Oct 27 2010
The Political “Brand”
In the pre-Internet era, politicians used to personally meet with their potential constituents, kiss babies, and have backyard visits to discuss the topics of the day. While this hasn’t changed, the Internet has allowed politicians to engage with people in unprecedented ways. Through social media and other devices, the gap between leaders and followers is smaller than ever. Or so it would seem…
Obama’s innovative feature www.mybarackobama.com harnessed the power of social networking to rally and mobilize users to aid the campaign surely contributed to the campaign’s success. With the site, users felt like they were directly contributed to the cause, and personally assisting their Barack Obama. They could converse with him over tweets, follow blogs, and participate in whatever other social media jargon seems be #trending these days.
For the first time in history, a national election was heavily determined through widespread interactive technologies. Rather than construct passive narratives that were pushed upon individual regions, Obama and McCain had to create dynamic personas that people of all backgrounds connect to. Whereas the candidates would’ve normally created various TV spots and campaign strategies unique to particular areas and demographics, nearly every part of their campaign was viewed on a national level thanks to the Internet.
This access and exposure, while supposedly making politicians more “transparent,” arguably lessened the credibility of both campaigns. While fudging your image to appeal to various demographics isn’t particularly noble, what developed was even worse: mass commodification of politics. Citizens were no longer electing leaders, they were electing brands.
When Facebook users can “like” politician in the same way they would their favorite band or restaurant, something is miss. Maybe its just the way social networks operate, but a person liking “Barack Obama,” “Vampire Weekend,” “Panera” and “I hate that Sunday night feeling when you know you have school tomorrow!!” all on the same Facebook update says less about that person’s interests and more about the decline of political integrity.
Rather than understand the candidates as people, national campaigns run through social media tend to transform these candidates into mascots. Slogans like “Yes We Can” may be catchy and memorable, but what does it really add to the political discourse? Maybe its because we live in a country that depends on convenience and simplicity, but treating a political campaign like a fast food chain does not seem the right way to go.
Democracy already is an interactive medium. That’s what defines it as form of government. But the packaging and branding of national politics devalues an already low-value enterprise. The art of politics is notoriously slimy and murky. So I remind myself: “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.” While I approve of (most of) Obama’s political decisions, the Obama brand does not add credibility. Social media brings tremendous influence to the political spectrum, but when used as a marketing tool instead of an outreach device, politicians only further the stereotype of corruptible power.
Lilleker/Jackson explain: “So rather than merely amplifying the party brand, they can create their own, so that voters may vote for them as a personal brand… Web 2.0 interactivity can encourage a break-down of the rigid-party system, and move towards a more individualistic system.” Individual for the politician maybe, but not for the voter. While the distinction of a candidate as separate from the party brand is a step in the right direction, continuing to view politicians as “brands” subverts the democratic system. This may be just how politics work, but I’m still dreaming of a better way.