Re-Framing the Debate: It’s the (Steady State) Economy, Stupid

Jay OwenWealth of Networks

By Brian Czech

 

May I offer you a pet peeve to chew on? I’m willing to share one for our mutual displeasure.

Here it is: Being told by academics and activists—nary a political expert among them—that “it doesn’t matter what you call it, as long as we’re all after the same thing.” With the possible exception of Donald Trump’s lips, nothing could be further from the truth. If common sense doesn’t suffice to illuminate the importance of name recognition, framing, and branding, then perhaps a mini-lesson in political science will.

Poli Sci 101 tells us that name recognition is important to political success. Maybe that’s not a good thing. Maybe it’s not fair that an arrogant sociopath, rich enough to display her name on towers and casinos and plazas, has such an advantage at the ballot box. Maybe the world would be better off if we could call whomever “Whomever” and whatever “Whatever.”

“Apples Tower?” No, not really. (Image: CC BY 2.0, Credit: Ajay_Suresh.)

But that’s not how the world works, so let’s get beyond the wishful thinking and handle the truth. As the old lottery ad went, “Wanna win? Gotta play!”  If we want to win the political game, we have to play by the rules of reality.

Names aren’t just of people, either. Names apply to policies and programs every bit as importantly, if not more so. Unlike people, policies don’t have faces that instantly make long-lasting impressions, helping with recognition and remembrance. For policies, then, the name alone can make all the difference. Think “social security,” “freedom of information,” and “no child left behind.”

When you stop to think about it, how else would the political world work? 

 

Continue reading