Pericles21 regards the term 'branding', used by the Republican party, to be dangerously inappropriate when used to shape the American political picture. The usual definition of 'Branding' is an advertising term used to 'sell' something by placing a label on inanimate or non-human objects. Branding also carries the taint of deception which further makes the term inappropriate for use to describe any part of the American democratic process; this is the perspective of Pericles21.
In 2009, Pericles21 commented on the 'tendency' of the GOP to brand itself without being real, or sincere:
Returning to the theme of this post, the artificial and manipulative 'branding' employed so frequently from the GOP lexicon, agreeing with Pericles21, there are those who see 'branding' as a reality of American politics...with all the pejorative implications of using the term inappropriately.
A recent New York Times opinion piece, 'Donald Trump, Meet Your Precursor' (NYT, December 6, 2019) posits that 'branding', more than ever yet with precedence, is a descriptor of current American democratic mechanisms, our politics, and warns that American democracy has come to resemble a market with bins full of glitzy labels affixed to ersatz (false) goods rather than a genuine, natural process of public self-governance.
But, as Pericles21 noted in 2009, brands can be falsely used as 'persuaders' not in response to genuine market forces but can be deliberately designed with the intention to actively shape and even create market preferences and redirect market forces, through artificial and sometimes cynical psychological manipulations.
Psychological manipulation, when rationalized apriori by the desired outcome, and especially justified 'post-facto' when successful, can then be defended as a 'good' even when the outcome was achieved using immoral or artificial actions and manipulations, i.e., "triggers" such as playing to, and magnifying, racist or gender prejudices.
The above background thoughts seem to describe where American democracy has arrived, the ascendancy of a demagogue who has compromised normative behavior with seeming ease despite being uninterested, and unknowing, in the principles of American democracy except where they benefit the personal interests of the demagogue...and his monetary rewards.
In 2009, Pericles21 commented on the 'tendency' of the GOP to brand itself without being real, or sincere:
the GOP is lost in a kind of political "mannerism" where they remember the postures but have lost any idea of the meanings and contexts of their awkward and jerky mimicry of conservativeness. The result is the derangement of Limbaugh, the Insaneness of Hannity, the Dreck of Beck, and Michelle Bachmann's stupid utterances accompanied with her really strange, vapid and pat-on-back-expecting-look-at-me-daddy false smiles. The GOP sputterings are not down-to-earth, nurturing oatmeal but dry sawdust and dull nails. [Isn't this 'branding' made into a god?']
Returning to the theme of this post, the artificial and manipulative 'branding' employed so frequently from the GOP lexicon, agreeing with Pericles21, there are those who see 'branding' as a reality of American politics...with all the pejorative implications of using the term inappropriately.
A recent New York Times opinion piece, 'Donald Trump, Meet Your Precursor' (NYT, December 6, 2019) posits that 'branding', more than ever yet with precedence, is a descriptor of current American democratic mechanisms, our politics, and warns that American democracy has come to resemble a market with bins full of glitzy labels affixed to ersatz (false) goods rather than a genuine, natural process of public self-governance.
"...the electoral arena has more in common with consumer brand market competition than it does to an academic symposium on immigration policy or a non-profit funded public awareness campaign. Brands are forced to adjust to market realities in ways few advocacy groups ever encounter."The piece uses a historical review of American political history leading up to the Civil War and then during the "reconstruction' period to give examples of disguising political intentions and actions through branding to first preserve slavery and then, post-war, to turn back to de-facto slavery. Central to this historical review is the role of the demagogue, the false profit warned about by the Founders... the demagogue who by false branding and deceitful psychological manipulations, 'natural' aspects belonging to the demagogue's personality, would lead America away from the democratic intentions of the American Constitution and its founders.
But, as Pericles21 noted in 2009, brands can be falsely used as 'persuaders' not in response to genuine market forces but can be deliberately designed with the intention to actively shape and even create market preferences and redirect market forces, through artificial and sometimes cynical psychological manipulations.
Psychological manipulation, when rationalized apriori by the desired outcome, and especially justified 'post-facto' when successful, can then be defended as a 'good' even when the outcome was achieved using immoral or artificial actions and manipulations, i.e., "triggers" such as playing to, and magnifying, racist or gender prejudices.
The above background thoughts seem to describe where American democracy has arrived, the ascendancy of a demagogue who has compromised normative behavior with seeming ease despite being uninterested, and unknowing, in the principles of American democracy except where they benefit the personal interests of the demagogue...and his monetary rewards.
Posts
