In the interest of promoting a healthy two- (or more) party system, I feel obligated to point out this essay is basically Karl Rove's wet dream.

Just sayin'.

I wouldn't take a glass of cold water from him if I were dying of thirst in the desert, let alone his "health care".

Uh-oh, pronoun trouble. Who's "him"?

Jim, I believe it is true that most of the country is in fact stupider than you.

In fact, half of the country is of below average intelligence!

We've considered the "why don't people vote in their self interest" question before. I am reading a book now that helps answer that question, George Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant." Buy it and read it. Hell, buy two, because they're only $10 and you'll want to immediately give a copy to someone you know. Much more on this later.

Jim, now that I'm somewhat less pissed-off by this post than I was, I want to point you toward what I think is the best polling data out there concerning the breakdown of the electorate:

Pew Research Pre-Election Survey

I trust it simply because the election results very closely matched what the survey predicted. (Unlike the exit polling; talk about a wasted investment.)

Anyway, look at the internals. (Requires using the ever-annoying Adobe Acrobat.) The most intriguing bit:

                Bush Kerry Nader Other     (N)

                   %     %     %     %

Total             48    45     1     6  (1925)

Education

Post Grad.        41    54     *     5   (299)

College Grad.     49    45     1     5   (525)

Some College      54    41     1     4   (514)

H.S. Grad         49    44     1     6   (492)

Less than H.S.h   38    55     0     7    (84)

Notice Kerry wins big among Post Grads and High School dropouts. So one way to look at the data is to say that the natural idiots and the ones who had to work hard at it are the ones who voted for Kerry. The sensible middle (informed, but not peer-reviewed) tended to vote Bush.

Finally, the condescenion inherent in "And, if the latter, should I perhaps start voting Republican (whose economic policies in particular would be more to my personal gain) until/unless they wise up?" really undercuts the moral superiority trip you seem to be on. Who says Joe "100 on the Stanford-Binet" Schmoe isn't perfectly capable of voting against his immediate best interest, and for what he believes to be best for the country? 100 may not be the brightest figure in the firmament, but it still indicates a level of processing beyond anything we can dream of creating with the hands of man.

Maybe Mr. One Hundred, in the aggregate, has a hell of a lot more wisdom than any single guy who's dreading office hours and looking forward to the new Michael Moore film.

Get a grip.

Mark: Personally, I thought there was more condescension in the "God's grace" reference, but regardless, you've been "Billionaires for Bushed."

While Stupidity is indeed the leading cause of "disagreement with Jim," it has nothing to do with the election.

I think Mike has half my point down cold - I do remain a bit fascinated by the role self-interest does or should play in voting behavior, and how to weigh/value 'aspirational' voting (whether in the form of voting for tax cuts that one hopes to someday enjoy when rich or voting for long-term social policy change that one believes will be beneficial). In fact, Mike, if you followed your own advice, can I borrow that second copy of Lakoff's book you purchased?

But the second question I'm interested in is the wisdom and/or evil in "election marketing." And really it has two parts.

The first is whether all election marketing is bad. I can accept the argument that marketing ice cream as "good for you" is bad because it is false in pretty much every meaningful sense (don't yap about calcium please). But what about marketing ice cream as "a sinfully wonderful choice," with no reference to its health consequences? Equally bad? What if the claims are the same but the product is cigarettes? Or same scenario, but said ad appears in "Highlights For Kids?"

The political analogs are many - for example, in the marketing of gay marriage, there are very few facts presented (at least in the mainstream campaigns). Just unprovable notions of "protecting marriage" (whatever that means), etc. Does the invocation of 'protecting a sacred bond' constitute foul play? If so, why? It isn't really a true or false statement in any meaningful way. It's just pulling on intuitions. Why is that evil?

The second component is why, as an advocate of a viewpoint, it would be impermissable to market your ideas (assuming you don't cross the line into falsehood).

If you truly believe that there is a segment of the population that will, either through their inattention or the marketing efforts of your opponents, fail to embrace your viewpoint are you either permitted or obligated to market your own stance?

Some people seem to embrace the notion that political persuasion must come with full disclosure (read, "the left"). Others seem to embrace the "courtroom" stlye of argument - stick to your side and let the 'other guy' point out the weak links (read, "the right").

Is either position correct? Is it wise to stick to the first model when your opponent has adopted the second? Does the nature of your audience change your answer? These are the things I am really interested in.

Although I was sort of counting on Colin to have some really funny Dante - Republican Sin images.

Feel better?

What makes me feel better is Ish's latest: The American Covenant. That's a really great piece.

I don't mind a gag (gotta love South Park) but the problem with the supposed "Billionaire for Bush" treatment is that while the namesake group was obvious parody, your essay would be met by an amen chorus on Kos, or Democratic Underground, or some of the other so-called Progressive sites.

Sorry I didn't get that you were pulling my leg, but I've been bitten in that same spot too many times to assume the best.

As to marketing politics, it all comes down to the ethical system to which you subscribe (which is an example of one of Ish's covenants). For what it's worth, and whether you agree with the perception or not, one of the key factors in Bush's favor was his perceived integrity. That indicates to me that a tactical Liberal has two choices; attack the integrity of Bush (or whoever happens to be the conservative candidate) or pump up your own side's integrity.

Truth is, CBS et. al. has made both tactics problematic; since most media outlets aren't trusted to play the news straight, any attack becomes immediately suspect, while rebuilding a reputation for integrity takes a lot longer than losing it in the first place.

Right now the Left doesn't have a whole lot of credibility with the middle of most bell curves in this country. Without credibility correcting the Great Slide that started with Reagan will be tough no matter what specific tactics are used.

That's where changing the framework becomes critical, and why I can't speak highly enough of The American Covenant. The terms of the debate must be changed. That will give the Left a fresh start at convincing the middle; staying the course means continuing the slide.

While I don't necessarily agree with Ish's characterization of conservative's motives, I will say that arguing from within his framework shifts the debate onto friendlier ground for progressives (and joyously, into a space that seems to me healthier for the country as a whole).

Sorry, Jim, I only bought one copy. You can use all the money you save on your iPod to buy another!

Actually, the point of your post is essentially the same as Lakoff's book. The left can't just point out "the truth" and "the facts" and expect to win elections. We have to understand the theater of politics. We have to understand how politics are understood. Yes, it's marketing. Is it false advertising? Depends on how it's done.

My "American Covenant" piece was a first attempt at trying out some centrist rhetoric to convey progressive politics. I'm glad you liked it so much, Mark!

Still waiting for Dante,

Mike

Not much time on my way out here, but as a possible avenue for fruitful inquiry, I would suggest that taking advantage of the credulousness of the general populace is indeed Bad, though I would stop short of Evil. IMHO, PT Barnum was fine to make a harmless dollar off them, but the issues do indeed, as Jimpy suggests, get a bit darker when you bring health into it. They get quite a bit darker when you bring politics and the future of the country into it. Sliding scale: the kid who suckers you out of your lunch money at school --> the advertiser who convinces you to buy an unhealthy product instead of a healthful (or at least non-synthetic) one --> the preacher who riles you up for his own ego purposes or personal pettiness --> the politician who plays on the harsher side of your faith to get you to do what he wants (cf Wahhabist leaders).