I am hardly the first to note the application of PR principles to politics. Nor is it a new observation. Kennedy and Nixon had their communications advisors; Lincoln read books on rhetoric -- ancient Greeks wrote them.
We now see it in mind-numbing three-word phrases printed, Louis Vuitton-like, on backdrops behind the Presidential podium; in the evolution of "talking points" from a novelty phrase during Monica-gate to commonplace today; and in the devolution of the Cabinet from advisory body to vehicle for staying "on-message."
Many call this a failing of George Bush or of a Republican administration (though the Clintons know this material well too), or a misapplication or perversion of business principles.
But that's not quite right. Politicians haven't misappropriated business lessons -- they borrowed directly, main-lining their Big Brother 1984 lessons from the very heart of what has come to be called business best practices.
The problem isn't cynical politicians twisting business ideas; it is cynical business ideas themselves, granted mainstream legitimacy by business opinion leaders -- the business media, business schools, industry associations, and business leaders themselves. Politicians are just following.
Take four common terms: "on message," "brand," "alignment," and "communication." Now think Marketing 101 (or any CEO's speech), and see how familiar this sounds:
In this consumer-empowered, media-cluttered age, the company that understands customer needs and communicates its message the best is the one that will survive in this hyper-competitive market.Consumers have less and less patience and attention span: companies need to develop a coherent branding message -- the same on the web, in stores, and in ads -- about who they are and what they can do for the customer.
A company not completely aligned around its core value proposition and the message it communicates about that proposition will fail. Sales collateral must be on-message with marketing's branding; incentives must align with company strategy; measurements must track missions, aggregating to sustainable competitive advantage.
Even marketers -- professional cynics -- are taken aback by the success of a current ad campaign. You know it -- "Apply directly to the forehead -- apply directly to the forehead -- apply directly to the forehead." Blunt force repetitive trauma to the brain. Think Orwell. Goebbels. Big Brother. Big Lie.
From there, it's a quick trip to "we're in Iraq to stop Al-Qaeda from invading Kansas," with flight jacket and aircraft carrier backdrop.
Massive repetition works. Better than we like to admit. "Brainwashing" is just a value-laden term for what politely passes as "alignment" and "on-message" in the corporate setting. Even "shared values" brushes uncomfortably close to the same territory.
Reggae rapper Shaggy parodied this angle a few years ago in the song "It Wasn't Me." Seeking advice after having been caught in flagrante by his girlfriend, he's told, "Just say 'It wasn't me'." Repeat it often enough and you can get away with anything. Was he being ironic? Or just astute? (Did he help Larry Craig and OJ come up with "I'm not gay" and "it was my stuff"?)
Mainstream marketing and business 101 teach companies to simplify, refine, and focus on one message and mission, then design the whole organization to apply massive force to the fulcrum point of the customer.
The result is called "tuned," "focused," "aligned, "and -- most chilling -- a perversion of "customer-centric." Apply directly to the marketing. Apply directly to the marketing. Apply directly to the marketing.
Note: there is nothing "wrong" with these techniques -- the means, in this case, are value-neutral. It is the ends to which they are put -- the motives -- that matter.
Unfortunately, Roger Ailes, Turdblossom et al didn't have to translate the business play book to politics. They copied directly. Both have become about winning against other competitors/candidates -- not about helping consumers/voters. Bombardment of the consumer/voter with simple messages is good for quitting smoking or announcing emergency traffic routes. For pharmaceutical and presidential campaigns? Not so much.
In business, it's reach and frequency -- in politics, it's being on-message. Tax and spend. Support our troops. Apply directly to the amygdala.
The problem in business and politics is identical. Both have become all about competition and winning -- not about consumers and voters. Both have turned the legltimate concept of "customer focus" from a goal into a tactic, linking it tightly to quarterly earnings and the two-year election cycle, turning it into a codeword for tweak, massage and manipulate.
At root, this is a failure of belief systems. We are teaching an ideology of short-term me-me-me-ism in business, and our politicians are drinking the same Kool-Aid. For those who think this brand of "competition" is what makes for a successful economy -- take a look at the falling US dollar. Focus on commerce, not on competition, is what makes an economy great.
Don't blame George Bush, Republican; blame George Bush, MBA President. Until the B-schools start preaching networks, collaboration, transparency and commerce in their strategy classes instead of in their so-called "ethics" classes, we in business have no right to complain about the politicians.
Follow Charles H. Green on Twitter: www.twitter.com/charleshgreen
For them, it was solely about two principles: (a) It's a game, and one can safely ignore the rules of the game. The worst that can happen is the equivalent of a free throw for the other team or two minutes in a penalty box. Ethics? Morality? Civility? Surely you jest! "Yes, we're good Chrustians. But that signifies merely that the end is so important, God will forgive any means we might employ to achieve it."
(b) Social, moral, ethical, environmental, and other such issues are binary, not analogue. You're right (meaning you agree with me), or you're wrong. No shades of gray. You agree with me, or you are an agent of Satan. No compromise. No accommodation. No mutual understanding.
How did this happen to our nation? Is there any way to move to a less juvenile, more rational polity?
Is it a coincidence that both sets of actors are drawn from the same pool? Of course not. It's not so much that all fools think alike as it is most fools don't bother to think in the first place.
The language of the new tyranny is the language of the boardroom.
Cicero, or maybe Seneca, I cannot remember which, said he liked young men who blushed because they had a sense of shame, and therefore honor. Our leaders have no sense of shame, because they have no conception of right from wrong; truth from lies; good from evil etc
What I can't take is that Bush really believes that we are all idiots, and are swallowing his bull. If the man had any decency at all he would resign.
Second off. What's sad isn't that this is the state to which our democracy (or republic) has dissolved. What's sad is that your average John Brown can't tell the difference.
Fighting them over there to keep from fighting them over here? We're gonna put millions of innocent people at risk to save a relatively few of ourselves? Is that leadership? And that's just my SECOND objection.
We used to play buzzword bingo at work every time someone wanted to "dialog" or "interface" or wanted to "implement TQM" or the latest "lean"