http://blindintexas.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-kind-of-democrat-are-you.html

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…)

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.

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.

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.

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”

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.

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.

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.

“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 wrong”, 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
Liberalism 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 “witches”, 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 “progress”, 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.

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 ?

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.

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 …

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.

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.

Glorious, Lefty. Gave me a sigh of gratitude.

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.