A Brand of Our Own

If progressives want a stronger hand in guiding America's future, they need to strengthen their brand identity among busy and beleaguered American voters.

For decades, the American left has placed more emphasis on programs and policies than brand identification. There are a lot of folk myths about the 1950s, and maybe this is one of them and maybe it’s because I’m from Chicago, but I think I remember a time when brand loyalty brought success to Democrats. A time when, if someone mentioned a candidate's name, the first question someone might ask was, "Is he a Democrat?"

"Yes."

"That’s all I need to know." Thumbs up.

Why? Because the brand meant something. It meant, this candidate thinks like me. He believes what I do. He’s on my side. You didn’t need to know his or her position on snail darters or NAFTA or unions or gay rights. Or even his name or what he looked like.

That personal identification has been lost in our fractured, single-issue politics. While conservatives built their brand around low taxes, family values and small government, liberals devolved into a patchwork quilt of interests with no easily discernible theme.

I can’t count how many events I have been to where someone starts talking about our proud political heritage. And they unroll a laundry list of programs and policies anywhere from forty to seventy years-old. It’s like a K-tel Greatest Hits commercial. “Can anyone forget the rocking, G.I. Bill?” Proud accomplishments, okay? But what progressives miss is that a laundry list of programs and policies doesn’t communicate enough about the beliefs behind them, nothing about our passions or ideals, about who we are. That’s what overburdened voters really want to know that we’re not good at explaining.

Coke, the Chicago Cubs, Nike, the Marines. Images, feelings and associations are more important in brand loyalty than particular features, and progressives have neglected brand-building for too long. Behind the argument echoed in Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? -- that many working class voters vote Republican against their own economic interests -- is the assumption that economic interest is (or should be) the basis for casting a ballot for a party’s candidates.

One of the disconnects in American politics between liberal activists and typical voters arises from activists' focus on the wonky details of programs and policies that busy non-wonks haven't the time to master, even if they have the interest. And non-wonks are most of the voting population.

Early primary voting is underway here in North Carolina, and yesterday my wife went out to vote with a group of friends. They turned to her for voting recommendations for down-ticket races. (Granted, a primary pits members of the same team against one another; the general election can be another, simpler story.) Mainly, her friends just wanted to vote for their presidential pick and the other races were afterthoughts. They wanted, at minimum, to do their civic duty, but were too busy be more informed. For that, they trusted my wife to advise them.

Why? Because they respect her opinion, trust her judgment, believe she's like them and on their side. They identify with her. Progressives have to build a brand that tells voters that that is just as true of them as a whole.

Democracy isn't supposed to be easy, but with more and more Americans feeling as if they are treading water amidst a flotsam of bills, soccer practice, commuting and longer work hours, throwing them a candidate survey or a stack of position papers isn't helpful. They need a shorthand. It’s why flag pins and preachers and bowling and beer capture the public’s attention. Optimal or not, many voters just want some way of sussing out whom to vote for that doesn't require that they master the arcana of policy alternatives. That's what they have representatives for. They just want some way of choosing candidates who will legislate in their best interests. People they can trust. People who think like they do.

For many, that’s all they want to know. It’s not the way of the activist, and that’s just what activists have to realize. As Democracy for America’s Training School emphasizes, activists are not normal people.

Conservatives spent billions of dollars and decades building a brand that is now in tatters. The rest of us had better start working on ours.

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future