Something I noticed with left vs right marketing

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 23
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
Bernie Sanders wants free healthcare, but his marketing sucks.

If I was Bernie Sanders and I wanted conservatives to support free healthcare (even if I wanted conservatives to support socialism), I would sell the following shirts with a sarcastic message on them:


The MAGA base isn't against socialism and they don't love the rich; they hate rich billionaires like Bill Gates, George Soros, and Mark Zuckerburg.  They merely hate whatever right wing media tells them to hate.


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,223
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Maybe we can force illegal aliens to work to provide this free healthcare without pay.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 273
Posts: 7,912
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Illegal aliens?

I mean, everyone outside of America is technically an alien.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,331
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Seems a bit long and convoluted, not sure the message would get through.

There's always talk about how left wing marketing sucks. I don't disagree that the left could do a better job but there are two things to recognize...

First is that most left wing views are based on far more nuance than their right wing alternatives. Take tax policy for example, any educated and honest individual recognizes that taxation is a necessary burden on any society that cares about maintaining it's functionality. But good luck putting that on a bumper sticker the next time we debate our budget. Compare that to "get your government hands off my hard earned money!". Right wing arguments are almost in every instance overly simplistic notions that appeal to our basic emotional instincts, so they're just easier to sell.

The second point is a bit of an extension of the first, which is that naturally, those advocating for left wing views cater to a very different audience. Right wing rhetoric centers almost entirely on fear; fear of the other, fear of the big bad government coming for your rights, etc. While left wing audiences care more about optimism. Unfortunately the former is much easier to sell and also much easier to bullshit your way through. It's just the way we're wired.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 273
Posts: 7,912
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
Donald Trump can save America from its government.

TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe we can force illegal aliens to work to provide this free healthcare without pay.
Slavery goes against the 13th amendment.

For a libertarian, you are very Trumpian on immigration.  This is fine, but maybe you want to reconsider changing your libertarian label you gave yourself.  I'm  libetarian on the following issues:

1. Immigration
2. Guns
3. War
4. Vaccine mandates
5. Income tax
6. Rank Choice Voting
7. Prostitution (for the unmarried)

Other issues, I'm not a libetarian on (death penalty, adultery (which is legal in many states))
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Compare that to "get your government hands off my hard earned money!". Right wing arguments are almost in every instance overly simplistic notions that appeal to our basic emotional instincts, so they're just easier to sell.
What about Sarcasm?  What if left wing bumper stickers said, "Let Mark Zuckerburg keep his hard earned money!  God bless Big Tech (aka the free market)!".  That's simple, and it's edgy/funny, which right wingers are good at making edgy jokes based on policy.

Right wing rhetoric centers almost entirely on fear; fear of the other, fear of the big bad government coming for your rights, etc.
Some things the left is fearful about:
1. Mass shootings
2. The unvaccinated
3. Democracy being ended
4. Anything Trump
5. Russia
6. White supremacy being normalized

And whatever your justification is for these fears, it's fine.  You can have these fears.  But both the left and the right have certain things they are afraid of (and fear is ok).

While left wing audiences care more about optimism.
The following people were optimistic and very left wing politicians:
1. Ron DeSantis
2. Ronald Reagan
3. Ron Paul
4. Vivek Ramaswamy
5. The entire MAGA base if Trump wins in 2024.

And there is nothing wrong or moral about optimism, whether or not you are optimistic is your choice.  But optimism isn't exclusively left wing.

Did you read my link?  It's just a google drawing.  I don't think you did.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,331
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
What about Sarcasm?  What if left wing bumper stickers said, "Let Mark Zuckerburg keep his hard earned money!  God bless Big Tech (aka the free market)!".  That's simple, and it's edgy/funny, which right wingers are good at making edgy jokes based on policy.
Not everyone is going to see the sarcasm, plus even once they do, the message is pointing to allowing billionaires to keep their money as a way to point out that the tax system is unfair. That's fine, but again, it doesn't compete with the emotions invoked by the idea of having to hand over your hard earned money to the evil greedy government.

And whatever your justification is for these fears, it's fine.  You can have these fears.  But both the left and the right have certain things they are afraid of (and fear is ok).
Strawman response. I never argued the politics of fear was exclusive to the right. I pointed out fear is central to right wing ideology which is not the case on the left.

And there is nothing wrong or moral about optimism, whether or not you are optimistic is your choice.  But optimism isn't exclusively left wing.
Again, you're having a conversation with yourself. 

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,223
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Anything labeled as "free" is anything but. There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 273
Posts: 7,912
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Anything labeled as "free" is anything but
Yeah, its not free for the rich.
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,282
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Anything labeled as "free" is anything but. There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
You got your house for free when your mother died

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,223
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Reported for unwarranted Adhom.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
That's fine, but again, it doesn't compete with the emotions invoked by the idea of having to hand over your hard earned money to the evil greedy government.
What if there was an opposite shirt that said, "These woke globalists control the media!  They have too much power!  Raise their taxes!"?  The right is more anti-woke than they are anti-socialism I think.  Honestly, most people are.  I could talk about my plan to pay off the US debt, nobody cares.  I talk about a transwoman I have never met competing in women's sports (when it's extremely rare) and all of a sudden, people seem interested.

People prefer the culture war of things that don't really matter to a good plan for how to pay off the US debt.  Before Ukraine got invaded, Rand Paul was like, "Not a penny for foreign countries" and the right didn't care.  But when he added, "that burn our flag.", that is what made the right cheer.

People in this country don't genuinely care too much about taxation policy; if you are poor, you aren't taxed much, if you are rich, you are taxed a lot, but you don't really care as much because you got money to burn.  It's also why many rich areas vote blue and many poor areas vote red despite the blue party being more pro taxing the rich and the red party being more anti-welfare; it's because virtually nobody votes on economic policy.  It's always culture war that drives people to the polls, and it's why a black billionaire is more likely to vote democrat than a poor white West Virginia man; even though the democrats want to tax the black billionaire more to help the poor West Virginia man, they also say white privilege is real and that systemic racism is real (the GOP doesn't believe in this) and that appeals to the black billionaire way more than a tax increase of 8% and the poverty stricken white dude way less because a lot of poor people (not all; but a lot) aren't the brightest people; you could give them all the welfare they need to survive, but if that poor person is a white redneck and you say he should check his privilege for being white, he won't vote for you.

It's kinda like the question, "If I gave you $500 because you are ugly, would you take it?"  The smart answer is, "Yes.  I'm ugly; not stupid".  The poor redneck answers "No" to the question.  To them, pride is more important than survival, and to them, telling them they are privileged for being white is an insult to them, so they vote for the red party that will let them starve to death from welfare cuts, but also won't call them privileged to their face based on being white.

I pointed out fear is central to right wing ideology which is not the case on the left.
Reagan didn't seem like a guy that promoted fear in people; although he's before my time.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Anything labeled as "free" is anything but. There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
There is a trade off; the main trade off is that globalist silicon valley elites, the people on Epstein's island, and similar people are going to start to have to pay more in taxes.

Surely you don't like the Silicon Valley globalist elites?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,223
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
There's an opportunity cost for not allowing hyper-productive people to produce.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Greyparrot
America was pretty productive during the 1950s.  Taxes on the rich were 93%.  And the rich still kept on producing (because at that point, earning money is competition).  And we were so far away from communism back then we were literally fighting the USSR back then.

I'm not saying I agree with raising taxes on the rich, but your arguments just aren't good.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,223
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
How many people do you believe actually paid 93% of what they produced?

but your arguments just aren't good.
That does not mean there is no opportunity cost for punishing hyper-productive people.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Greyparrot
How many people do you believe actually paid 93% of what they produced?
In terms of marginal income, everybody in the top 1% under Eisenhower.

That does not mean there is no opportunity cost for punishing hyper-productive people.
What do you mean by opportunity costs?
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Greyparrot
But hey; if you want to defend woke corporation's right to have a lot of money, you do that; it's a free country.

But then you are pro Big Tech if you do that, so just acknowledge that.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,223
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
In terms of marginal income, everybody in the top 1% under Eisenhower.
Interesting.

What do you mean by opportunity costs?
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Greyparrot
What do you think would be accomplished by the globalists keeping most of their money?

When the US government had very high tax rates, our debt was low.  When Reagan cut taxes for the globalists, it caused massive deficit spending.

Nice job sticking up for Big Tech!
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,223
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
globalists keeping most of their money?
What do you think they are going to do with it? Swim in a pool of dollars like a Scrooge McDuck cartoon?

No. They reinvest it in production for society. In fact, it's far more likely a rich person not only has the will and means to reinvest into society, but also the knowledge and experience to choose the best things to invest in that the people really want over what they think the people "should" want. A politician is more likely to be woke and go broke with allocating scarce resources.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Greyparrot
So your argument is that globalists tend to build up their net worth and they tend to improve society more with their money than the government would if the government had their money?

That's fair, but then it means you like the globalists (which is fine; but then be upfront with that if it's what you believe).

 A politician is more likely to be woke
Who do you think is more woke, a politician (Trump, DeSantis, and half of the politicians in federal office), or Big Tech Silicon Valley overlords (the owner of every major social media company except X).

Big Tech CEOs are more likely to be woke than politicians.