Sunday, June 1, 2008

Things I Think About In The Middle Of The Night

I'm a former marketing person. I spent too many years trying to make silk purses out of sows' ears. Or shit taste like chocolate. Expensive chocolate. So, I pay attention to stuff that other people don't. I read the underlying message of the message. I try and figure out what emotional hook advertisers, and politicians are simply advertisers, are employing to sell their products. There is always an emotional hook. If you think you make buying decisions based on facts and figures, or if you think you do not fall prey to manipulative advertising, think again. Just watch all four segments of this film and you will know what I mean.

So, I woke up pondering something in the wee hours this morning. It was after I read the article about McCain and Bush raising $3 million at a private fundraiser in Phoenix. The party was at somebody's house. So, it's probably safe to assume there weren't thousands of people there, especially since tickets ranged from $1000 to $25,000 each. So, those individuals were forking out loads of cash. It is said that some wrote $100,000 checks.

What are the individuals who write that size of a check for McBush hoping to preserve? Their wealth perhaps? The "safety" of our country? Have they really fallen for that Big Lie? Are they buying favors? You expect the favor-buying to happen at the PAC and corporate giving level. So, I'm not sure what these individuals think about when they support McBush.

In contrast, what is on the mind of a person who donates $25 online to Obama's campaign?

I don't have any facts. I'm just saying there's a contrast to ponder.

I'm sure there are "little people" who donate a few bucks at a time online for McBush. But I doubt the McBush campaign focuses on them. I'm also sure that there are wealthy people who donate to Obama's campaign. I know Obama is not taking corporate, lobbyist or PAC donations during this campaign, but I also know he took those kinds of donations before he officially declared. He's taken money from the defense and insurance lobby. So, his hands are not clean. Neither are Hillary's.

I'm implying that wealthy Republicans are less noble than grassroots lower-to-middle class Democrats. That wealthy Republicans are grasping and greedy and unkind and could give a shit about their country, they just want to preserve their own lifestyle. I'm implying that lower-to-middle class Democrats are altruistic and hopeful that they can change the country to be a better place to live, for everyone, even the hoi polloi. I'm implying that Republicans are not nice people, and that Democrats are nice people. Which is unfair because there are probably at least three nice Republicans...somewhere.

Do wealthy Democrats feel the same way as their not-so-wealthy Democrats? Do they donate to a candidate for the same reasons as wealthy Republicans? What is going on when wealthy neocons donate to Democratic campaigns? What was Rupert Murdoch thinking when he donated to Hillary's campaign? What was he hoping to gain?

Do not-so-wealthy Republicans see things the same way as wealthy Republicans...that they want to preserve their lifestyle or hold on to their "wealth" if and when they get wealthy? Or is it them that have fallen for The Big Terrorists n' Mexicans n' Heathens n' Homos Are Going To Kill Us Lie?

Where does the image of the old-time conservative fit in, the ones who believed that individuals and their government should be fiscally responsible and that wealth allows for philanthropy. Or is this a Big Lie too? I know I used to feel that way. When I was climbing the corporate ladder, I wanted to hold on to my wealth and at the same time, give back to my community and to those less blessed.

From a marketing perspective, when Republicans craft their message, are they dishing out fear pablum (terrorist threats, xenophobic threats) for the masses and wealth preservation winks n' nods (if you give me your money, I'll give your company war contracts or favorable legislation, and I won't tax you - my wealthy friends - just the hoi polloi) to the wealthy?

When Democrats craft their marketing message, do they tell one story to the "regular guy" (we'll give you a voice, you count, you can make a difference, you won't be a victim anymore) and another story to the wealthy and powerful (Don't worry about what I say about NAFTA, I really didn't mean it)?

Just wondering.


cyber mistress said...

Of course Murdoch wants to own the global information... the better of which to pimp to media corporate suckers

Mauigirl said...

Interesting question. I think you nailed it on the Republican side (one story to the masses, another to the wealthy) and perhaps on the Democrats too. No side is ideal but of course we all know which side is the better of the two in terms of most of what we believe in.

At one time the Republicans did represent that kind of "nobless oblige" attitude - back in the days of the "Rockefeller Republican." Nixon and Reagan changed all that I guess. As a result not only did the GOP go down the tubes but it's pulling the Democrats with them. The country has shifted much farther right than in the past as a result; "center" is more right than left.