What Occupy Wall Street Can Learn From The Republicans

by Steve Andrews

If you put all political ideologies aside, you have to admit that – purely from a mass communications standpoint – no one is better at simplifying a message, getting their point across and galvanizing support for their agendas, than the Republican Party. Nobody.

Occupy Wall Street would be well advised to take a few pages from the Republican playbook if they want to see any real effect in what they’re doing. If they ask themselves: “How would the Republicans run Occupy Wall Street?” they might get somewhere.

KNOW THE PURPOSE

To start with, if the Republicans were running Occupy Wall Street they wouldn’t have any illusions about the task in front of them: The challenge is, first and foremost, to sell ideas to the public. 

The Republicans know they are marketing. They speak advertising. They talk about being ‘on brand,’ and staying ‘on message.’ They know they need to persuade a massive population in order to get support and have good poll numbers; which in turn persuades the undecided. There’s nothing lofty about this job. It’s not philosophical. It’s tactical. The Republicans roll out their agendas like they’re launching a new product, and they’re successful because they do so.

NAMING

The Republicans know that a crucial part of any branding process is naming. Especially in a noisy environment where soundbytes are all that stick. Occupy Wall Street seems to have skimmed over this part. What they need is a name that if you oppose it, in any way, you look bad. No Child Left Behind is a prime example of effective naming. You couldn’t possibly stand up and proclaim, “No Child Left Behind is wrong,” and look like anything but a jerk-off. “I’m against Occupy Wall Street,” sounds fine when you say it because you’re against an implied hostile take-over. It’s almost admirable to be opposed to it. Occupy Wall Street’s name is so ham-fisted I wouldn’t be surprised if the Republicans actually started the whole thing to make liberals appear stupid and laughable – there is precedent for this sort of thing.

The Republicans would have hired an ad agency or think-tank to brainstorm names and then focus-group test them. Since Occupy Wall Street has no ad agency, here are a few names for them off the top of my head:

Stand for Corporate Reform - Anyone who opposes reform sounds like a stodgey old fart in the way of progress. And taking a ‘Stand’ against anything sounds admirable.

Fix America - Too general. But it’s hard to be against fixing things.

Clean Up American Business - Same.

People for Ethical Business - Too dry.

Level The Field - I like it, but it’s a bit too abstract. The Wallmart crowd would never get it. And you need the Walmart crowd on your side.

Other options - Anything with Build, Reconstruct, Heal in the name might work. Maybe it’s Heal America. Too soft? Could be: Rebuild American Business. You’d sound like a complete tool if you were against that.

You get the idea. The protestors could beat these thoughts easily if they were able to make a collective decision.

WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO SAY?

Since the Republicans are smart marketers, they know that when it comes to messaging, if eveything’s important, nothing is important. If they were running Occupy Wall Street, they’d drill down on one tangible idea and sing that song over and over and over across every possible outlet.

The central issue that Occupy Wall Street is dancing around – but can’t seem to articulate – is Corporate Reform. They’re not against wealth itself, but they oppose a corporate system that stacks the deck in its own favor. A system that influences elections and legislation through donations, political action committees and lobbies. 

Every complaint Occupy Wall Street has about concentration of wealth – from greedy banks, inequality, and minimum wage – stems from the erosion of limits on corporate power. With corporate corruption as the enemy, not wealth itself, the protesters could portray themselves as modern-day Trustbusters, Robinhoods, or Guardians who seek to reestablish laws that protect the people. This is a rich emotional territory: Everyone likes to root for a do-gooding underdog.

If the Republicans were running Occupy Wall Street, they would’ve understood this and crafted the narrative around bringing back safeguards we used to have against corporate control. Tangible protections that existed until the mid 1800’s, such as:

• Corporations had limited duration, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years -- they were not given forever, like corporate charters are given today.

• The amount of land a corporation could ow poration could have was limited.

• The corporation had to be chartered for
a specific purpose. Not for everything,
or anything.

• The internal governance was very different. Shareholders had a lot more rights than they have today, for major decisions such as mergers; sometimes they had to have unanimous shareholder consent.

• There were no limitations protections on liability – managers, directors, and shareholders were liable for all debts and harms and in some states, doubly or triply liable.

• The states reserved the right to amend the charters, or to revoke them – even for no reason at all. ^[1]

The reinstatement of these protections would eventually create most of the changes Occupy Wall Street wants: A trustworthy governance, a more humane business environment, and a stronger middle-class. This issue should be the main course, but it’s currently a side dish. 

The downsides to narrowly focusing on Corporate Reform are minimal. One negative is it would no longer be a party issue. It would concern everyone. Therefore it wouldn’t have that necessary fringe appeal that makes agendas successful in our current political scene. Also, it might not be as fun or satisfying as blaming stereotypes. And the ‘Movement’ could no longer be a grab bag of all kinds of grievances. Worst of all: changing something in a small, tangible area is a lot harder than rallying against everything and accomplishing nothing.

COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS

After correctly diagnosing the problem and specifically defining what they were trying to communicate, the Republicans would consider the opposing viewpoints. They would study the barriers to acceptance and understand the philosophy at work. In this case, they would play devil’s advocate and appreciate the legitimacy of the counter-argument: We need to do everything we can to help business because they provide for us. Don’t do anything to hurt corporations because that would shoot all of us in our proverbial feet.

Only once they understood the opposition would they poke holes in their argument. They’d arrive at a folksy kind of ‘kitchen table logic.’ Just because someone pays me doesn’t mean they can’t be abusive, or greedy or manipulative. If your dad is mean drunk, it doesn’t matter how big an allowance he gives you. Right? Of course. They’d put it this way: “Is it wise to place so much faith in institutions who’s sole reason for being is to make money? You wouldn’t trust a person with that agenda. Why trust organizations where, out of sheer size and numbers, no-one is directly responsible.” And they would be right.

MENTALITY 

The Republicans seem to treat politics like it’s a game and they want to win it at all costs. And like all games, there’s an element of fun to it. They’re not just motivated by ideology, but by the sheer joy of tripping up the opposition. They have team spirit.

It’s like this: If you screw someone over it’s bad. But if you get someone to screw themselves over, that’s where things take on another dimension. There’s an element of creativity and zeal to this approach. Mustaches are being twirled. Giggling is involved. The winner is left smug and smirking at the end. 

If Occupy Wall Street is an actual organic movement and not something concocted in a boardroom – purely for the purposes of making the Democrats look like losers – the protesters might want to adopt the Republican mentality. The accusation that Liberals are soft has been well earned. It’s high time they worked to reverse the perception.

1. Revoking The Corporation, a discussion with Richard Grossman & Ward Morehouse, transcribed by rat haus reality press, 1996.