "product". It suggests to the average voter that parties are to be chosen like any other consumer product on the Mal-Wart shelf - for customer satisfaction, which seems sort of democratic, until you think about how in these times, customer satisfaction often means immediate self-gratification.

The language of consumerism is all about skin-deep comfort and Me First. Forget about any bigger picture that involves one's own deeper well-being, the long-term, the environment, or other people.

[ 11 October 2008: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

quote:

---

Or is the NDP working towards real, substantive change?

---

A political party is a complex process in which people participate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:
To reiterate once more, a political party is not a fucking brand.
Consumer products are (too) often associated with brands.
Political parties are not consumer 'products', to be taken off the shelf 'as is' and 'consumed'.

A political party is a complex process in which people participate.

When the media refer to entire political parties as "brands", they are being deeply, deeply undemocratic.

---

I completely disagree. In our system, parties our brands. They are packaged and sold. People do participate, but that participation is closely managed.