I’ve seen this idea pop up from time to time lately, the idea that conservatives “are better marketers.” I think this is partly true, marketing is inherent to capitalist goals after all, but I think it might also be because the strongest ideas at the core of conservatism lack nuance. Or context. Or widespread practical application. Which are all things that don’t sell well. If an idea or a headline doesn’t immediately land with an audience, it doesn’t sell—and that’s coming from a copywriter.
Yeah, Andrew Hartman singles this out as a great piece of simple speechwriting (https://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/buchanan-culture-war-speech-speech-text/) ... but look how little Buchanan, an expert at this sort of thing, has to do here as far as audience goes. The Democrats have a version of this they could do (this Jesse Jackson DNC speech from '84 https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-rainbow-coalition-speech-to-the-democratic-national-convention/) but even there JJ is nodding to tons of micro-constituencies (Buchanan can keep it much more focused on one, but JJ at least invented a term for his pluralistic appeal, the "rainbow coalition") and Jackson was uniquely lacking in nuance (and high in in-person charisma) among left politicians. If forced (as a copywriter) to write for one side or the other, knowing I was going to be judged solely on results and totally behind the scenes, I'd take Buchanan's job in the Nixon/Reagan White Houses.
Are we referring to conservative political thought or Republican messaging?
Politics/campaigns is a completely different business than policy, think pieces, magazines, etc.
Most people would be surprised if they went to a FedSoc event, read Commentary or National Affairs essays, or did some of the fellowships I have done or worked with.
For politics...
Reagan and now Trump have excellent messaging (whether one agrees or not).
On the other side of the political aisle, Obama and Clinton had excellent messaging.
I guess what I am saying is, people love to be like conservatives much dumb Orange Man Bad lol anti-vaxx but I am like "Have you READ Irving Kristol?" "Have attended a lecture about the Civil Rights Act by Roger Pilon?"
I have read all of those things, write for many of those magazines (https://www.oliverbateman.com/bibliography), spent three summers at the Jesse Helms Free Enterprise Center,
and went to a faith-based law school. This is Lichtman’s point, not mine.
What I do agree with is that it is easier to direct unifying themes aimed at a right audience than a left audience. Both feature internal feuds (I cover those related to both, etc.) but the left audience generally requires more differentiation in terms of messaging. That said, people leave both parties and there’s a lot of conversion literature going both ways. It’s fascinating
The book is not nearly as charitable as I would be or as Andrew Hartman (or even Corey Robin!) to the actual ideas, but focuses on the core challenge facing conservative governance over the past 100 years (public morality overreach and its own kind of crony capitalism). When I asked if liberalism could support a similar analysis, he said of course, but he’s too old for that. The problems there would be different but no less sustained when applied to governance (crony bureaucracy supporting various patronage groups, state revenue capture, numerous inflation triggers)
Do you mean the movement and the outcomes of conservative intellectual thought?
I agree that conservatism has failed when it comes to crony capitalism and rent seeking (much of which happens in the orgs! I call it "libertarian welfare"), but there are some really interesting intellectual debates.
Yes, debates and long-form essays don't pass legislation but for years they served as incubators of good ideas.
To the extent Lichtman is making that point, he does not have that history, is not embedded like that, etc. But that is why I cover these things myself
Yeah great call out to the ways audience variety plays in. My perspective may certainly be skewed, but as someone who’s been on both sides of the political isle within the last 7 years of my adult life, the left seems to have a lot more voices to please. The basic binary of the left wanting change and the right wanting to keep things as they’ve been or were in the past also supports the idea that the Democratic party faces a bigger challenge in unifying voters under a single message.
Politicians certainly lean into flattened perspectives, but I often find conversations with any regular person who isn’t either aligned with current conservative values or significantly far left to be more tolerant of nuance or open to debate. In other words, they’re most open to doing the work.
I’ve seen this idea pop up from time to time lately, the idea that conservatives “are better marketers.” I think this is partly true, marketing is inherent to capitalist goals after all, but I think it might also be because the strongest ideas at the core of conservatism lack nuance. Or context. Or widespread practical application. Which are all things that don’t sell well. If an idea or a headline doesn’t immediately land with an audience, it doesn’t sell—and that’s coming from a copywriter.
Yeah, Andrew Hartman singles this out as a great piece of simple speechwriting (https://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/buchanan-culture-war-speech-speech-text/) ... but look how little Buchanan, an expert at this sort of thing, has to do here as far as audience goes. The Democrats have a version of this they could do (this Jesse Jackson DNC speech from '84 https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-rainbow-coalition-speech-to-the-democratic-national-convention/) but even there JJ is nodding to tons of micro-constituencies (Buchanan can keep it much more focused on one, but JJ at least invented a term for his pluralistic appeal, the "rainbow coalition") and Jackson was uniquely lacking in nuance (and high in in-person charisma) among left politicians. If forced (as a copywriter) to write for one side or the other, knowing I was going to be judged solely on results and totally behind the scenes, I'd take Buchanan's job in the Nixon/Reagan White Houses.
I see your point. I suppose I would ask...
Are we referring to conservative political thought or Republican messaging?
Politics/campaigns is a completely different business than policy, think pieces, magazines, etc.
Most people would be surprised if they went to a FedSoc event, read Commentary or National Affairs essays, or did some of the fellowships I have done or worked with.
For politics...
Reagan and now Trump have excellent messaging (whether one agrees or not).
On the other side of the political aisle, Obama and Clinton had excellent messaging.
I guess what I am saying is, people love to be like conservatives much dumb Orange Man Bad lol anti-vaxx but I am like "Have you READ Irving Kristol?" "Have attended a lecture about the Civil Rights Act by Roger Pilon?"
I have read all of those things, write for many of those magazines (https://www.oliverbateman.com/bibliography), spent three summers at the Jesse Helms Free Enterprise Center,
and went to a faith-based law school. This is Lichtman’s point, not mine.
What I do agree with is that it is easier to direct unifying themes aimed at a right audience than a left audience. Both feature internal feuds (I cover those related to both, etc.) but the left audience generally requires more differentiation in terms of messaging. That said, people leave both parties and there’s a lot of conversion literature going both ways. It’s fascinating
Yes, yes. My point comment is aimed at Lichtman's argument. I have not read the book, only your analysis.
I see the point about a unifying theme because conservatism, by nature, has a unifying theme of patriotism and Western/Christian values.
The book is not nearly as charitable as I would be or as Andrew Hartman (or even Corey Robin!) to the actual ideas, but focuses on the core challenge facing conservative governance over the past 100 years (public morality overreach and its own kind of crony capitalism). When I asked if liberalism could support a similar analysis, he said of course, but he’s too old for that. The problems there would be different but no less sustained when applied to governance (crony bureaucracy supporting various patronage groups, state revenue capture, numerous inflation triggers)
Do you mean the movement and the outcomes of conservative intellectual thought?
I agree that conservatism has failed when it comes to crony capitalism and rent seeking (much of which happens in the orgs! I call it "libertarian welfare"), but there are some really interesting intellectual debates.
Yes, debates and long-form essays don't pass legislation but for years they served as incubators of good ideas.
To the extent Lichtman is making that point, he does not have that history, is not embedded like that, etc. But that is why I cover these things myself
Yeah great call out to the ways audience variety plays in. My perspective may certainly be skewed, but as someone who’s been on both sides of the political isle within the last 7 years of my adult life, the left seems to have a lot more voices to please. The basic binary of the left wanting change and the right wanting to keep things as they’ve been or were in the past also supports the idea that the Democratic party faces a bigger challenge in unifying voters under a single message.
Politicians certainly lean into flattened perspectives, but I often find conversations with any regular person who isn’t either aligned with current conservative values or significantly far left to be more tolerant of nuance or open to debate. In other words, they’re most open to doing the work.
Yes! That’s where I’m coming from with all of this work
Yes, Commentary, First Things, and National Affairs—- notoriously nuance lacking conservatism 🙄
Well, they're there partly to keep people like the late Daniel Moynihan and myself in business...shhhhhh