Washblog

Her story starts off with a fairly straightforward introduction:

I've always wondered why Republicans seem to be so savvy at marketing and mobilization, whereas Democrats seem a bit naive and muddled when it comes to promoting their party line...they've had six long years to learn some Very Clever Tactics, so why aren't they busting any out?  I decide to infiltrate the training camps of both parties to find out exactly what each one is teaching...

Let me stop for one moment and tell you how my daughter referred me to this article.  She said I'd like it because the writer was "obviously neutral" and gave an impartial accounting of both sides operations.  When I read this article, I see a very polished writer who knows how to frame very well and quite subtly and who's obviously a Democrat. She frames so subtly that her target audience, teenage to twentysomething girls, don't even see the bias.  I intend to point her subtle skills out so that we can learn from them ourselves.  She's doing a great job, IMO, of changing how people see each partys approach to public relations, even as she criticizes and calls for a change in how Democrats do things.  By appearing to be impartial, she's doing it in a way that won't cause young people to close their minds to what she's saying.    But look at her choice of words above.  She maintains the illusion of neutrality by referring to Democrats and "their" party line, "they've" had six long years.  Meanwhile, she influences the reader by using such words as "savvy at marketing" to describe the Republicans and "a bit naive and muddled" to describe the Democrats.  Oh poor Democrats!  And everyone hates savvy marketers doncha know?  Subtle and extremely effective.  She's won any neutral readers in her audience over into subconciously rooting for the underdog.  

Why will I be pointing this stuff out as I go along?  Because it's obvious as you read what she's learned at the Republican camp and what she's learned from the Democratic camp that she's actually APPLYING the skills she's learned from the Republican camp in order to make meaningful change in the real world.  That lesson is being passed on to all her readers.

I think ALL progressives could learn from this young woman.  So here goes.

First she goes to the conservative camp at the Leadership Institute which, as she points out, has some very high profile alums such as

Karl Rove, former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed and countless Miss America contestants...I glimpse two personal thank-you notes from President Bush hanging on the wall in the main office.

After her attempts to bond with her classmates fail to get her anywhere, she finally gets us into the heart of the training program.  I don't want to link to her entire article, so let me simply say that she does a great job of showing how the conservative women at this camp are caught up in the authoritarian follower mentality of the right.  None make eye contact with her, they show up at class in pearls and high heels, many are interns at Republican think tanks.  It's a no-nonsense corporate environment.  Then the training begins.

"Perception is reality."  says our speaker, Bryan Wilkes...Bryan is the goateed director of public affairs for the National Nuclear Security Administration.  "It doesn't matter what the truth is.  It's how people perceive what you tell them"  He goes on to tell us about his hero, Edward Bernays, a PR genius who worked for cigarette companies and persuaded weight-concious women to smoke instead of eating candy.  "That guy was brilliant!"

If you've seen the movie Thank You For Smoking then you're probably thinking about the sleazy lead character Nick Naylor right about now. And you've just associated the conservatives with sleazy, lying PR men who put profits above human safety.  Even if you haven't seen the movie, you're probably making that same association anyways, just not with quite the same revulsion.  Either way, Lauren has again subtly manipulated the perceptions of her readers away from the conservatives.  And she's doing it by simply telling the truth!  The conservatives don't hide it, why should she?

She goes on to explain that the camp has little to do with political theory and everything to do with successful PR:

We learn how to present ourselves as warm and likable (smile, smile, smile), how to change the topic (Well, you're supposed to say, "I think the real question here is..."), which of the 19 types of smiles will make people like you most (the one where your eyes crinkle), and how to dress for TV

(Emphasis Mine).

But training doesn't stop there.  That's just the bare bones.  One of her instructors delves into even deeper psychological issues:

"People decide if they like you or not in the first 15 seconds," she says.  "And 93 percent of what people pick up on is nonverbal.  Do undecided voters really focus on issues?"  She pauses for effect.  "No."

I ask Beverly to coach me for the cameras.

"Sure!" she responds.  "What's your talking point?"

"We should stay in Iraq because, um, we should stay the course." I say.

"Okay, well, why don't you try something like this," she says.  Then she closes her eyes and starts shaking her head likes she's at a funeral.  "War is a terrible thing" she begins slowly.  Then she opens her eyes wide and dons a sparkly smile.  "But even more terrible would be abandoning the liberated people of Iraq!  And leaving them to become victims of terrorists!"

I feel disturbed.

And so do her readers.  They no longer believe the bullshit about 'stay the course' and they see conservative propaganda about Iraq for what it is, slick PR.

On her way out she asks for some ideological programs she could sign up for and she's told by an Institute employee that

We're not a think tank, we're a do tank.  We help people win elections.

Emphasis mine.  She makes her final, damning point:  The conservatives are about flash, not substance, but underneath it all, they get tangible results.  Participants get jobs inside the establishment, they get hooked up with think tanks and politicians.  They are set up with the right connections so that they can go out to make actual change by applying what they've learned.

Now on to the Democratic Camp Wellstone.

She begins by explaining how the Democrats don't even own their own buildings, they rent out conference centers, how they don't provide food, but how Camp Wellstone is the premiere training program for Democratic activists.  She describes the students as very ideologically oriented.  It almost sounds like a flashback to the 60's.  Buttons, t-shirts, peace signs.  Then the introduction begins:

"Hi, my name is Erik"...then Erik shows us a video about Sen. Wellstone that ends with him defending his vote against the Iraq war by saying, "I have to do what my clunkheaded heart and soul tell me to do."

Following your clunkheaded heart is very much the cornerstone of this program.

Lauren then tells us how the lessons always stress how your ideals should never be compromised, how you can win elections while remaining true to them.  Unlike the women in pearls and high heels who are being taught to be slick professional PR women at the Leadership Institute, Lauren describes most of her classmates at Camp Wellstone as "political nerds".  And like most nerd conventions, a typical classroom subject ends up devolving rapidly:

One day, we're split into teams and told to come up with a radio ad for a candidate.  In my group of eight, we spend most of our 20 minutes discussing which radio station we would buy time from.  It's like an Abbot and Costello routine.

"We should do it on NPR."

"They don't play ads on NPR."

"But is it a call-in show?"

"What does it matter?  We're not going to call in."

"But-"

A leader suddenly apppears to tell us we have five minutes left, at which point we start writing the ad.  We haven't even finished the script when we're called into the hall to see Erik, who's waiting with a handheld tape recorder.  I think of the Leadership Institute's multimillion-dollar TV studio where staffers are on hand to expertly shape and repackage message into palatable sound bites.

By the end of the second day, they all go out to have margaritas.  At the end of the third day, they all stand and give each other big hugs.  It's very feel good, it's very idealistic, but Lauren worries that

I haven't heard anyone talk about lining up any job interviews or meeting with specific politicians

It's a feel good experience but nothing substantial in the way of applying what they've learned.  For all ths substance, there's no concerted effort to get the message out.  It's all a big Incestuous Amplification that lets the participants walk away feeling like they've "done" something when in fact, they're no further along in promoting their ideology than they were before.

And she finishes with this observation:

"We can be true to our values and still win." he (Erik) tells us....This philosophy is certainly more appealing to me than the Leadership Institute's central tenet of style before substance.  Still, I have to wonder:  Will people really take you seriously if you're wearing sandals and a STOP BITCHING, START A REVOLUTION t-shirt?

So Lauren imparts her final lesson onto her readers and I hope, all progressives who read this:  We need to get with it.  If we want to make real world changes we need to create a training camp that addresses real world needs.  Learn how to make people listen to you.  Just because slick PR sleazeballs do it doesn't mean we can't use that skill to benefit a GOOD cause as well.  And what's the use of a camp that doesn't give it's students leads where they can go to get the most out of their new found skills?

I mean, what is it really about?  A big hug and a few margaritas?  Or winning votes?