|
Postmortem on the Marketing of Ron Paul (Part 2)
June 19, 2008 The Best of the Paul Campaign Effective
communication is a mix of theater and content, and Paul’s performances
in the debates usually helped the campaign immensely. Why? Because they
were not under the control of his central staff. For example, Dr. Paul
struck an inspiring antiwar blow in Columbia, South Carolina (May 15,
2007). There, he pointed out that terrorists
are over here because we are over there. This showed his ability to
feel empathy and educate the audience. When the biased moderator
retaliated by asking if we “invited” the 9-11 attacks, Paul should
have stuck by his position and become even more aggressive. He should have
parried the implied accusation by saying “yes absolutely, if you mean
that the policy of the U.S.
government was an invitation.” Instead, he visibly back-peddled
before regaining his equilibrium. Sensing weakness, Giuliani zoomed in and
showed what a master of theater can do. He feigned outrage and insisted
that Paul withdraw the remark. Paul again lost ground because he did not
immediately stand up to Giuliani’s demand by saying “I refuse!” and
then continue with his long explanation. This sluggish timing made it
appear as if Giuliani had scored a point when, in fact, he hadn’t.
Theater, or the lack of it, plagued the Paul campaign. Ron
Paul was at his best speaking to a primarily African-American audience at Tavis
Smiley’s All-American Presidential Forum on September 27, 2007. In
that venue, he correctly identified the heavy price inflicted on the black
community (and less affluent communities in general) by the war on drugs.
There is a high price being paid by those who are chewed up in the vicious
prison system, by those who are killed and injured in neighborhoods
plagued by cross-fire between the rival gangs created by the drug war (as
my grandmother was), and by those whose property is stolen because of the
artificially high price of illegal drugs. These horrors constitute an ugly
stain on the faces of every DEA, FBI, and local agent of law
enforcement—not to mention those in the judicial system and staffing our
prisons. The people in the audience at the Smiley Presidential Forum knew—and
more importantly—felt the
truth of what Dr. Paul was saying about the drug war. In contrast, too
many right-wing populists, such as the Lewciferians,
pretend that opposition to the drug war is the concern of cosmopolitan,
self-indulgent wastrels who celebrate depravity. As libertarians,
however, we understand that victimless crimes are not crimes at all. They
are often self-destructive choices. By criminalizing them, they become far
worse tragedies that ensnare unwilling new victims among the young and old
alike. $35 Million Over the Dam The
Paul campaign pandered to right-wing populists on such matters as shifting
taxes away from “state-approved” families, subsidizing the education
industry, and barring the immigration of undocumented workers. This
undercut the consistency and power of the indivisible freedom message, and
people detected the compromises and contradictions. In Paul’s campaign,
they added up to a bad case of cognitive
dissonance, which compromised Paul’s credibility among voters on the
left and in minority communities. It made them wonder if Dr. Paul could
possibly understand their concerns. The
official advertisements for the Paul campaign were a farce. We all have
witnessed well crafted advertising. One blogger at Antiwar.com reminded us
of the famous advertisement
for the Apple Computer shown during the 1984 Superbowl. It featured a
hammer-wielding heroine, who smashed Big Brother’s huge TV image. It
aired only once, yet it is still discussed and fondly remembered 24 years
later. But what did the Ron Paul campaign deliver with its $35,000,000
budget? Totally forgettable, over-generalized, statements about patriotism
with a soundtrack that made the same claims as every other Republican
candidate. Oh, and he delivered babies, too. These
commercials violated a vital aspect of strong positioning because they
failed to differentiate Ron Paul from his competitors. Remember: the goal
of positioning is to establish a unique
niche for a product or service. Only Ron Paul had the track record to
match the political territory he carved out: a 100% anti-tax voting
record, unrelenting opposition to the war, an understanding of the 9-11
attack as foreign policy blowback, a call to reduce our bloated
military-industrial complex, and steadfast opposition to erosion of our
civil liberties. The ads placed by his central campaign did not convey
this. I heard no antiwar message in San Diego. In every way, they failed
the standard advertising tests of (1) conveying vital information related
to the product, (2) getting one’s attention, and (3) being memorable and
worthy of repetition. Instead, they seemed to run away (in fear?) from the
good parts of Ron Paul’s message as stated in the debates. Was it
because the staff simply didn’t get it, or were they actually against
those ideas? Ron
Paul’s campaign did not lack a pool of talented writers from which to
draw. I personally spoke to one of the leading writers in the libertarian
community. His books are filled with wit, humor, and facts. His bid to the
Paul campaign, however, was rejected. So whom did
they hire and why? Remember: the contribution of tested communication
professionals in a campaign of this type is worth more than the best
product of 100 inexperienced family members or other bargain-basement
staffers. Where did the money go? And I, for one, did not make a donation
so that Ron Paul could start a
foundation. Where are the ethics in that? Missed Opportunities Here
in San Diego, Paul’s commercials aired exclusively on right-wing radio
programs (the ones with Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.). The decision to recruit
exclusively from the right side of the spectrum in this way was a big
mistake. There was a huge audience waiting on the other end of the
political radio dial. For example, after each Republican debate, Air
America talk show host Randi
Rhodes devoted half of her programming time to audio clips of Ron
Paul. It was amazing! She couldn’t believe her ears, and she played them
over and over again in admiration. True, she stated her disagreement with
some of Paul’s positions, but her praise of his stance on the war and
other issues was so enthusiastic that everything else paled by comparison.
She even pointed out that Paul had provided remarkably intelligent
responses to questions about debt, spending, and gays in the military. The
audience also responded positively. Unfortunately, the Paul camp did not
respond to repeated requests for interviews by Randi Rhodes’ staff.
Consequently, he never had a chance to tap into this ready-and-willing
audience. Why? Another
failure to jump on a great opportunity was the debate at Florida
Atlantic University on January 24, 2008. The candidates were allowed
to pose one question to an
opponent—a chance to really put them on the spot. Dr. Paul could have
sounded the alarm on John McCain’s many flip-flops about the war,
torture, the economy, or his “questionable conduct” during the
infamous Keating Five
scandal. But when Dr. Paul had the microphone and everyone’s attention
was riveted to his face, McCain was asked this question: What would he do
with the president’s Working Group on Financial Markets? The uncanny
silence that followed was sheer unbelief. I could almost see the words Are you kidding? hanging in the air. Meanwhile, the audience slipped
into a deep coma. Politics is theater, but instead of delivering a
punch-line, Dr. Paul prescribed a sleeping pill. McCain, of course,
didn’t have a clue about what Paul was asking, but his evasion was
smooth enough to prevent Paul from scoring a point. Was this the wooden
stake that the Paul campaign would drive into the heart of a lunatic who
promised to bomb, bomb,
bomb…bomb, bomb Iran? And was this gaff Paul’s or the
campaign’s? Paul’s Decentralized Volunteers Paul’s
decentralized volunteers were another matter. Their road signs, blimps,
Youtube clips, anthems, Meetup groups, and rallies were a lively contrast
to the official campaign. I had a chance to interview a Pauluteer from
Oklahoma, and he told me that his group had great difficulty getting the
Paul campaign to release the email list so that they could coordinate
activities before the primary. While this particular Oklahoman understood
the importance of a consistent freedom message, he characterized most
volunteers as (1) Christian right, (2) formerly pro-war types who had
changed their minds (because the war turned south?), and (3)
limited-government types. Many were characterized as “only willing to
grant as many liberties as they felt comfortable with.” On
the night of Super Tuesday, I met with 30 or 40 Paul supporters at a San
Diego restaurant and had a chance to interview about half of them. Three
were avowed libertarians (which doesn’t mean much in San Diego as these
are usually cross-dressing Republicans). The rest were energetic young
people who had become active in their first political campaign. I was
refreshed by this influx of bright young people to the cause of
anti-statism. On the positive side, I learned that they were excited,
dedicated, and had a good grasp of selected issues such as debt, taxes,
and war. They were the kind of people who had created the Ron Paul
rEVOLution logo with love
highlighted in red. None of them, however, had put together their
understanding of disparate issues into a consistent philosophy of freedom.
I concluded that they lacked the ideological roots that would anchor their
beliefs over a lifetime. And I’m not sure if Ron Paul is capable of
supplying the missing ingredients. The
fledgling Paulians have not been exposed to Murray Rothbard’s compelling
non-aggression axiom and the concept of self-ownership as described in his
books For
a New Liberty and Ethics
of Liberty. As a result, they may be unable to derive libertarian
positions on many important issues. For example, I found that they were
confused by dichotomies such as imperialism vs. self-defense,
tax-dependent parents vs. financial responsibility, vouchers vs.
educational freedom, tax-shifting vs. tax reduction, nuclear energy vs.
market-supported energy, environmentalism and abuse of the commons vs.
enforcement of property rights against trespass, bogus energy
self-sufficiency vs. a free market in energy, protectionism vs. free
trade, trade balances vs. free trade, crony capitalism vs. free
competition, and the government vs. a voluntary society. In short, they
appeared to be unschooled on topics that Ron Paul had not addressed. Nonetheless,
these young people are part of
the future of libertarianism. They are missing their other half from the
left side of the aisle, and they were not helped by those who
“protected” them from an improved campaign message. To me, this
pitfall was summed up by one of my fellow anti-war protesters at the
weekly vigil near my home. He was a dogmatic progressive-liberal, and he
was responding to my disappointment that Ron Paul’s radio commercials
had not mentioned the war or the 1 million dead Iraqi casualties, only the
U.S. soldiers. His answer was frighteningly perceptive: “Maybe they knew
their constituency.” Sometimes We’re Not Responsible This
brings us back to the point I made at the beginning of this essay.
Political candidates—even those whose views are only partly libertarian
as in the case of Ron Paul—are not to blame for every failure. Likewise,
they are not responsible for every success. Ron Paul’s campaign was
borne aloft in a powerful back-draft of statist debacles—the twin wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq and a totalitarian crackdown at home. The
72-year-old congressman from Texas was like the little boy in “The
Emperor’s New Clothes” by Hans Christian Andersen, pointing out
the obvious. Dubya was a certified disgrace, and most of his Republican
cronies were too vain to admit it. The Democrats, knowing they were no
better, kept their mouths shut. Maybe they were remembering Jimmy
Carter’s Afghanistan Adventure and Bill Clinton’s intervention in
Yugoslavia. So where does this leave us? Candidates who employ as much libertarian rhetoric as the better Republicans and Democrats of the 1980s and 1990s now seem to shine forth as flashlights among the fireflies—and Ron Paul has been shining brighter than most. He and his supporters should congratulate themselves for doing the right thing when they did it…and for doing well what they did well. The rest—as is often the case—was just dumb luck. We can’t take credit for the weather—or the ebb tide of politics. |
Exclusive
to STR
