2 Oct 2016 · 6 min
John Thibault argues political parties function like outdated brands that demand loyalty while ignoring diverse voter needs. He says the two-party system lacks granularity and local relevance, and parties must evolve to listen to voters and make room for new ideas instead of enforcing strict allegiance.
Chapters
Welcome to the podcast Change a Law. This is John Thibault, the founder and CEO of iLobby and the author of the book how to Change a Law where we discuss politics, policy and, well, political persuasion because we want to empower voters to start thinking about changing laws. So join us. The party is a party. The party is a brand. But all brands need to evolve as brands. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party do not adapt and change quickly enough to meet the needs of their audience. Also, because we only have two brands, we flip back and forth between R and D since neither one satisfies effectively. We have a lot of independence. I saw it today on CNN where someone started a party called the Party Party. But every party needs a platform. If you ask anybody who is an advocate for an existing establishment party what their top issues are, they probably can't list very many. And the issues that they can list are probably only vague generalities. The key here is that issues are dynamic, but parties are not. If the party is a brand, the then it needs to adapt to the changing issues. The party usually puts out a policy platform on a periodic basis. This is a high level think tank paper that people are expected to believe in and follow. But since the party doesn't adapt well to the needs of every individual, it only sort of fits the things that you want, but not entirely. The one thing it is sure to do, however, is leave you out. And maybe you're not sure why. Often the party is not connecting with you specifically. There are several reasons for this. For example, the party platform may not encompass the issues that you think about or are concerned with. Or maybe the party only covers issues that occur on the national level, but doesn't capture issues on the state or the local level where party is much less relevant. Sometimes, even when the party names some of the issues that you care strongly about, it does not clarify or identify where you stand. So what does this mean? Your position on an issue is the point of view or the side that you support. And this is where the whole party platform thing begins to break down. The party has a general idea of what their position is on a particular issue, and for your allegiance, they demand that you adhere to the same position. However, not all issues are black and white anymore. Times have changed, science continues to advance, new facts emerge, technology is changing, and the economics underlying most of the issues we face have a complexity that goes beyond what the party's issues are. So you could have a bunch of people in Washington coming up for the party platform, but nobody really gives a damn. Does that mean you should create a new party that has its own fixed ideas about what the top issues are and a general idea of where it stands as far as positional alignment. Not necessarily. As I said earlier, parties need to adapt. Why are they called parties anyway? Isn't a party supposed to be fun, engaging, interesting, community oriented, a place where you can meet new people? But the parties of today are none of this. The political parties of today want strict allegiance and accordance to their policy platform. You do this by giving them money so that they can continue to propagate the same message they have been delivering for the past 25 years. If that doesn't sound like much fun, well, you know it isn't. If this sounds like a reason for people not to be affiliated with a party, well, that's. Then I think you're really onto something here. Certainly issues and granularity are important. Nuance is also important. But a party, like any brand, must adapt to the consumer. In this case, the consumer is the voter. We hear again and again that the party does not care that much about the voter, only that the voter votes along party lines. And of course, many voters do this because they have very little choice. The rules are stated in a particular way so that you have to vote either for Party A or Party B. There's really no other choice. Today you can either wear a black dress or a white dress, but nothing else. You can either paint your house blue or red, but no other color. You can eat cereal or eggs, but nothing else. Now think about this. Does that comport to your view of the world? Does that match up with the way you live your life? In Russia years ago, they only had two color choices of cars, black or black. Well, in America we have diversity. We have unlimited options of colors, brands, sizes, features. As an advanced culture, we actually prefer having choices. Isn't it about time that parties begin to realize that they are dynamic brands and that dynamic brands live and die based on the appeal of their brand to the population? But more importantly, don't brands open up the opportunity for newer brands to emerge, come up with new ideas, stimulate creative thinking, and bring in a cross pollination of ideas and cultures that wouldn't ordinarily find new solutions without this? In American politics, we really only have a two way dead end system that is unable to compromise, adapt, change or provide political efficiency to the consumer? Slash voter. So become a dynamic brand, learn how to adapt, listen to the voter, and let's start solving some of these ignored problems. This has been the podcast Change a Law by John Thibault to learn more, just sign on to our website at www.ilobby.co or you can also visit www.changealaw.com. thanks for listening.