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:
- Republicans like a few specific Democratic policies, but these are not enough to outweigh some other policies they dislike more.
- 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.
- 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.
Rhetoric & Running 