The right wing in the US has been very good at branding. They branded the anti-abortion movement as Pro-Life and now has branded its new movement as the Tea Party, using symbols and flags from the Revolutionary War period. Today, after the vote on healthcare legislation, we saw evidence of violence against legislators who had voted for the bill by those who said they were opposing "tyranny" and standing for "freedom and liberty".
While the so-called Tea Party might want to brand themselves in a way that links them to the leaders of Colonial freedom from England, they are really the reincarnation of John Wilkes Booth, George Wallace and others who have opposed federal law over states rights. These are the successors of those who argued for slavery and against laws allowing multi-racial marriages. They are not Tea Party revolutionary. They are not seeking to advance freedom, but rather to stop the country from progress.
What they are very good at is branding and fear-mongering. We have heard that the next election will be between "Americans and Europeans", or those who favor American ideals against those who want the US to become a European socialized state. If these people only knew something about Europe or socialism, this might make sense. But, once again, it is all about spin over facts.
The new US healthcare legislation would never be acceptable in Canada or any of the European countries. It does not provide for universal care. It is not government healthcare. But, for millions who know nothing about the world outside, these statements about socialism and European-style healthcare, strike fear, as they are intended to do. It is not fact-based arguments; it is, rather, an attempt at the worst sort of branding-pure spin over substance.
This brand management effort by the right-wing did not start with any actions by President Obama as they would have one believe. It started when Obama was a candidate. Remember Sarah Palin invoking "Joe the Plumber" and claiming that Obama was a socialist? Newt Gingrich continues to label Obama as a "secular socialist". I'm not sure Gingrich believes this, but the words incite people to fear, which is what he wants. The right has believed, just like right-wing regimes in other countries, that you label your opponent and continue to label until it sticks. This is dangerous stuff. They are not too far from inciting violence. Characterizing ones opponents with a quick label can translates into anger and it stirs up rage in many unbalanced people, especially in a country full of guns. There are plenty of "wing-nuts" who may actually believe that they are defending freedom and liberty through violent acts against Democrats. Remember that John Wilkes Booth shouted "death to tyrants" when he jumped to the stage of Ford Theatre after shooting President Lincoln. The anger the Republican leadership is inciting among the right-wing may go beyond the ballot box to the streets. Remember what happened in the South during the Civil Rights actions in the 1960s? We are getting close to this now.
There are many thoughtful Republicans, but they are afraid to speak up against the rising right-wing lest they loose their seats. Scott Brown learned his lesson pretty quickly. He voted with Obama on one small issue and was put on notice that the Tea Party would run someone against him if he didn't straighten out. This is not a "spontaneous organization", as some would have us believe. This is the creation of the right-wing of the Republican party designed to destroy the President and any progressive ideas that might stand in the way of their ideological orthodoxy. It is a "take no prisoners; no compromise" style of politics. They see no shades of gray, only black or white.
The US is fragmenting. It is getting as close to the divisions that it saw in the 1860s during the debates over slavery and states rights. That lead to the Civil War. One wonders if the right really wants to keep the union together or if it is trying to reverse the course of history and bring the North and progressives to their knees in the same way they believe their ancestors were forced to bend to the will of the nation. This is not a movement trumpeting "The South will Rise Again", but it is damn close to that sentiment and closer to that than it is to the intellectual spirit that fueled the Revolution of the colonies from England. That revolution was lead by intellectuals. The Tea Party is lead by anti-intellectual thugs who claim not to want government interference, but at the same time want Constitutional amendments against abortion, gay marriage and anything else they don't like.
It is time that people begin to see this for what it really is--a mass of angry people; not political--just angry, uninformed and easily swayed by rhetoric and false labels.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Great article. I wholeheartedly agree with everything you have said. It's horrifying to think how influential these scare tactics are on the uninformed American public.
In thinking about this, I wonder if the current issues with Health Care Reform aren't just a branding problem. In its current form it's a branded house (everything falls under Health Care Reform). But I wonder if it could have gained more support if it were implemented in smaller chunks like a house of brands approach (e.g. The Anti-Pre-existing Conditions Act, The Insure All Americans Act, The Public Option Act, etc).
Craig has an interesting perspective. The entire health care debate may have been too big to swallow and it was up against the "deficit", which sounds really horrible (all of a sudden since for 8-years previously no one seemed to care about it). Perhaps taking this is chunks, as Craig suggests, might have been more effective. Find the target, frame the promise and deliver.
Craig has an interesting perspective. The entire health care debate may have been too big to swallow and it was up against the "deficit", which sounds really horrible (all of a sudden since for 8-years previously no one seemed to care about it). Perhaps taking this is chunks, as Craig suggests, might have been more effective. Find the target, frame the promise and deliver.
Post a Comment