Why Repubs are better at selling lies, and what we can do about it

Many people have made the observation lately that Repubs are better at lying than Dems are at telling the truth. I would re-cast that to say that Republicans are better at SELLING lies than Democrats are at selling the truth. I have an idea why, and I think I know what we can do about it.

Many people have made the observation lately that Repubs are better at lying than Dems are at telling the truth. I would re-cast that to say that Republicans are better at SELLING lies than Democrats are at selling the truth. I have an idea why, and I think I know what we can do about it.

Many on the left hate selling
Many Democrats like to think that the sheer TRUTHFULNESS of our ideas will be so evident that the ideas will sell themselves, but it just isn't so. People need to be sold on any new idea.
There's a saying: "If nobody is willing to buy your product, either you're a terrible salesperson or what you are trying to sell is crap." If our product isn't crap, then the reason people won't buy our product is because we are not good salespeople. And the reason we're not good salespeople is because many on the left think it's below us. Selling is something that sleazy people have to do because their ideas aren't good enough. Where does this come from? I think it comes from all the highly sensitive people on the left.

HSP's hate selling because they hate being sold to
See, I've been reading this book, "The Highly Sensitive Person", a lovely owner's manual for us highly sensitive types. For those of you new to this concept, it refers to those people who have a strong empathic sense, are deeply movd by the arts or music, are easily rattled by having to do too much too fast, become drained by lots of social interaction, and have a rich inner life. You can take a test to see where you fall here: Highly Sensitive Person Self-Test.

Around 15-20% of the population falls into this category. One of the traits associated with highly sensitive people is an extreme unwillingness to proselytize. Most sensitive people think that what we believe is good for us, but we wouldn't dream of trying to impose our beliefs on other people. We hate selling because we hate being sold to. We came to our beliefs through intense soul-searching and believe that other people go through the same process. I think the problem is that most people are NOT like this. For many people they get their values and beliefs handed to them, and they like it like that.

Many or all HSP's are on the left
I think we've got a huge preponderance of highly sensitive people on the left. I posted a diary a couple weeks ago - "Are you a highly sensitive person?" - with a poll (if you haven't taken it, please do so!). At this point it shows 41% of the 53 respondents saying that they are highly sensitive people. This is at least DOUBLE the percentage you'll see in the population at large. Now granted, the subject line probably attracted more sensitive people, and dKos itself is a select community, so I can't draw any conclusions. But I think it's possible that all or most of the highly sensitive people in the American population are on the left. Which would explain a LOT, but in this case it might explain why we're so bad at selling.

Non-HSP's need to talk about selling loudly and frequently
If that's the diagnosis, what's the prescription? I think that the people on the left who are not HSP's, who intrinsically understand the importance of selling and marketing, AND know how to do well, need to CONSTANTLY hammer at why selling is important. And they need to teach by example and just do it.

Sensitive people are never going to fully understand why selling is important. It just doesn't figure in our decision-making the way it does with most people. However, if somebody reminds us why it's important, and we see that, contrary to all expectations, it actually works, I think the left as a whole will be better off for it.

Disclosure: I am not a sales or marketing person by any means, but I did major in Rhetoric, so I'd like to think I know a little about connecting speaker with audience. As long as I don't have to sell anything.

•  Speaking of selling lies...

  ...here's an interesting article about David Brock's new organization, Media Matters.

  http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2004/05/11/right/index.html

  by danielj on Tue May 11, 2004 at 05:40:35 PM PDT

•  Combined front

  The Right also has a combined front that helps get their message out.  No matter what the topic or policy, the talking heads/pundits/editorials/think tanks tackle the issue with the same message. For the Average Joe, if he/she reads or hears something in multiple places then he/she is more likely to believe what is said or read.  

  This is beginning to change for the Left (thankfully), but most conservatives push their agenda on multiple topics on multiple fronts, while we on the Left have a hodge-podge attitude.  In other words, we have our individual favorite progressive ideals or pet policies, but we aren't as aggressive about other points.  We need to unite efforts and our voice will grow louder.  We also need to recruit and support local and regional candidates like the Religious Right has been doing for over 25 years.  The blogs should collectively pat themselves on the back for their support of local candidates as well.  I am impressed with the money pouring into local contests that occur in another state.  I also think Dean's new effort will go along way to promote this process and "sell" our concepts.  I think the coming years will be very exciting for those with a progressive agenda, especially at the local/state level.

  by Mote Dai on Tue May 11, 2004 at 05:44:01 PM PDT

•  lack of belief in the public

  Since being around more hardcore Dems than every before in the last year (both online and offline), I've come to a few conclusions about why they aren't always winning battles that they think they should win.

  First, many seem to think attacking is always the best strategy. For every one post on dKos trying to elicit how Sen. Kerry is best talked up, there are nine saying we need to focus on this negative aspect of Pres. Bush. But that doesn't work. People want to vote for something not against something. The election isn't purely a referendum of the president, but a comparative choice between two people. The electorate can either stay with Bush, given all the good and bad features of giving him  four more year, or they can put Kerry in that Oval Office for all his good and bad features. Votes are won by drawing distinctions between candidates, and it is something I have noticed in person. You are far more likely to get a vote by telling somebody how Kerry is better than Bush that just by trashing Bush. No matter how bad something may think Bush to be, if Kerry still isn't perceived to be a better choice as president, then Bush will still get the vote, even if very reluctantly. This is what we've been seeing in the campaign until recently. People didn't wasn't to really give Bush another term, but Kerry wasn't seen to be any better.

  Iraq may be falling apart, but if Kerry isn't seen as bringing a viable solution to the table, there is no reason to vote for him. Kerry can talk about getting troops from other nations or turning over to the UN, but if people don't think that is possible, his proposal is DOA as far as the electorate is conderned.

  Second, Dems focus too much on the past. The past does give you useful information about the future, but it isn't entirely predictive. Jobs may have been lost, but if job creation has turned the corner significantly and the electorate sees us as finally heading in the right direction (even though two years late), there is little reason to vote for Kerry unless he can do better. The past is gone, and it is only useful in as much as it shows how the future will unfold.

  Third, massive elitism really does exist in the left. It's sad, but many Democrats don't like democracy. They view the people as too stupid or sheep. They have no respect for the electorate. The California recall was a pretty good example of this. Dems across the nation were saying that there was "too much" democracy (as if that is even possible). The disdain many Dems have for markets (either economic or idea) shines though in a  number of policies. Targeted tax breaks are a good example. Why not just reduce marginal rates? Because people need to be coerced into spending and investing their money in the appropriate way.

  However, the biggest fallout of elitism is in the stubborness to admit when your message is failing because it is wrong. People become too stupid to understand your "nuanced" position and those oaf Republicans just shout simplistic slogans (even the acedemic Repubs are seen as unintelligent and sloganeering).

  I think that the electorate is our best resource. When it votes, it choses the best available option given to it with all available information. Austerity or "eat your vegatables" policy is only good at creating bad policy, because it is the people that know what it best for themselves.

  The best presidential election ad showing right now is Kerry's talking head ad where he lists three points. As soon as I saw it, I immediately repositioned my investment portfolio because I anticipated it to be a turning point. It seems like it was. It was forward thinking by telling us what he was going to do, it was comparative when in mentioned Bush, and it didn't treat people like idiots.

  People can handle details. However, sometimes what those deeply involved in the politics game see as  important the electorate doesn't care about because it doesn't give them that comparative, forward-looking picture.
  

  by jjayson on Tue May 11, 2004 at 06:54:09 PM PDT