ShitBurger No More: Democratic Brand Management in Rural America

Voters in South Dakota—one of the most Republican states in the nation—just voted to implement the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid. That’s right, they voted for Obamacare. Good news for Democrats, right? Not at all. Even as they were voting for the most well-known Democratic policy achievement since LBJ held office, they also voted to reelect Republican John Thune 70% – 26%.

They voted for Obamacare, even as they voted for a Republican who has vowed to eliminate Obamacare.

It’s a similar story in Kentucky. There, voters struck down a ballot initiative that would have ended any constitutional protection for abortion, even as they gave Rand Paul 62% of the vote. Rand Paul… who not only asserts that life begins at conception, but has tried to make it illegal for courts to even hear cases about abortion rights in the future.

They voted for abortion rights, even as they voted for a Republican who opposes abortion rights.

What gives? There are a few possibilities:

1. Republicans like a few specific Democratic policies, but these are not enough to outweigh some other policies they dislike more.
2. Republicans don’t realize these are Democratic policies, and if only someone would explain this clearly, then they’d be open to voting for Democrats.
3. Policies have very little impact on the decisions of Republican voters.

I’m in camp 3.

While there may be some argument for the other options—and I will admit 1 & 2 may matter a little at the margins—I tend to believe voting is more often a statement of identity than an indication of support for or opposition to any specific policy. Most of the time, in other words, when someone explains why they support a specific candidate or party, the reasons they offer are post-hoc justifications. Sometimes these are rooted in broad ideology (“small government”), sometime in more specific (but often still-broad) policies (“pro-life”), and perhaps most often they are tied to irrelevant external factors (the price of gas). But whichever justification is offered, the vast majority of the time, it is just that: a justification for a decision already made.

So what does this mean? It means rural Republicans aren’t voting Republican because they love Republican policies or because they hate Democratic policies, or even because they just don’t know about the wonderful things Democrats have done. No, they vote Republican because they see themselves as Republicans and can’t imagine themselves a Democrats. They admire the Republican identity, and scorn the Democratic identity.

The problem, in other words, is not the product, it’s the brand.

Imagine a burger franchise called Hit Burger. It’s popular, and selling well. Eventually, though—perhaps through the clever marketing of another burger chain—people begin to call it “Shit Burger.” Soon everyone in town calls it “Shit Burger,” and predictably sales begin to decline. Even people who like the food don’t want to ask their friends out for a shitburger after the game. There may be shitburger fanatics (probably from out of town) who put shitburger stickers on their weird little bubble cars, but everyone there knows that only losers eat shit… burgers.

And now imagine that in response, the chain decides that what it really needs to do is introduce a new double cheeseburger. Taste tests reveal that people like it more than the competitors’ burger. When offered anonymously at the potluck, people gobble them down. And then they go right back to eating at the competitor.

The problem is not the product, it’s the brand. And if you own a Shit Burger franchise—oops, I mean a “Hit Burger” franchise—you have every right to be furious at the folks in charge of corporate advertising. You bought the franchise on the assumption that corporate would sell the brand—through effective and innovative national marketing—while you focused on turning out a great product. You try to salvage your sales by offering coupons or doing local promotions, and maybe this helps a little, but in the end the brand is just too toxic to your audience, and you’re fighting a losing battle.

In the rural U.S., Democratic candidates are ShitBurgers.

Is it really that bad? Well, see what Jess Piper (@piper4missouri) says about her experiences talking to rural voters.

But brand identity can change. Sprite was once a losing brand, the weak competitor in the clear-soda market. But an effective national campaign changed the image of the product with the audience they were after—kids, in this case.

And frankly, Democrats are doing great with kids. And with city folks. And even with suburban folks. We’ve only lost the popular vote for President once since 1992. It’s a huge success story, and we should be proud. Most of the country is on our side.

But unlike the consumer market, the political market is rigged toward the rural and the old. I’d love to see gerrymandering banned, the electoral college tossed out, and the anti-democratic Senate restructured, but in the meantime Democrats have to be able to fight on the terrain we have, and that means figuring out how to win rural votes (while keeping the voters we’ve got). A great product is vital. It’s fantastic. We should keep coming up with more and better policies. But that will never be enough to get the rural folk to eat at Shitburger.

We also need better branding.

And it should be the national party who does this. Democratic candidates are the franchisees, and they can implement the great products developed at HQ, and offer insight into how to improve these products. But they can’t brand. They are too small, too local, and too underfunded. Branding is the job—maybe the main job—of the big national organizations. When you buy a McDonald’s franchise, you know you are going to benefit from a steady flood of McDonald’s advertising coming from corporate. That’s a big reason you are willing to pay those hefty franchise fees.

So DNC and all the rest, it’s time to step up and start selling the Democratic brand. Not the policies. Not the candidates. The brand itself. It’s worth the cost.

How might you do that? Well, I’m just a guy with a blog no one reads (and a doctorate in rhetoric, for whatever that’s worth), but I have a couple ideas I’ll follow up with soon. First up, Republicans as the corporate cowboy in loafers.

Obergefell Will Be the Next Roe: Why Republicans Will Attack Gay Marriage Next

It’s been widely noted that the next target of the right is likely to be gay marriage. I agree.

But I also think that while Republican voters may care about some policies like abortion or gay marriage, Republican politicians care only about power. And this is precisely why I think the right-wing media machine will try to turn Obergefell into the next Roe v. Wade.

To understand Republicans, I would argue, you need to realize that asking what they are for? is pointless; the only question that matters is who are they against? Who, in other words, are the publicly-promoted enemies around which the party is centered? Who are the villains they use to rally their voters?

Over the years, those villains have changed a bit:

Reagan: The Soviet Union, Black people (“welfare queens”), government, and Roe vs. Wade

Bush I: Saddam Hussein, taxes, and Roe vs. Wade.

Bush II: Saddam Hussein, Muslims, gays, and Roe vs. Wade

Trump: Immigrants, China, and Roe vs. Wade

You could add to each list, of course, and inject a bit of nuance, but you get the idea. And you get that throughout it all, opposition to Roe has been a constant.

Well, if Politico is to be believed, Republicans are the dog that has finally caught the car as far as abortion is concerned. For ages overturning Roe has been the key motivation for the segment of the Republican base more concerned with domestic virtue than international security. Opposition to abortion has been the single foundation of the right’s self-perceived moral superiority, and by far the biggest issue currently linking rich white Southern Evangelicals with the poor Hispanic Florida Catholics. More than anything else, it has allowed the religious right to see themselves as being on the side of the angels even as they ignore each of the Beatitudes in turn. Overturning Roe has been the thing that inspired protests and posters and donations and, most of all, voting.

So what happens when a party motivated only by villains loses its key domestic enemy?

Well, first—to be clear—there will certainly be a shifting of the goalposts. With Roe gone, attention will turn to a national ban on abortion. Or more likely, a series of national bans, each one more draconian than the last, and all offering the states the option to be still more extreme. But this won’t have the same impact, as it doesn’t have the unifying singularity of “Roe,” which gives a name to the enemy.

So how will the right continue to motivate those followers who see themselves as religious and need to convince themselves that this religion demands nothing more than voting Republican?

The sad and obvious answer is that they will try to overturn the gay marriage.

Of course, opposition to gay marriage is nothing new on the right. For some time now right-wing Christians have effectively reduced their religion to three commandments: overturn Roe, hate gays, and vote Republican. (With the last one essentially a shorthand for the first two.) But until Obergefell, opposing gay rights was too abstract to win voters; it’s hard to rally people in support of something they already have.

So now, when Roe v. Wade is officially overturned, I fully expect Fox News and the other Republican media affiliates to try to make Obergefell into the new Roe. I expect protests and vigils and heartfelt testimony from megachurch pulpits. And I absolutely expect every single elected Republican to wholeheartedly endorse the effort, because they will see that doing so might enable them to hold on to power.

Will this work?

I suspect not. I hope not. And I can think of at least three reasons why it might fail. First, gay marriage is hugely popular, and getting more popular all the time. Second, gay people are much more part of mainstream media than abortion ever was. For all the remaining prejudice, gays show up in television and movies far more often than does someone getting an abortion. This may seem minor, but it is really the foundation of how a whole generation defines “normal.” And finally, “Obergefell” is simply a hard name to say or remember. With villains, you really need an easy slogan.

That being said, Roe is (was?) also very popular, so the Supreme Court has made it very clear that popularity isn’t a deterrent. The Court has also made its disdain for Obergefell quite clear, as evidenced in the leaked Alito opinion. And the Court has amply demonstrated in a number of cases a willingness to go through tortuous legal contortions to justify support for whatever Republicans currently want. Any notion that they are “above politics” can now be rightfully laughed off.

Furthermore, the Republican Party has been transparent in its prejudice of late, attacking trans children and toeing the Q-line by linking the entire LGBTQ community to pedophilia at every turn.

So don’t think anyone is safe. Republicans have mastered the art of making the powerful majority feel threatened by the marginalized minority, and they’re absolutely willing to sacrifice any number of LGBTQ kids on the altar of their power.