By Doug Pinkham
Public Affairs Council President

June 3, 2010

Political campaigns have long embraced the language of marketing. Campaign operatives have learned how to write speeches that resonate with focus groups and produce catchy slogans that praise their candidate or malign opponents. 

Depending on the quality of the message or the messenger, the results have been both ordinary and brilliant. "We Are Turning the Corner!" said an uninspired Herbert Hoover in 1932 as the country sank further into the Great Depression. Four years later, as Franklin Roosevelt sought a second term, he shrewdly encouraged voters to "Remember Hoover!"

Ronald Reagan's "It's Morning Again in America" slogan was exactly what the public needed to hear in 1984. Barack Obama's "Change We Can Believe in" set the right tone for 2008.

The most recent in political marketing trends is the repetitive use of words and phrases tested to elicit positive or negative responses. Consumer product companies have always done this when creating ads for a new soft drink or pick-up truck. Now everyone, including politicians arguing over legislation, is battling to win this war of words.

The maestro of messaging is Republican consultant Frank Luntz, who has used polling and focus groups to turn "estate taxes" into "death taxes," "global warming" into "climate change" and "eavesdropping" into "electronic intercepts." As Luntz smartly said in his book, "Words That Work:" "It's not what you say, it's what people hear." His specialty is finding language and strategies that connect with people's emotions.

During the debate over healthcare reform, Luntz wrote a 28-page memo explaining why the Democratic reform legislation should be labeled a "Washington takeover." When the financial regulatory reform bill came before Congress this spring, he wrote a 17-page memo urging opponents to describe the legislation as a bailout for big banks.

He also suggested Republicans make the case that the bill was written by lobbyists. That's because his polling showed most people despise bailouts and dislike "lobbyists and special interest groups" more than bureaucrats, Obama or members of Congress. Love him or hate him, Luntz has forever redefined how public policy issues will be framed.

White House adviser David Axelrod fought back when GOP leaders began using "bailout" to describe the financial reform bill, calling Luntz' memo a "disingenuous sort of blueprint."  Yet Democrats - including Axelrod - have now launched a plan to rebrand many of their own longstanding initiatives, reports CQ Politics. Based on the advice of Drew Westen, author of "The Political Brain," and others, the party is taking a more populist approach to issues such as employment, immigration and the environment. "Some say [Westen] is our answer to Frank Luntz," said Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin.

And that is what produced the "Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act," which tries to make up in populist appeal what it lacks in legislative wisdom. As I noted in my May 3 post, the bill tramples on First Amendment rights while trying to solve a problem that hasn't yet become a problem.

CQ Politics said this legislative effort to keep corporations from making independent campaign expenditures is part of a plan to present "a can-do image of a party that's focused on issues the public is worried about."

From a purely political standpoint, it's smart for the Democrats to try to tap into the public's feelings and focus less on intellectual arguments. But all this talk about branding and focus groups presents dangers for everyone involved:

• For Democrats, a populist campaign can backfire because it's easy to appear hypocritical. This is especially true when legislators raise campaign contributions from the same industries they criticize in the halls of Congress. In the case of the DISCLOSE Act, there is the added risk of focusing on an issue that arouses anger but isn't a top voter priority.
• For Republicans, the danger is that it's easier to throw linguistic stones than it is to offer alternatives. Everyone has talked about Luntz's strategies for attacking legislation, but in his healthcare memo he made a point of saying reform opponents who don't offer something better for America will be "relegated to insignificance at best and labeled obstructionist at worst."
• For both parties, trying too hard to please the public or harness voter outrage can lead not only to bad policy, but also to issue campaigns that simply miss the mark. That's because public opinion changes frequently. In early March, a USA Today/Gallup poll showed that only 38% felt the environment was a bigger priority than economic growth. By late May, after the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, that figure had climbed to 50%.
• For lobbyists of all stripes, the news is not good. As long as polls continue to show the public equates advocacy with corruption, politicians from both parties will say opponents are beholden to special interests. Despite Congress' reliance on public affairs experts to interpret legislation, explain business operations, forge coalitions and reach out to constituents, members have no incentive to defend lobbying.

Given the severity of the crises this country faces, perhaps it's time for our political leaders to focus less on denigrating the opposition - and lobbyists - and more on finding common ground. Who knows? Maybe there's a market for that.

Comments? Email me at http://pac.org/contact/blog.