Product and Perception

The Blog | Dave Johnson and James Boyce: America's Two Party System: The Marketing Party and The Product Party | The Huffington Post

As this article eloquently argues, we have a two-party system in America: The Product Party and The Marketing Party.

By mastering the management of perception and with an utter disregard for facts and reality, the Marketing Party's agenda and vision gets implemented - despite its horrendous consequences for the country, and the world. It has never been worse than it is now. The chasm between their vision, its consequences and the lifestyle and security of the average American is mind-boggling.

Phases of engagement in Iraq

People are pawns in any conflict. They are manipulated by their motivation to serve the ends of the various stakeholders. It is entirely possible to employ Muslims against Islam, Communists against communism, Republicans against the republic - it is merely a matter of making them do whatever serves your ends in the name of their beliefs. This sad fact is evident in the 9/11 obscenity - those responsible denied having anything to do with it, and offered no rationale for the act that successfully catalyzed what might be the most significant global conflict since WW2.

Assume a society is fragmented along lines of association (belief or prejudice). A stakeholder in any conflict then has three phases of engagement:

• The stakeholder establishes an early claim to one or more fragments of society.
  
• As the conflict escalates it yields useful atrocities and outrages. These can be used to accelerate the polarization. This is a critical phase, because man is a social creature who seeks the security of association, and fear soon becomes more significant than belief in securing allegiance.
  
• Establish a hierarchical structure of authority and migrate the conflict into a stable state which supports the stakeholder's hierarchy and eliminates opposition. Purge yourself of the people who aren't malleable enough to conform with the new order.
  

In the second phase what people believe is unimportant as long as their fears drive them into favorable allegiances. The social partitions can redefine themselves in radically new ways.

The second phase is the current phase of the Iraq conflict. People are being driven by fear into the structures that have been created for them. The US would love to eliminate alternative allegiances, but the US is not the only stakeholder. Iran, the other major stakeholder in Iraq, believes it has far more at stake than the US, and by any objective measure it is right; just as the US would resent Iranian involvement in a Mexican conflict, Iranians resent the US meddling in their backyard.

The US has provoked Iran into a state of incandescence. The confrontation has eliminated rational discourse, and militia have become the ante required to play the game. This administration is no doubt toeing at Congress' rather frayed line, covertly supporting select militia, but to win with militia the US will need:

• the stomach for atrocities and
  
• the political mandate to terrorize an entire population
  

Atrocities can always be attributed to enemy action, but the US has limited credibility, and while the rest of the world understands Iran's interest in Iraq there is no similar indulgence for the US, whose involvement is widely perceived as purely venal. Under current circumstances a US victory seems unattainable.

If Iran can hang together politically (in other words, if the US fails to destabilize it) then it will ultimately prevail in Iraq. But the US has arrows other than direct confrontation in its quiver, and Iran risks gaining a poisoned pill in Iraq.

To not lose the US needs:

• brilliant political leadership and
  
• an accommodation with the ultimate victor in the conflict - Iran
  

At this stage there are still many opportunities for rapprochement. To recognize and engineer such an opportunity will require substantially more competence and vision than has been heretofore evident.

Manipulating Perception

The following is taken from a response to another post. It has some problems, but in general it illustrates the difference between perception and reality.

The problem isn't passion or issues. It's organization. And the inability to deliver one, clear message that Americans can run with. Perhaps take a look at some of these ideas I've set down, at least as a starting point.

THE RULES OF PERCEPTION
-or-
"How To Win The 2008 Presidential Election"


It wasn't Iraq.
It wasn't terrorism.
It wasn't abortion.
It wasn't gay marriage.
It wasn't jobs.

It wasn't anything real.

George Bush won because Karl Rove was way better than the Democrats at one simple thing.

Managing perception.

What is managing perception?

Let's consider these two examples:

John Kerry went to Vietnam, saved a man's life and got wounded several times. Somehow, the people of this country perceived of John Kerry as a coward who had never served his country and would not be tough enough as our commander-in-chief in wartime.

That's managing perception!

George Bush avoided going to Vietnam and even avoided serving out his National Guard obligation. Somehow, the people of this country perceived of George Bush as a heroic fighter, experienced military man and a courageous commander-in-chief.

That's really managing perception!

Not just managing the perception people have of YOUR guy, but more importantly, it's managing the perception people have of the other guy!

In 2004, more people perceived that John Kerry was bad and George Bush was good. Just enough people for George Bush to win the election.

Which brings us to a cold hard fact: if the Democratic party wants to take back Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008, they must immediately become as good at or better than Karl Rove at managing perception.

The good news is, managing perception is not some magic trick that only Karl Rove knows the secret to.

Managing perception is not even all that difficult once you know the rules and once you've committed yourself and the party to doing it right.

What are the rules?

Rule 1:
Understand that you are dealing with a target audience that doesn't care enough to learn the real facts regarding the real issues.

Example:
The target audience fervently believed that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks and that there WERE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Hint:
Do not try to change this reality. Work with it. The perception they have IS the reality! Take heart! If they are maleable enough to perceive something despite obvious evidence to the contrary, you will be able to make them perceive any number of things!

Rule 2:
Come to grips with the fact that the media that services this target audience is already dead set against you. Learn to live with this obvious negative.

Example:
Fox News. Official News Channel of the successful invasion of Iraq and media/pr representative for the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.

Hint:
Create a media network that will reach your target. Don't make it left, don't make it right. Work hard to make it entertaining, middle of the road and believable.

Rule 3:
When the other side hands you a bone, do not bury the bone! USE IT! The best way to negatively affect the perception of the other side is to use their own bone against them!

Example:
"I voted for it before I voted against it" was a bone Karl Rove shook in our face the entire campaign. It perfectly defined Kerry as a "flip-flopper". When Bush said, "I don't think much about Bin Laden", Kerry should have said, "Bin Laden murdered 3000 Americans and will kill more of us and you are too much of a coward to go after him? We avenged Pearl Harbor! Why are we not avenging 9/11, you coward?"
Hint:
Cheer up. You missed your chance, but there'll be more. Rudy already blamed the troops (instead of Bush) for missing the weapons cache. Hey, Mr. Mayor, accept responsibility and SUPPORT our troops, you miserable politician.


Rule 4:
Stop playing by Marquis of Queensberry rules. Before you get punched, you punch. Hard. Whenever possible, you punch below the belt. And most importantly, even after they are down, you keep punching. If necessary, you kick them until they are not just down, but dead.

Example:
George Bush. Cocaine. Alcohol. The National Guard. Deserter. With 40 days to go before the election, there should have been 40 awful revelations about George Bush - one each day, each worse than the one before it.

Hint:
Forget spin. The voters we're after don't care about it. If you're worried the other campaign will spin you as being too negative, you've already lost the election. Your job is to do your job, play dirty, punch hard and not care what people think.


Rule 5: (put a huge star next to this rule)
Pick ONE individual to head up your election team and give this person TOTAL AUTHORITY to manage any and all advertising messages and perception issues. Whatever he or she says - goes! And no more discussion.

Example:
There were twenty nine people in charge of Kerry, including Kerry himself. The public heard twenty nine different viewpoints. The Republicans had one person in charge. Rove. The public heard one viewpoint. Rove's.

Hint:
Pick the roughest, toughest, meanest person who has ever created wildly successful advertising/PR campaigns. Make damned sure this person is a real marketer, doesn't take any guff from anybody and is NOT a political stooge.
Finally, make sure ALL the money flows to this one person and all spending is coordinated through this person alone.

Rule 6:
No more nuance.
The target audience not only fails to understand even the most obvious nuance, they actually HATE the idea there even IS a nuance in the first place. (It even sounds French!)
Nuance - bad. Black and white - good!
Example:
"A marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman" - George Bush. "I'm personally against gay marriage, but I feel the states should decide." - John Kerry (Too Nuanced By Half!!)

Hint:
Forget that issues really DO demand nuance, at least until the election is over. So until November, pick a side on each issue and make sure your target audience understands clearly what that side is. And relax. The only people you'll sound like a simpleton to are already voting for you anyway.


Rule 7:
Choose one very clear label for your candidate and never EVER let go of it. Keep hitting it hard until everyone in America knows it is EXACTLY what your candidate stands for.

Example:
George Bush was the "unwavering commander-in-chief who won the war on terror".
John Kerry was _________. Whatever he was - wasn't bad, but we're still not able to fill in that blank.

Hint:
Think of a one word label that your target can quickly grasp. "America, I am the Jobs President!" Don't worry about which label is best. Just choose one and let that be the centerpiece. All other things the candidate talks about will grow out of this one strong position.

Rule 8:
Raise as much money as humanly possible and then divide it into two equal piles. One goes to media/adv/pr and the other to recruiting, training and firing up volunteers.

Example:
Karl Rove found and motivated volunteers who went where no campaign had gone before - into parts of Florida where alligators were more likely to vote than people.

Hint:
Your volunteers MUST BE a member of your target audience. You need to find volunteers who attend the same church, go to the same stores and who like and dislike the same things your target audience does! Remember, you cannot spend TOO MUCH money or do TOO MUCH demographic homework and research making this happen!

Rule 9:
Do not give Karl Rove any help whatsoever. In other words, do not start with a candidate that puts you in a twenty foot ditch that he will never let you fight your way out of.

Example:
No example necessary. Or, there are too many of them from this past election to even get into.

Hint:
This one is no walk in the park, but it is not impossible.
No obvious liberals. Nobody from the Northeast. Nobody who cannot remain strong and stay firm on issues while tacking to the center in a convincing, spirited way.

Hint! Hint!
Bill Richardson. Wesley Clark. Evan Bayh


Rule 10:
Start today. Not later today. Now. Karl Rove has already picked a candidate and crafted a strategy that he is confident will womp your stupid Democratic butt. And make no mistake about it: he has also already dug up tons of dirt on the 20 people you're most likely to nominate.

Example:
By the time the Democrats got around to throwing a few punches in 2004, they were defensive punches and way too late. They should have started in December 2000.

Hint:
Don't put off your homework for tomorrow morning. Karl Rove isn't. Collect data on whoever they might nominate. Spend some time NOW figuring out how to effectively deal with anybody and everybody they might nominate.

Rule 11:
Stop trying to be ATAP, or "All Things To All People". You will fail. There is no way in this great country of ours that you will ever be more than 65% of things to 55% of the people. That's your goal, by the way. You reach it and you own the White House in 2008.

Example:
Karl Rove didn't bother with liberals and even most democrats. He went after Republicans and the squishy center and didn't waste any time or money on anybody else. (He also didn't care what everybody else thought of him or his candidate.)
Hint:
In 2008, there'll be a lot of people who voted for Bush who are going to be OPEN to a new candidate, IF it's the right candidate and you IF make people perceive it's the right candidate. Work hard to figure out who these people are and what they want to hear. Then go for it.

RULE 12
Keep a copy of these rules by your pillow and read them every night. Then, when you wake up, make damned sure you follow them every day. No example or hint required. If you adhere to these rules, you are going to NEUTRALIZE Rove by making this Rove Versus Rove.

On a neutral playing field, (you may want to check the voting machines in the meantime) you're going to win. Big time.

Memory and Govenrment

The Office of Technology Assessment was created in 1972 so that Congress had its own stable of critical scientific expertise and wouldn't have to trust the Executive Branch's information. It consisted of 143 smart people—public servants all—who sat in a building on Pennsylvania Avenue about a 3 blocks from Congress working to both educate and enlighten our legislature about both the benefits and hazards of technology. Part of their mission was to think long-term—everything from health care to energy alternatives. Of course, much of its work had an impact on defense matters and the beginning of the end came when some Defense Dept. missile defense fans ganged up with the conservative Heritage Foundation and lambasted OTA for issuing a critical report on their favored program. OTA was cheap help, costing around 21 million a year –and all reports were vetted by six Dems six Republicans. This organization and its invaluable memory were wiped out by the Contract with America in 1994.

An interesting article.

Faith and Conflict

The unstated premise is that faith is anchored to some static reality that directs it - you could call this God. If we dispense with that premise, then a religion becomes as dynamic as events and its core beliefs will allow.

If there is no one God to anchor religion to His will, then religion either becomes entirely disassociated from reality and goes the way of so many past religions, or it responds to reality in its struggle to maintain relevance and influence.

Had history not supported Islam and Christianity they might have long gone the way of Odin and Zeuss. But the Irish Catholic/Protestant and 9/11 obscenities have not undermined the religions that spawned them. Instead they have reinforced them, for by these obscenities religion is not only responding to reality, it is directing it.

Given that any monotheistic faith is a zero-sum game (a convert to Islam is a loss to Christianity and vice versa), in that sense at least, all religions are in conflict, and no religion has much time for a pagan, which makes most of us legitimate victims of someone else's beliefs (or so some of us obviously believe).

In view of this Islam is becoming progressively more socially significant for several reasons:

1. The nations with most of the world's oil are mostly Islamic. Islam is a very wealthy religion - it can afford conflict with the nations that need its oil without fear of sanction. It can also afford to buy the weapons it hasn't the social infrastructure to manufacture.

2. America has been demonized by Islam in the Middle East. It is now an ethically legitimate target for many Muslims, not just a lunatic fringe.

3. The Bush administration's overtly Christian agenda reinforces rather than defuses the significance of national faith in national conflict.

In short, America's negative sentiment about Islam is reciprocated.

If Islam is seduced by its nascent ability to direct reality rather than follow it then we can expect faith-based conflict.

Time we got some peoples' religion out of our government and our troops back where they belong?

Iraq and the iron maiden narrative

The Iraq debacle has soured national sentiment for war - in that respect we differ from the pre-1914 political climate. On the other hand, Europe had just experienced the disastrous Crimean War and yet it still blundered into WWI, perhaps because the narratives of the time worked like iron maidens, putting each of the European powers in a vise where, once certain things happened, the only possible conclusion was war. In the case of Iran we run the risk of an extremist response to an extreme provocation. Who the provoker and who the provoked is a moot point in the circumstances.

It seems likely the reasons for invading Iraq were both ideological and venal (certainly oil revenues were seen as part and parcel of the operation), but the invasion, no matter how altruistic in intent, is now widely perceived as unjust - a word that resonates especially powerfully in the Middle East. If we are to defuse the region we need to be far more pragmatic about it, for when extremism meets extremism the outcome is foreordained.

Dubai and American Ports

Most political analysis follows the binary nature of the American political structure. In these blogs we focus on the analysis of the true meaning in political events. Our starting point is to consider the Dubai-based management of American ports. The overwhelming question at issue is: why is Bush so adamant that the deal should go ahead without the proper congressionally-ordained review? His position teeters perilously close to antagonizing congress and uniting opposition to the deal across all ideological divides.

Obviously there is more at stake here than meets the eye.

Why did Bush threaten a veto? Even if he has a stake in it he would have been well advised to keep a low profile.

The most plausible reason I can come up with is that his very public assurances are directed outside America; at keeping a somewhat shaky deal on track. Obviously there's rather a lot of money on the line, but it may be a strategic or tactical issue rather than a venal one.

In reality, the risks of closely monitored Arab-based management are probably no greater than poorly monitored American management, but the deal is clearly unacceptable to the American electorate.

Interesting to see how Bush/Cheyney/Rove are going to defuse the mindset they have created and used so effectively to this point. It has become an obstacle to their interests.