Branding the Opt Out Society

Democrats in 2004 would do well to emulate two successful approaches of their opponents in branding the GOP and its Opt Out philosophy. In 1994 with Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" and again with the 2000 Bush campaign, the Republicans succeeded in both labeling the Democrats as outside the mainstream while effectively positioning their own program in easily understood, hard hitting and, at least superficially, universally appealing sound bites. The result was and continues to be GOP domination of the terms of debate, especially through the filter of the media. The Democrats have a golden chance to do the same in 2004 with the Opt Out Society, an opportunity that they must not let pass by.

For an illustration of the effectiveness of GOP branding, Democrats can look first to Newt Gingrich's stewardship of the 1994 mid-term elections. While the "Contract with America" failed as a policy program (ultimately running aground with the GOP effort to shut down the government in 1995/6), it was immensely successful as a marketing platform for the 1994 GOP congressional candidates. Gingrich provided talking points, a clear vocabulary and firm message discipline to GOP candidates. As early as 1990, his memo "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" provided a set of terms for consistently labeling the Democrats, including "ideological, endanger, lie, bureaucracy, shame, sick, crisis and liberal" among the dozens listed. In contrast, the Republicans were portrayed as supporting "freedom", "choice", "liberty," "family", "empowerment," and having "vision" and being "moral." His mantras of "unfunded mandates" and "devolution" were decisive not only in the 1994 elections, but in shaping a new wave of phony federalism that drove programs and funding to the states for implementation (or eventual abandonment, as the crippling state budget deficits of 2003 show).

The Bush campaign and administration have been even more spectacularly successful in dominating the terms of debate, especially in the wake of September 11. The GOP has perfected the craft of branding the Democrats, programs opposed by Republicans and initiatives they themselves espouse using two techniques. First is the Unopposable Utterance, messages that dominate policy debates because they are, on their face, virtually unopposable. Consider the "Death Tax" (for repealing the estate tax), "Marriage Penalty" (for lowering tax rates on married couples), "No Child Left Behind" (the Bush education program), "Faith-Based Initiative" (for diverting funds for social programs through sectarian groups), "School Choice" (for school voucher programs), or even "Partial Birth Abortion" (creating a slippery slope against reproductive rights by banning one rare though viscerally gruesome abortion method). The attack on "Double Taxation" (the complete elimination of taxes on dividend income) failed only due to the growing budget deficit. In a world of 20-second sound bites and media information overload, these and other misguided or dangerous policies sound like common sense public policy to many voters.

Perhaps even more effective (and, of course, more insidious) than the unopposable utterance is the second hallmark of Bush era communications strategy - Opposites Attract. Here, the administration masks unpopular policies with names that convey the opposite of their intended effects. These include "Paycheck Protection" (attacking the ability of unions to raise membership funds for political activity), "Clear Skies" (which, in effect, rolls back environmental protections of the Clean Air Act), "Healthy Forests" (providing incentives for the logging industry to expand its activities on public lands), "Fair Use" (giving local residents and large businesses carte blanche to use and extract value from national park land), among others. President Bush's defeat on oil drilling in ANWR may have been in large part tied to the administration's failure to brand that initiative as its polar opposite.

Heading into the 2004 elections, Democrats have a unique opportunity to regain the edge in public debate by portraying the GOP's Opt Out Society program for what it is and for consistently contrasting it with the national unity needed in a time of war on terrorism. At every turn, Democrats must repeat the mantra of "Americans together at home, together abroad." President Bush and the Republican Party instead send a clear message that citizens have no responsibility to their government or to each other. From health care, education and retirement security to economic growth, basic social services and the environment, the Republican message to Americans is that each person is on his own and should maximize his or her own share in a never-ending competition of each against all.

For 2004, Democrats need a vocabulary for branding the Republican's Opt Out Society and the steadfast discipline to use it:

In 2004, as we'll see in "The Reciprocity Society in Action" below, Democrats can contrast their politics of an America united at home with a GOP program for government withdrawal and private interests run amok:

1. Introducing the Opt Out Society
2. On Your Own: The Opt Out Society in Practice
3. Branding the Opt Out Society
4. Identity Politics and the Threat from the Left
5. A New American Bargain^TM: The Reciprocity Society^TM
6. The Reciprocity Society in Action