Party branding

 

                Party strategies must promote their brand in a marketplace where the customer (i.e. the voter) effectively has a choice of two packages. To achieve this, it is necessary to paint your opponents as unfit to govern in some manner whilst neutralizing the negatives associated with your party’s brand. Since the 1990s, there are two examples one might consider. The first is the emergence of the third way associated with new Democrats (Giddens, 1998). The other is the term compassionate conservatism as used by the Republicans during the noughties. It is interesting to note that both strategies paid electoral dividends for the party in question; which of course was the whole point of the exercise.

 

                The third way was taken up by the new Democrats as a means of rebranding the party after the wilderness years of the 1980s. The third way marked an attempt to modify the central tenants of center-left thinking within the broader realities of globalization. The third way was a global movement amongst center-left parties in the UK, Germany and Scandinavia. Central to the third way strategy amongst the Democrats was the role played by Dick Morris. He was the architect of triangulation in which the party adopted a limited number of popular right-wing policies in order to neutralize certain negatives. For instance, Bill Clinton championed the ‘three strikes and you are out’ policy in order to tackle concerns that the party was soft on crime. Equally, the new Democrats supported supply-side economics in order to counter the claim that the party was anti-business.

 

                At the time, triangulation seemed little more than a strategic measure to get the party back in power. However, during the Clinton presidency (Branch, 2009) figures on the left of the party claimed that the new Democrats had moved too far towards the center. This is a common narrative amongst any party’s rank-and-file when the leadership seeks electoral advantage by shifting the party towards the vital center. Left-wing figures within the party (notably Howard Dean in 2004 and Bernie Sanders at the present time) have sought to move the party back towards its natural home. Although Obama could not be classed as a new Democrat, similar criticisms have been made against his administration.

 

                Compassionate conservatism was in part inspired by the electoral strategy of triangulation. It sought to rebrand the GOP and thereby neutralize the negatives associated with the party. This is most obvious in the context of the term “compassionate.” Conservatives were seen as apologists for a callous marketplace in which individuals were left to fend for themselves. Whilst something of a caricature, the Republican Party had become tarnished by an image built up during the Reagan, Bush and Gingrich years. Compassionate conservatism was championed by George W. Bush in order to maintain the momentum behind the conservative revolution first launched by Ronald Reagan.

 

Compassionate conservatism sought to reassure the conservative base whilst reaching out towards Latinos and other minority groups not traditionally associated with the GOP. Values voters formed the bedrock of the Bush administration, and the strategy certainly paid electoral dividends in a manner comparable with the third way approach of the new Democrats. However, compassionate conservatism also ran into the exact same problems faced by the third way approach. Those on the right of the party become increasingly critical of compassionate conservatism, principally in terms of government spending. Under a Republican President and a Republican-controlled Congress, the role of the state increased significantly. Funding two major wars, expanding Medicaid and providing federal funds for the No Child Left Behind policy all greatly increased the level of government spending. Unsurprisingly, this big government approach provoked criticism from fiscal conservatives within the GOP.

 

                Marketing labels are transient in character, and both the third way and compassionate conservatism are now somewhat dated.  Frankly, that is the nature of marketing labels.Whilst they serve a purpose in terms of helping a candidate gain elected office, they do not have the same longevity as a major ideological shift in a political party. It is therefore misleading to compare say the New Deal with compassionate conservatism. The former ushered in a genuine re-alignment within American politics, whereas the latter was essentially a strategy adopted by George W. Bush to secure elected office.

 

                At the time of writing, it is the Democrats who have the stronger brand. They are broadly united behind the Obama administration, a situation that could rarely be said of the party in the recent past. The Republicans however seem unsure as to which year to take the country back to. Social conservatives favor the Eisenhower era of traditional families and white-picket fences, whereas fiscal conservatives would love to take the country back to the 1980s. The party has also been tainted by an association with obstructionist politics under the Obama administration, notably House Republicans. Indeed, during the budget stand-off of October 2013 it was the Republicans who came off worse.