New Ad Campaign: ‘Progressive. And Proud Of It.’
New Ad Campaign: ‘Progressive. And Proud Of It.’
[Our guest blogger is John Halpin, a Senior Fellow and Executive Speechwriter at the Center for American Progress focusing on the foundations of progressive thought, communications, and public opinion analysis.]
The Center for American Progress, in conjunction with the Glaser Progress Foundation, recently launched a multi-year effort to increase public understanding of what it means to be a progressive given our nation’s history and the challenges we face today.
The first part of the campaign involves a pilot experiment to begin defining progressivism in the public’s mind through a series of distinct advertisements that explain the progressive movement’s core values and policy ideas, its historical accomplishments, and its philosophical differences with conservatives.
Progressive reformers in the 20th century paved the way for a more humane society that ensured decent working conditions; fought corporate abuse and corruption; provided support for the elderly and unemployed; protected our natural resources; and expanded democratic opportunities for all citizens. Our ad campaign is a first attempt at bringing these progressive values and accomplishments to light for modern audiences.
We are just completing a three-week run of four ads in the Columbus, Milwaukee, and Indianapolis media markets. We look forward to hearing ideas from readers of Think Progress and other progressive blogs — let us know what you think:
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
It’s great to feel good about one’s opinions. Progressive views are largely responsible for advancements of intelligence in the modern world.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:25 amGood form!!
November 14th, 2007 at 10:25 amVery good. Although, I think the neocons will have a fit when the see the second video. I can hear them now when they see the doc holding the baby that progressives are also pro-killing unborn babies and pro-healthcare if they don’t kill the unborn babies.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:27 amI like the Mac/PC spoof ones. Well done!
November 14th, 2007 at 10:30 amDems finally getting wise to branding tactics.
http://www.tshirtinsurgency.com
November 14th, 2007 at 10:31 amwell then counter with how can a Republican be Pro Life and deny healthcare for CHILDREN?Aren’t they alive too?
November 14th, 2007 at 10:31 am“Dems finally getting wise to branding tactics.”
These are not Dems, they are Progressives.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:32 amwhiteyfresh
well then counter with how can a Republican be Pro Life and deny healthcare for CHILDREN?Aren’t they alive too?
We are pro-life, not pro-health. That’s why emergency health needs can be gotten by showing up at an emergency room, but preventative care is so expensive.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:33 amI really think there should be a distinction between the two. Lately they have been mutally exclusive.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:34 amThe second ad was better at getting the message across than the first.
The faux “Mac” ads were cute, but could never be run due to “infringement” issues. The first “Mac” ad was also “slightly” intellectually dishonest as to what Conservatives are “for”. If the idea is to draw away voters that believe themselves to be Conservative, you can’t tell them that they’re all a bunch of heartless money-grubbers.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:38 amI really think there should be a distinction between the two. Lately they have been mutally exclusive.
Comment by Bluedahlia — November 14, 2007 @ 10:34 am
Absolutely. My Rep. Earl Blumenauer said something about this recently: “We have a Democratic majority, we don’t have a Progressive majority.” True true true.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:38 amYou can fool some people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.
Cuts across party lines and ideology. Good luck.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:45 amrun ‘em in Colorado!
November 14th, 2007 at 10:46 amI liked the two montage ads best. I thought the first one was really very good. It did a great job of reminding people of recent history. I think it is easy for people to lose site that women’s right to vote and the civil rights movement were actual battles. The same arguments that are used against universal health care and equal rights for gay marriage today were used against social security and interracial marriage not very long ago.
The Pro/Con graphic is nice. People like the idea of progress. People get a little overwhelmed with new technology, but ultimately people like to think that our country is moving forward.
And, finally, I like “That’s Progressive. That’s YOU”. The end line makes it clear that the viewer needs to decide for themselves whether they support the winning side in all those battles of the past. And, hopefully whether they want to be on the wrong side of the modern battles for universal health car and civil rights.
The second montage ad was good, but wasn’t as powerful as the first. The mac/pc ads are cute, but I don’t think they get the message across quite as clearly. However, anytime you spoof a popular ad you’ll get some coverage in the tech blogs, so they might bring people in to the other ads or the progressive sites in general.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:47 amThe faux “Mac†ads were cute, but could never be run due to “infringement†issues.
Comment by Mugsy — November 14, 2007 @ 10:38 am
Parody is protected under the First Amendment.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:57 amOT, sorry, but didn’t Harry Reid have an ‘agreement’ with Bush about not making any more recess appointments?
Bush Lie #16,741.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:59 amwhiteyfresh
well then counter with how can a Republican be Pro Life and deny healthcare for CHILDREN?Aren’t they alive too?
We are pro-life, not pro-health. That’s why emergency health needs can be gotten by showing up at an emergency room, but preventative care is so expensive.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 14, 2007 @ 10:33 am
Preventative care is so expensive because Americans are being gouged by a for profit industry more concerned about their profit than actually helping people.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:04 amThese ads are a great idea and long overdue. Americans have listened to the glib, hate filled messages on the radio and think that is their heritage. If you go into history and look the early settlers were fleeing or forced to immigrate. There was a 30 year religious war in Europe - England was involved too, I think.
There was the fact that most all of the land was owned by a few and the people struggled every day to feed themselves and their families. There were the “Highland Clearances” where the rich land owners decided that they could make more money raising sheep and so threw the people off the land and they burned their homes to make sure of it - even burned a 80 year old woman in her bed because she was to sick to get up (actually she was rescued by relatives and taken to a barn where she managed to live 5 more days in what we all know is excruciating pain - how’s your grandma?).
The founding fathers and the colonist who enabled them were not just dreaming Utopian dreams because they read a book, they were acting on first hand knowledge and righting centuries of wrongs.
But Mugsy says:
“The first “Mac†ad was also “slightly†intellectually dishonest as to what Conservatives are “forâ€. If the idea is to draw away voters that believe themselves to be Conservative, you can’t tell them that they’re all a bunch of heartless money-grubbers.
You must be brutally honest. And remember, after the revolution, the conservatives in the crowed went to some prince in Germany and asked him if he would come and be king, they were so afraid of liberty.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:08 amWell done.
However…
you HAVE to lose that “Health Insurance for ALL” slogan. It’s part of the problem and framing.
Also: you use “Health Care for ALL” in a different ad.
Choose your messaging carefully and stick to it!
November 14th, 2007 at 11:10 amWe are pro-life, not pro-health. That’s why emergency health needs can be gotten by showing up at an emergency room, but preventative care is so expensive.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 14, 2007 @ 10:33 am
So “pro-birth” would be a more accurate term than “pro-life.” You can’t be “pro-life” and “anti-health” - they’re mutually exclusive.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:11 amWell done. I’m glad to see a progressive movement defining their message instead of having it defined by the opposition.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:11 amIt’s a great start for a national image campaign.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:12 amGood job! It’s about time that progressives began to define themselves rather than letting the other side define them.
I do think, however, that once these ad begin to be shown to the public that the Republicans will try to counter them with their own ads. Be prepared! They are tenacious.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:13 amNive, short and to the point.
Is Progressives learning politics?
…
Maybe :-D
Thumbs up!
November 14th, 2007 at 11:14 amTimotheus
While it makes me warm and fuzzy to watch these because they are theoretically promoting things that I believe in, it makes me sad to think that this is the approach to getting out the ‘message’. A very serious movement is distilled into a 30 second commercial, appealing to the people who didn’t get up to get something from the fridge during the commercial break. I am embarrassed not by the approach, but by the fact that I live in a society where this is actually going to be effective.
Imagine the silly juxtapositions that will follow in the Conservative movement’s version of these commercials? It will be a competition with the Progressives appealing to people’s compassion and the Conservatives appealing to people’s fear. If this is going to replace “discourse” for the average American then we have much larger problems.
I realize this just one part of a general campaign. I think we like it simply because we agree with it, and because, as a friend once said, “Simple answers taste great — less filling!”
November 14th, 2007 at 11:14 amHi John,
I am a moderate conservative interested in Progressive thought, so I come here to debate the TPers.
Your adds are well done, I agree with other posters that the Mac/PC adds are more cute than accurate or effective.
My one piece of advice for you in future adds is to emphasize that this is NOT about political parties but policies. La Follette and T. Roosevelt were both Republicans and were the leading voices of the Progressive movement you site in the first two clips. You can pretty well count on most Americans not knowing this, but if it is perceived you are backing the D’s over the R’s the R’s will have a line of attack in their push back.
I am curious what the goal overall is. Progressivism was always a movement and a vision, not a political party. T.R.-Taft-Wilson were all Progressives, but after 20 years Harding could sell “normalcy” back to the public. Are you thinking 3rd Party (that comes up a lot here) or injecting your ideas into the existing two parties?
Good luck
November 14th, 2007 at 11:14 amSo “pro-birth†would be a more accurate term than “pro-life.†You can’t be “pro-life†and “anti-health†- they’re mutually exclusive.
Comment by toasterhead — November 14, 2007 @ 11:11 am
You can’t be “pro-life” and “pro-death penalty” either, but somehow the Cons manage it.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:15 ameh hem… speaking of which…
how come i’m not hearing radio ads from the “progressives”
on my XM-AirAmericaRadio station???
that ronpaul is a SMART one, i’ll give him THAT…
November 14th, 2007 at 11:18 am…
Off-topic, but Waxman’s just paid a visit to the department of amazing coincidences.
The State guy who called off an investigation of Blackwater… heh, what do you know, his brother was on the Blackwater Board.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004700.php
November 14th, 2007 at 11:23 amI am curious what the goal overall is. Progressivism was always a movement and a vision, not a political party. T.R.-Taft-Wilson were all Progressives, but after 20 years Harding could sell “normalcy†back to the public. Are you thinking 3rd Party (that comes up a lot here) or injecting your ideas into the existing two parties?
Good luck
Comment by Keltoi — November 14, 2007 @ 11:14 am
I see it as a way to address the use of “liberal” and “progressive” as a slur. I believe that there are far more progressives in this country than we think - they may not self-identify as such, but they actually do want to keep their air clean and their workweeks 40 hours long and their children lead-free, and only vote Republican because of “moral issues.”
These ads are a way to reach out to those red-state voters who happily vote for candidates who will send their jobs to China, take away their right to organize, take away their health coverage, take away their retirement funding, and send their children to fight for Chevron in Iraq — all because voting for the other guy will allow gays to french-kiss in public.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:29 amWe need bumber stickers to go along with this campaign………….
November 14th, 2007 at 11:31 amAlso need a campaign against abstience only sex ed.
That says - It would be a great if we could go back to the Victorian age, however we have progressed to given individuals ability to make informed decisions about a vast number of health issues.
Education is key to reducing abortions.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:33 amI loved the ads but I don’t feel the last one, where the PRO hands the CON the glass of water, has anywhere near the impact of the first three.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:34 amComment by Dumb_Fox — November 14, 2007 @ 11:23 am
Damn! And republicans are complaining about investigations but are so far silent when such glaring abuses of power are exposed.
March on Waxman.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:34 amI am curious - what is the Progressive view of Free Trade? Are Progressives in favor of NAFTA? I know Kucinich is against it, so I assume it is not popular, even though it was negotiated by Clinton….
November 14th, 2007 at 11:35 amComment by totallynext — November 14, 2007 @ 11:33 am
Well said.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:35 amThat is f**ing funny. Even Liberals can’t call themselve Liberals anymore since most Americans know how horrid socialism is. You had to change to “progressive” and then attempt to redefine it as liberal without using the word. Nicely played!
November 14th, 2007 at 11:35 amThe question is the focus of the ads: are you comparing what progressive politicians have to offer as opposed to conservative politicians, or are you comparing progressive ideals versus conservative ideals? I wouldn’t do any comparisons at all. I would show how progressive ideals provide solutions and benefits for all Americans, including conservatives.
“You don’t need to be progressive to vote for health care for your children”.
“You don’t need to be progressive to vote for peace instead of war”.
“You don’t need to be conservative to support a strong military and a strong defense against our enemies”.
“You don’t need to be a progressive to want to breathe clean air”.
In other words, talk about what we have in common, our problems, our dreams, and bring people together instead of demonizing people with contrasting views.
Your ads mimic neo-con ads: divisive.
You want negotiations with the Iranians don’t you? The same tactics will work with republicans.
By showing them how we are alike, and how we have the same issues in life, we lessen the impact of the right wing attacks on progressives and liberals because then they become us because the labels are gone and all that’s left is the fact that we are all people with problems and needs.
Here is an example:
“Conservative commentators and politicians demean and denounce progressive efforts to pass the health care for kids act. Don’t we all want good medical treatment for our children? Isn’t it part of our country’s morality, our country’s heart, to help those in need? Isn’t it more important that the benefits to so many needy children not be denied because a few might cheat the system? Will you turn a needy child away from getting help by saying ‘I can’t help you because someone making more money might also get help’”?
November 14th, 2007 at 11:36 amI thought all of the commercials were excellent.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:40 amOne idea I’ve had in the past is a billboard campaign targeting America’s expressways into it’s cities with slogans such as “Saturday & Sunday off from work…thank a Liberal”; “Paid vacation time…thank a Liberal”; “Paid sick time…thank a Liberal”; “40 hour work week…thank a Liberal”; unemploymant compensation…thank a Liberal”; “Social Security retirement…thank a Liberal”; “Medicare…thank a Liberal”; “Constitutional Freedoms…thank a Liberal”.
I am curious - what is the Progressive view of Free Trade? Are Progressives in favor of NAFTA? I know Kucinich is against it, so I assume it is not popular, even though it was negotiated by Clinton….
Comment by Keltoi — November 14, 2007 @ 11:35 am
I support free trade in the same way I support Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. They’re nice fairy tales we can use to put our kids to bed at night, but we know that they don’t actually exist.
We are against “Free Trade” as in NAFTA and the various FTAs we’re signing or trying to sign with Morocco, Peru, Jordan, etc. They’re not free, not remotely fair, and only benefit the wealthy at the expense of the working class in all countries involved.
And yes, I know it was ratified under Clinton, who I otherwise consider one of the best Republican presidents the U.S. has ever had.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:42 amHere’s an introduction to the ideals of the Democratic Party:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTjcYVQ-cKE
Perhaps some of those concepts could be incorporated into CAP’s commercials.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:43 amWell done! Wish there was enough money to run them often and everywhere.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:43 amonservative commentators and politicians demean and denounce progressive efforts to pass the health care for kids act. -mongo
They would rather throw away hundreds of billions away in the welfare state of Iraq. If Iraq were New Orleans they would have left years ago.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:44 amRogerx2
Please define the terms “socialism” and “liberalism” and describe the juxtaposition of the two concepts.
We’ll all be waiting with our red pens.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:45 amI am curious - what is the Progressive view of Free Trade? Are Progressives in favor of NAFTA? I know Kucinich is against it, so I assume it is not popular, even though it was negotiated by Clinton….
Comment by Keltoi — November 14, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Nice, but your forgetting:
November 14th, 2007 at 11:48 amBush Brings In Backup to Help Sell CAFTA
President Bush moved to rescue his floundering trade agreement with Central America by bringing the region’s leaders to the White House and casting the pact …
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2005/ 05/ 12/ AR2005051201809.html
Comment by OxyCon — November 14, 2007 @ 11:40 am
I’ve heard Thom Hartman have a piece similar to this. It was presented around a person going to work. I’m on the hunt now.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:51 amNice, but your forgetting:
Bush Brings In Backup to Help Sell CAFTA
Comment by Xisithrus — November 14, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Same yacht club, different boats.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:52 amThat was easy
http://edgeeffect.blogspot.com/2006/07/thank-liberal.html
November 14th, 2007 at 11:54 amSame yacht club, different boats.
Comment by toasterhead — November 14, 2007
Agreed. Keltoi seems to think free trade agreements are a democratic thing, and starts pointing fingers. When it comes to this area Keltoi its better to think of two like factions operating under one economic powerhouse. IE Two yachts of the same club sailing in the same sea.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:55 amRighty done got served!!
How embarrassing to be a righty right now.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:57 am..look at all the cute little liberals trying to rebrand themselves as progressives…
Actually, I have no problem with this, as the facts will bear out that being conservative is not quite as evil as you would like everyone to believe in the ads. The biggest problem I see for these ads is that they are soooo thinly veiled and soooo one-sided they will easily be seen for what they are. You can’t continue to think the general public is a bunch of buffoons waiting for someone who is intelligent (like yourself) to tell them what they should think.
trivia question - which progressive president presided over the founding of OSHA, an organization largely credited for huge improvement in work-place safety ?
November 14th, 2007 at 11:57 am46 - as long as it’s fair trade, it’s fine.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:58 am52 - Conservatives aren’t evil, or portrayed as evil - they’re just wrong, and their policies benefit only a carefully selected segment of Americans. Your “concern troll” demi-rebuttal is pointless, and your critique is without teeth.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:02 pmBut, for the record, as Jake often says, I understand that we need trade but I think outsourcing jobs has caused great disparity in America harming more than helping its economy. We see it today as our dollar fails and China holds our dollars. Some 300 million Chinese [the population of America] have been brought out of poverty while today Americans find it harder and harder to get buy.
NAFTA and CAFTA are good for corporate profits but not good for Americans that need jobs. I think we have too much outsourcing causing an imbalance that creates disparity and poverty in our own nation.
Where is this all leading? Likely to our swtching to an Amero dollar which consists of the loony, the peso and the greenback.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:03 pm..look at all the cute little liberals trying to rebrand themselves as progressives…
Look at all the cute value voters bailing from the conservative party and culture of corruption.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:07 pmLets not forget Child Labor. Or Minimum Wage. Or Workplace Safety. Or any positive thing that has made us more civilized since time began. Progressives by definition are leading us up the hill. Now let’s get the corporate money out of the Democratic party and make things really happen in this country.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:08 pmWhen it comes to this area Keltoi its better to think of two like factions operating under one economic powerhouse. IE Two yachts of the same club sailing in the same sea.
Comment by Xisithrus — November 14, 2007 @ 11:55 am
And a bunch of working-class people in dinghies getting swamped by the wake of the Democratic and Republican yachts, to complete the metaphor.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:16 pmNAFTA and CAFTA are good for corporate profits but not good for Americans that need jobs. I think we have too much outsourcing causing an imbalance that creates disparity and poverty in our own nation.
Comment by Xisithrus — November 14, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
And poverty in other nations, as well. We have to have a global perspective. How many Mexican agricultural workers have been forced to migrate to the United States because we’re dumping heavily-subsidized corn on their markets?
November 14th, 2007 at 12:18 pmThe top left one, by far, will prove the most effective. Though I love humor, it’s not as persuasive, I’ve found. And hitting them on older issues that even conservatives are more attuned to now (suffrage, conservation and Social Security) with newer topics (energy efficiency, health care) that most Americans favor now, is a good way to avoid alienating viewers and drawing them in to consider other progressive ideas.
The other three are good, but you lure more flies with honey than recycled s**t.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:23 pmtrivia question - which progressive president presided over the founding of OSHA, an organization largely credited for huge improvement in work-place safety ?
Comment by pab-o — November 14, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Richard M. Nixon, one of the better Democratic presidents of the late 20th century. He also gave us the EPA, opened diplomatic relations with China, and ended the war in Vietnam.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:24 pmWhat in the messages was so horrible or untrue?
November 14th, 2007 at 12:29 pmComment by mongo164 — November 14, 2007 @ 11:36 am
Great Post
November 14th, 2007 at 12:31 pmAnd yes, I know it was ratified under Clinton, who I otherwise consider one of the best Republican presidents the U.S. has ever had.
Comment by toasterhead — November 14, 2007 @ 11:42 am
A Tweety “Hah!” to you, toasterhead!
>>Agreed. Keltoi seems to think free trade agreements are a democratic thing, and starts pointing fingers. Comment by Xisithrus — November 14, 2007 @ 11:55 am
No, no, no fingerpointing here, I remember Bush 41 was right alongside Clinton 42 and the whole establishment said it would be great. Only Ross Perot - who I voted for twice - sounded the alarm.
Historically, Progressivism had an isolationist strain to it - pro-Tariff, anti-League of Nations (I am speaking of Gov. La Follete, if anyone here doesn’t know that name google right away). I wonder how that would play in the McWorld in which we live?
November 14th, 2007 at 12:32 pmFor too long, conservatism has been treated like it’s the only ideology in America. It’s about time we started building up the respectability of progressivism. Get people talking about it and help them recognize what makes a good progressive.
These ads are a great start.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:35 pmEXCELLENT!!!!
We need more of this type of exposure to re-define and re-set people’s understanding of the sociology and political science of American democracy and ideals.
Draft Robert Greenwald for MORE!
November 14th, 2007 at 12:45 pm> The faux “Mac†ads were cute, but could never be run due to “infringement†issues.
>
> Comment by Mugsy — November 14, 2007 @ 10:38 am
Parody is protected under the First Amendment.
Comment by toasterhead — November 14, 2007 @ 10:57 am
Tell that to Master Card and MacDonald’s. MC has sued anyone and everyone for parodying their “Priceless” ads, and MacDonald’s has even sued a Scottish Bakery for using the same name.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:49 pmRichard M. Nixon, one of the better Democratic presidents of the late 20th century. He also gave us the EPA, opened diplomatic relations with China, and ended the war in Vietnam.
Comment by toasterhead — November 14, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
Nixon didn’t “end” the Vietnam War. The Democratic Congress did by cutting off funding… a lesson that needs relearning today.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:56 pm“Richard M. Nixon, one of the better Democratic presidents of the late 20th century. He also gave us the EPA, opened diplomatic relations with China, and ended the war in Vietnam.
Comment by toasterhead — November 14, 2007 @ 12:24 pm”
try google or wiki next time…… Nixon was an evil republican (conservative) hell bent on destroying his enemies
November 14th, 2007 at 1:01 pm“Conservatives aren’t evil, or portrayed as evil - they’re just wrong, and their policies benefit only a carefully selected segment of Americans. Your “concern troll†demi-rebuttal is pointless, and your critique is without teeth.
Comment by tombaker — November 14, 2007 @ 12:02 pm”
Did you watch the same clips I did ? Not portrayed as evil ?
How do you classify th “I was against every one of those” (ie, civil rights, etc) line ?
I don’t know what a “concern troll” or “demi-rebuttal” is, so I’m not sure if I should be insulted or excited…
…by the way, thank you for validating my point so concisely !
November 14th, 2007 at 1:09 pmHistorically, Progressivism had an isolationist strain to it - pro-Tariff, anti-League of Nations (I am speaking of Gov. La Follete, if anyone here doesn’t know that name google right away). I wonder how that would play in the McWorld in which we live?
Comment by Keltoi — November 14, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
True. Because that’s what worked at that particular moment in U.S. history. Tariffs are a good example - thank you for bringing them up. The neo-liberalist Gospel of Free Trade demands that developing countries remove the import tariffs that protect their still-maturing industries. The people preaching this gospel seem to forget that the U.S. protected its industry for well over a century before opening up.
But in today’s context, isolationism is impossible, impractical, and I’d even argue immoral. World markets for goods, labor, money, and ideas are interconnected, and the corporate world is all over it. Farm subsidies in the U.S. affect agricultural markets in Mexico. Sweatshops in Cambodia affect labor markets in the U.S. Oil consumption in China affects gas prices in the U.S. Agricultural runoff in the Gulf of Mexico affects livelihoods in the Caribbean. It’s all connected now.
Progressive ideology must have a global perspective in this environment. So, in brief, isolationism would play very badly in this world, flat or not. (It’s not.)
November 14th, 2007 at 1:11 pmNixon didn’t “end†the Vietnam War. The Democratic Congress did by cutting off funding… a lesson that needs relearning today.
Comment by Mugsy — November 14, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
Details, details.
November 14th, 2007 at 1:12 pmI like the first two ads. They’re very positive.
The Mac ads…. well, I’ve always HATED those Mac ads. I think they’re very self-pretentious, and that’s the last image that we want to be portaying for progressives.
I would say run the first two ads, and CAN THE MAC ADS.
November 14th, 2007 at 1:16 pmI agree with “totally” above. I want a Progressive and Proud of it sticker…
November 14th, 2007 at 1:22 pmProgressive ideology must have a global perspective in this environment. So, in brief, isolationism would play very badly in this world, flat or not. (It’s not.)
Comment by toasterhead — November 14, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
I agree, you can’t unring the bell of globalization. So, would you say that Free Trade is good but the FTA we have negotiated thus far are bad? And if so, what needs to be changed? And who in the US has the will, political backing and knowledge to do it? That is always the rub, isn’t it?
Great discussion, 72 posts in and no one has called anyone an idiot yet!
November 14th, 2007 at 1:27 pmGREAT Ads!!! I’d love to see them run in Tennessee!
November 14th, 2007 at 2:03 pm“Look at all the cute value voters bailing from the conservative party and culture of corruption.”
Sorry, I missed that, i sthere a 1 for 1 reduction in the r registration and increase in d ? If you are referring to voting patterns, that would not necessarily be classified as “bailing from the conservative party”.
I like this thread as it raises a lot of good point. Regurgitating a cliche like culture of corruption is a little weak, don’t you think ?
Finally, I think a lot of conservatives are unahppy with the repubs, but I doubt any conservatives have bailed on conservatism.
November 14th, 2007 at 2:11 pmI really liked the ads and I think the idea behind them is important and long overdue, but they seem to target a white and middle class audience. The first montage was striking in that everyone looked white and any issues of race were absent. The second at least mentioned civil rights and was somewhat better. The mac/pc ads were clever, but really seem to target the young, tech-savy, and predominately white audience. I would just like to see more of an effort at expanding the message in a way that targets more of the people in this country who are often excluded by the white progressives but who could be great allies.
November 14th, 2007 at 2:17 pm1 - America has always been moderately progressive, to the chagrin of a vested few (those with hereditary wealth, church power, or both)
2- “conservatism” rose in reaction to that, and adopted the ideology of pro-monarchical parties in post-monarchical Europe.
3-eventually, through lots of viciousness, conservatives (who are, face it, all republicans) got some power in government and started pushing their policies through.
4- those policies failed, and bred corruption and cynicism, but conservatives(republicans) denied-and-lied, and grew their power.
5- growing power led to growing dysfunction and failure (as it had with every previous appempt), and conservatives(republicans) ran out of others to blame for it
6- conservatives(republicans) will now say literally anything to make it appear the consequences we now enjoy are anything other than the direct result of the practice of conservative policymaking over the last decade plus (and I should count the clinton years, because he was republican-lite at best)
Conservative Ideology is intellectually, morally, academically, and technically faulty - always has been, always will be. To say so is not to espouse socialism nor anarchy nor democrats - it’s to state a plain and demonstrable fact.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:37 pmdemonstrable fact ?
…uh, like the 30 years of effort the liberals / progressives / democrats put into our public education system with such fabulous results ?
…like the democrats who have run PA and Philly forever only to have 5 cops shot in the last 3 weeks and on a pace for 400+ murders per year for the last two years.
Your final statement is pretty light on facts, can you specifically identify how conservatism is morally or academically or technically faulty ? Or do you prefer to just “feel your way throug a debate ?
November 14th, 2007 at 4:07 pmhttp://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/111407a.html
the fact pile is enormous. when ingested, unspun, it paints a vivid picture of the failed nature of the so-called conservative movement.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:21 pmSo, to support you broad brush accusations, you point me to a Bush-bashing blog. Please tell me this is some sort of joke. I bet you think the US Government killed all those folks on 9/11 based on the fact the “fire can’t melt steel” or whatever Rosie’s quote was.
Start to think a little more critically and read more than the internet conte that supports a warped position. I am still waiting for you to articulate one argument for your theory.
I will argue that your lack of ability to separate the beliefs of those who subscribe to a philosophy from the behavior of those who wear a name tag is the reason we don’t make any progress. It is, in fact, the very same argument poeple use to supress groups who don’t look or act like themselves. That assessment should scare you because it scares me….
November 14th, 2007 at 4:30 pmI’ve seen two versions so far here in Indy and they are both good. This is a great idea. I just can’t imagine anyone seeing them and not going, yeah, I’m a progressive and didn’t know it!
November 14th, 2007 at 4:56 pmI love ‘em! Put ‘em on Faux Noise every 15 minutes for the next year!
November 14th, 2007 at 5:41 pmEither form of communism or socialism is your goal. Just admit you want to bring down capitalism and be done with it. But you can’t do that either. Wouldn’t be pruuuudent.
Comment by Southern Man
Nice conspiracy theory.
As progressive, I can tell you I personally have no desire to bring down capitalism, or to turn our government into a communist or socialist goverment.
Now, whether you choose to believe me or not is up to you.
November 14th, 2007 at 6:15 pmI LOVE THEM!
November 14th, 2007 at 7:36 pmWas that a little over the top?
November 14th, 2007 at 7:37 pmJust admit what you want your long term goals to be people. Either form of communism or socialism is your goal. Just admit you want to bring down capitalism and be done with it. But you can’t do that either. Wouldn’t be pruuuudent.
Comment by Southern Man — November 14, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
You’re nuts. The USA became rich and strong after WW2 on a mix of regulated capitalism and enlightened socialism, a mix that worked very, very well. republicans and neocons want to destroy the socialistic aspect that worked so well because it empowers the people that want to join the soiciety and not be left behind by a group of arrogant royalists who think they are superior because of color or family background. The GOP’s goal is to destroy the middle class so that the filthy rich can become untouchable and will have to answer to nobody, which is a patently anti-American attitude. Going after rich people is self-defense, you ignorant fool, as they have been going after us for centuries.
November 14th, 2007 at 7:57 pmAn excellent overall idea!
I liked the first one despite my usual allergy to cheesy voiceovers. So kudos on that one. The second… I think you could probably get a better soundtrack to be brutally honest. I’m not sure what you’re going for there, but “America the Beautiful” by Ray Charles would be VERY hard to beat. Certainly worth the price. Or perhaps by Allison Krauss. Or maybe John Prine…Eddie Vedder? I’m clueless as to who is big on the scene of the “center” in Milwaukee.
On the Mac-alikes… again, first one pretty good as is! The second misses terribly on a opportunity for the Con to look shocked at the suggestion that HE could be affected by his own laissez-faire policies after taking a sip, and have him obviously hold up the glass to look at the water at the end. Perhaps giving a short, “Eeep!” as we cut the scene? Too bad there.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:32 pmI’d like to watch the videos, but I’m getting a “We’re sorry, this video is no longer available” message. Sounds like a solid idea for an information campaign, though I’d still love to see a proper challenge to the tagging of “liberal” as a bad word (re: Democratic presidential frontrunners eschewing the term in favor of “progressive”).
November 14th, 2007 at 11:54 pmCan I just say- IT’S ABOUT F**KING TIME, you know?
Now just add intensity. The fluffy cute humory thing is good, but when it comes to pride, the proof is in the passion. Let’s see some more damn passion, intensity, force, strength. Strength. Be strong about it, not weak and timid. Be strong about it. Got that? S-t-r-e-n-g-t-h. And maintain the competence level, it’s good. The ads are a really good start. But they will need to be followed with greater force.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:17 amDon’t be timid about it. Come right out and say it. I scream it a million times a day in my head and on blogs, but I don’t have a platform. Use your platform. Don’t be timid about it, scream it: Cons are regressive, by their very definition, as Pros are progressive. Who the hell would want to go back in time? That’s crazy. Go back to when? Slavery? Jim Crow? Pre women’s sufferage? Child labor sweatshops? 18 hour workdays for pennies a day? God-knows-what is in your meat? God-knows-what is in your medicine? Come on. MAKE THE POINT.
Cons were against Civil Rights, yet they try and take credit as being the party of inclusion, big tent. How derelict does the progressive party have to be to allow that to happen? Cons fought rabidly against different races being treated equally, and by all indications, still don’t. Make the point, make it loud and clear. They’ve been exploiting racism for years. So use it the hell against them. Duh.
Same goes for womens rights. Didn’t Batshit Coulter just comment that we’d be better off if women couldn’t vote. Hello?!?!? Where are we on this?
Workers rights, safety… come on people, the Cons arae against all of this. We can’t communicate the obvious truth?
FDA, clean water, clean air- how about draw the connection to the notoriously insidious pollution in China? Can you point out to people that we would be (and were) living in that if sicko ‘free-market’ Cons had their way? How hard is this?!?! This is not hard. Believe me, if I didn’t have a full time job, I would be finding a way to do it myself. Annihilate the Conservative myth that eutopia equals the deconstruction of regulation- we have been here before, with feces, rats and mystery parts in our meats and foods etc. etc., please REMIND PEOPLE OF THIS. Dismantle the myth of deregulation. You’re off to a good start, but come one, there is so much here.
Can you remind people of the reason why we don’t have the same notorious sweatshops as China, Malaysia, etc? Progressives.
Feel free to contact me for more. I would love to be on your communication team.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:38 amWe are pro-life, not pro-health. That’s why emergency health needs can be gotten by showing up at an emergency room, but preventative care is so expensive.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 14, 2007 @ 10:33 am
So “pro-birth†would be a more accurate term than “pro-life.†You can’t be “pro-life†and “anti-health†- they’re mutually exclusive.
Comment by toasterhead — November 14, 2007 @ 11:11 am
Bravo, toasterhead. Good form. This should be drilled in.
Pro-Birth, decidedly NOT Pro-life.
Pro-toxic f**king air and water- smog, arsenic, mercury etc., decidedly NOT Pro-Life.
Pro-War, decidedly NOT Pro-Life.
Pro-Birth, AGAINST caring for the health of the born. Decidely NOT Pro-Life.
On that note, proressives need to resolve the abortion issue. It does seem too liberal. I’m not sure exactly how, but outright condoning abortion, which in blatant honesty IS barbaric and antithetical to humanity, must be dealt with.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:52 amComment by Lefty Patriot — November 14, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
Glorious, Lefty. Gave me a sigh of gratitude.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:55 am“As progressive, I can tell you I personally have no desire to bring down capitalism, or to turn our government into a communist or socialist goverment.
Now, whether you choose to believe me or not is up to you.
Comment by DigDug — November 14, 2007 @ 6:15 pm”
The masses never believe they are part of the “machine”, do they….
…until they stand in a bread line wondering how they got there.
November 15th, 2007 at 7:04 am“Workers rights, safety… come on people, the Cons arae against all of this. We can’t communicate the obvious truth?
FDA, clean water, clean air- how about draw the connection to the notoriously insidious pollution in China? Can you point out to people that we would be (and were) living in that if sicko ‘free-market’ Cons had their way? …
Comment by JoeySoCal — November 15, 2007 @ 1:38 am”
Joey - get a little education. Earlier inthe thread we settled that OSHA and EPA were instituted under a “con” (republican) president (even though the mis-informed poster stated Nixon was a dem).
Cons 1, Pros 0
Polution in China ?!?! China is a communist “all for the greater good” society, certainly NOT a free market. Everyone doing business over there does so under the control of the government who is in place to protect the masses - they do a great job of it, don’t they ?
Cons 2, Pros 0
Stop drinking the kool-aid and start to look outside your own little group.
November 15th, 2007 at 7:10 amJoey, just realized what you are saying on China.
When the governement takes control of the market to “ensure the well-being of the citizenry”, like China has, and the capitalist market has any inlovement, like the US has, you want government to take control of the capitalist market to ensure that the capitalists do the right thing in correcting for the abuses of the government who took control of the market in the first place. Sounds like a winner to me !
If this is the Progressive thought process, I am not worried about losing any ground to progressives because you’ll never be able to explain that one to anybody, let alone a working class schlub like me …
November 15th, 2007 at 10:32 amI think the first two (and especially the one in the top left) are better, but all are great and totally necessary.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:56 pmThe three that explicitly call out Conservativism’s history as being against every generally accepted modern value are awesome. The fourth is bland and weak.
November 15th, 2007 at 3:11 pm#96:
There’s a difference between wanting your government to look out for you and wanting your government to control you :D
You’re also not getting the message behind the commercial: Progressives are on both sides. You have this vision of a democrat because it just so happens democrats speak more to progressives than republicans do.
The primary point of the commercials is to state fairly simply who progressives are and why conservatives want progressives to be viewed as crazy wingnuts or something else negative. That is, conservatives want to serve special interest groups (greedy corporations) and progressives want government/corporations to serve the citizens. The result, of course, is that conservatives get paid to slam progressives to unethical business practices and thus cause unethical government practices.
Explain to me how progressives specifically are wrong. You’ve already used China, and progressives have already stated that they’re not communists. What’s left? You can’t argue morality, when it’s conservatives that attack 9/11 widows, it’s conservatives that overspend, it’s conservatives that commit adultery, it’s conservatives that turn gay - political standing doesn’t always indicate morality, it’s the culture behind it.
So what do you have left to shoot at us? Clinton memes, or perhaps you’d like to pull rhetorical question at us?
We’re all dying for your response.
November 15th, 2007 at 9:21 pmoh, where to start.
I understood progressive to be forward thinking. You make it clear that it means anti-conservative.
“That is, conservatives want to serve special interest groups (greedy corporations) and progressives want government/corporations to serve the citizens. ”
You keep swapping the term conservative and republican. They really are not interchangeable. That is the fundamental problem. It would be analagous to me saying that since the term “liberal” is considered negative , the dems now want to be called progressive (kind of like switching from pro-abortion to pro-choice - how could being on teh side of choice be wrong ?)
“conservatives that attack 9/11 widows, it’s conservatives that overspend, it’s conservatives that commit adultery, it’s conservatives that turn gay ”
You must be joking.
9/11 - did conservatives accuse the Jews of masterminding it since none of them showed up for work (according to the twisted theory)?
Conservatives overspend ? Two words - Sen. Bird (the king of pork).
Conservatives commit adultery ? That one is SOOOO easy I won’t even take the bait !
Whenever your argument regresses to “conservatives = evil, progressives = good and wholesome” you do a disservice for your cause. Way back up the thread, someone called Nixon one of the best dem presidents in a while since he presided over the institution of OSHA and the EPA. Yes, they were both great accomplishments, but he was an evil conservative aka repub.
Let me ask you, can you name one conservative who has ever done anything good or noble ?
November 15th, 2007 at 9:43 pm“We are pro-life, not pro-health. That’s why emergency health needs can be gotten by showing up at an emergency room, but preventative care is so expensive.†Comment by Squegeeboo — November 14, 2007 @ 10:33 am
Emergency rooms do not provide “health careâ€. They provide emergency treatment to stabilize medical emergencies and once that is achieved, the patient is discharged without further medical treatment. The stupidity of the argument for denying universal healthcare on the basis of cost is demonstrated that emergency room treatment paid for by taxpayers, either directly by taxes or by higher costs for treatment for those who can pay, is considerably more expensive overall than universal healthcare would be.
“The question is the focus of the ads: are you comparing what progressive politicians have to offer as opposed to conservative politicians, or are you comparing progressive ideals versus conservative ideals?†- Comment by mongo164 — November 14, 2007
Progressive ideology vs the current “con-servative†ideology which, by the way, is diametrically opposite to the personal best interests of the vast majority of “social conservative†Americans who have been brainwashed not to believe it. The majority of conned-servatives vote on the basis of the following two issues (which their religious leaders have indoctrinated them to do) – abortion, which is a woman’s right to control her own womb, and hysterical homophobia. The current Republican Party panders to the religious right on these two issues to the detriment of not only the groups persecuted by this ideology based on a bastardization of the Christian religion, but America in general.
I am curious - what is the Progressive view of Free Trade? Are Progressives in favor of NAFTA? I know Kucinich is against it, so I assume it is not popular, even though it was negotiated by Clinton….Comment by Keltoi — November 14, 2007
NAFTA, if the treaty requirements were enforced under the WTO would be an entirely different thing. Bush has not enforced the treaty requirements and that is the main problem.
“You can’t continue to think the general public (“social†conned-servatives) is a bunch of buffoons waiting for someone who is intelligent (like yourself) to tell them what they should think.†- Comment by pab-o — November 14, 2007
Isn’t that what the right wing talk radio thugs, the Bush propaganda machine, do on a constant basis? – except they give their acolytes the wrong answers! These “social conned-servatives†are buffoons evidenced by the fact that they consistently vote against their own best interests and those of America. They are not in any way part of an “informed†electorate which is vital if democracy is to survive in America, and have been brainwashed to believe a revisionist version of American history promulgated by the religious wrong.
“trivia question - which progressive president presided over the founding of OSHA, an organization largely credited for huge improvement in work-place safety?†Comment by pab-o — November 14, 200
Republicans before Reagan were a different breed entirely. It was Reagan who sold out the Republican Party to the “religious wrongâ€, the group who eventually may actually prove Darwin wrong by altering the outcome of human evolution to survival of the weakest (minds).
“Liberals can’t call themselve Liberals anymore since most Americans know how horrid socialism is. You had to change to “progressive†and then attempt to redefine it as liberal without using the word. Nicely played!†Comment by Roger_Roger — November 14, 2007
November 16th, 2007 at 1:18 amLiberalism is a political and social ideology. All of the signers of our Declaration of Independence were “Liberal†by definition. The “conservatives†of the time were the Tories and if they had won we would still be an English Colony, still be burning “witchesâ€, still have rampant religious persecution, and still be paying taxes to the king’s church which would still be the judicial system as it was before the revolution.
“Progressive†stems from the word “progressâ€, an ideology neither party owns as a monopoly, except that since Reagan, there are very, very few progressives in the Republican Party. The only one I can think of is Schwarzenegger if you can really think of him as a Republican at all.
LOVE IT! FINALLY, they let someone with a brain and the idea to keep it simple and straight to the point do the talking. Remember, the majority of voting americans need it spelled out for them. They need to be reminded WHAT being a progressive or liberal means. I just want to vomit when the republican party and conservatives brainwash the american public into thinking stupid things like “liberals want to take away my gun.” Not that I wanted a gun — except when I had to call these brainless idiots doing phone polls in the Bush/Dukakkis campaign years ago. But, it amazed me that most american’s could be so easily taken it. Well, if the conservatives can do it, so can we. About damn time.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:01 pmThank God! I’m so glad to see some fundamental and intelligent marketing work being done to affirmatively express the values of the left.
My vote:
1) Huge thumbs up for the ad on the upper left. It actually made me misty. Really. (Okay, it is true that I’m a sap, but even still…)
2) Major thumbs down for the ad on the upper right. It’s vague and wishy washy, and uses too many cliched tropes. Also, it doesn’t sufficiently contextualize the earlier successes, making the movement seem stuck in the past.
3) Thumbs up for the ad on the lower left. Hip, clear and funny. I like it, even if it does seem a bit derivative of Apple…
4) Neutral for the ad on the lower right. It’s not as clear as the one on the left and doesn’t add anything useful that’s not done better by the ad on the left.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:25 pmLet me say that I like the ads in general and, of course, consider myself a progresive thinker.
However, I have to imagine the average American seeing these ads, potentially agreeing with them, and then asking themselves “So what do I do about it?” In other words, what’s the call-to-action message? If after seeing these ads they are to go to the Center for American Progress web site, what next?
The fact of the matter is that as Americans, we are presented with a two-party system (if we’re talking about the parties with actual chances of taking elections, that is), neither of which truly embraces progressive ideals. Are viewers of the ads to drop their Republican party affiliation only to join the Democrats who are poised to nominate Hillary Clinton who — with the recent indirect support of people like Robert D. Novak — is proving to be the Neoliberal & Neoconservative dream choice come true? In this respect, progressive is not the same as Democrat, so by associating the “Con” character with “Conservative” in your ads, you are by default associating the “Pro” character with “Liberal” or “Democrat”. Even if that’s not the intention, that will be the perception, because no attempt is made to differentiate that type of association. Not to mention that the automatic response the average person would have when asked to identify the opposite of “Conservative” is to say “Liberal” or “Democrat”.
In addition, while we in the USA are presented with two seemingly separate but practically equal political parties, we are pretty much in the dark when it comes to how we operate in the geopolitical arena, which — in a global economy — trumps national politics in terms of relevance. Both Democrats and Republicans are in favor of Neoliberalism, with a minority sect having recently moved toward what we now know as Neoconservatism, which basically takes the ideas of Neoliberalism and adds brute force and pre-emptive strikes in place of the fake diplomacy and financial mess left by institutions such as the World Bank and IMF.
In other words, the forces that historical progressives fought against have pretty much taken over our country and have been busily extending their power throughout the world (via the Neoliberal agenda) for some time now. We’re somewhat late to the game with these ads…the game’s begun the process of dismantling much of the New Deal and has moved way beyond our shores…
Of course, it’s never too late, but — again — what’s the call to action message? Poll after poll has shown that the majority of the American people believe in progressive ideals if asked basic questions outside of the typical political framework…i.e. “Do you believe in protecting children from toxic chemicals?” Progressive ideas are as American as apple pie, but what’s needed is a framework that allows this down-to-earth way of thinking to find a home within the existing paradigm of Republican and Democrat, or we don’t have any chance at reversing the damage that’s already been done.
For example, I can foresee “Progressive Republicans” and “Progressive Democrats” coming together in agreement on many ideas, and willing to work together to solve our common problems.
Because a third party is a highly impractical way to push for real change, there needs to be some thought given to how labeling can be used as a way to provide alternatives for people who agree, but find it hard to make a dramatic switch. Then the task becomes backing candidates who label themselves “Progressive Republican” or “Progressive Democrat” in order to place the kind of people on the inside who can create the kind of real change we are all looking for.
In conclusion, great ads, but you might need to think more on the strategy and call to action.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:03 pmFor Toasterhead- imitation is not parody.
The ad in the upper left is the best of the four. The upper right uses phrases like “The New Deal” when fewer than half the people in this country have any idea what the New Deal was… hell, half the high school in a recent national poll think Germany was on our side during WWII.
The Apple/PC imitation is absolutely NOT progress in any sense of the word. It’s cheesey.
November 19th, 2007 at 8:25 pmGood ads but non of them address what has Progressivism done for the citizen lately.
I think one good example that would resonate would be people vs telemarketersand the do-not-call list, as an example of
“sometimes government regulation is necessary so that businesses don’t set all the rules”
November 19th, 2007 at 8:25 pmI think the top left ad is most convincing. The Mac-PC ads are clever but not a good idea, unless you are trying to turn off PC users. Like an earlier commenter, I do not appreciate the actual Mac-PC ads’ implication that only morons use a PC, and I doubt that swing voters (aren’t they the target here?) who may have voted Republican will appreciate the analogy.
Aren’t you trying to persuade moderates and libertarian-leaning voters that Progressive policies are better at representing decent and traditional American values? Don’t you want these voters to identify themselves with key Progressive policies? Then why model your ads on an Apple ad campaign whose purpose is to insult a very large portion of the target audience? Also, the bottom right ad especially plays into the stereotype of progressives as a bunch of nannies wanting government to control everything.
November 19th, 2007 at 8:47 pmThis effort to define and promote progressive values is terrific, and long overdue. The Right has pretty much succeeded in turning ‘liberal’ into a dirty word, so it’s a smart move to get away from that term and identify with the word ‘progressive.’
In addition to promoting the progressive brand, I think we would do well to point out that today’s “conservatives” are nothing of the sort. They do not represent traditional American conservatism; they are right-wing radicals, and should be branded as such.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:05 pmThe one at top left is the best, by far, though the top right one may grab people in some markets by having music instead of narration.
One nit to pick: it’s clever to have the Pro check box turn into Progressive, but doesn’t that play into the old joke about the opposite of Progress being Congress?
Was true when it was R, still somewhat true now, but hopefully not true after the 2008 elections.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:36 pmI gotta go with the bottom right….
The top right narration is way too (faux) folksy, and the top left one is too “woody guthrie”…. and they both have that “your eyes glaze over because its another political ad” quality that the world doesn’t need.
With the two Apple take-off ads, you are first surprised, then engaged — people pay attention to the original Apple ads because they are so entertaining, and they are very effective as advertising. People will pay attention to these kinds of ads through transference, and the ads are effective in not merely relaying the message, but in create a positive hip-but-not-too-hip vibe for progressive politics.
Of the two, I think the one on the left is better, because its not quite as “preachy” as the one on the right…. and I don’t think that the words “I think its government’s job…” is a good way to introduce an ad trying to convince people of anything. (I’d start with “I think Americans shouldn’t have to worry about corporate abuse” contrasted with the “every man for himself” which could be the “Con’s” only response… a response that is shown to be increasingly absurd as the commercial continues (”I think Americans should know that their drinking water is safe”, “I think we need to make sure the food that we eat won’t make us sick, and the medicines we take won’t kill us”, “I think we should keep poisonous toys off store shelves, and not wait until children get sick to do something”) or a have a series of GOP talking points (”I believe in small government”, “I think we need more tax cuts”) with the last response being “I think low taxes and corporate taxes are more important than your kids. Me personally, I import all my kids toys from Sweden, which does make sure that toys are safe…)
November 20th, 2007 at 10:00 pmI still like my idea best…
http://blindintexas.blogspot.com/ 2007/ 08/ what-kind-of-democrat-are-you.html
November 20th, 2007 at 11:42 pm