Politicians as Brands

Some politicians seem to have more than just a reputation, they seem to have a brand name. I suppose in order to link brand names to politicians, it's important to have at least a semi-definition of what a brand is and how it's applicable to politics. I think a brand can work to promote a product or an idea. Some politicians seem to fall through the cracks, in that they never develop into a representative of something greater than themselves. Some politicians are also predictable, cookie cutter molds that don't really have the idiosyncratic clout necessary to be a brand. Obama seems to carry a brand name in that he symbolizes change. Another politician that has an interesting brand name is Sarah Palin. Palin definitely seemed to be aiming for something like brand name status from the get go. She tried to develop a unique personality, and promoted herself as an apparent "maverick," someone who represents the overall American, not just a Republican American. She was a working mother, plagued with a host of familial issues that thousands of other families deal with every day. Her brand took a turn for the worse when she started being portrayed as naive and uninformed. Palin and the McCain campaign seemed to believe that Americans were less interested in political action and more interested in appearances. Sarah Palin seemed like a hard-working American woman, but one who would accomplish very little if elected into the white house, and the American public chose the chance for progress over appearances.

Saturday Night Live is sometimes a good program to watch in order to learn of public opinion on certain figures or celebrities. While there are many other stronger parodic news programs out there, such as the Daily Show, SNL succeeds in developing further brand names for some celebrities such as Palin or in her case, transforming their brand name into something much different.

It makes me a little sad how politically incorrect SNL can be, but they did a great job of developing the Palin personality or their take on her personality. A few of my favorite points were when she said there were too many foreigners at the UN conference, and when she called Bono the King of Ireland. These two statements portray Palin as naive, sheltered, and quite unintelligent. They turn her brand from representative of the people to representative of a goofy woman who believed she would go far in politics.

It seems that the Palin brand now works to promote elitist sentiment in the United States. I'd say SNL is probably viewed more by the middle and upper classes. It seems that in order to enjoy SNL a person would probably need to have time to watch late night television shows which makes me think that people working hard to support their families probably don't have time for comedy shows that air in the middle of the night. I suppose SNL might target more to an older demographic rather than a middle class one. Also, some knowledge of politics and what's happening in the news is needed to understand it, so I'm assuming they target people who choose to inform themselves on politics and news stories, something the elderly have time to do. Sadly though, a lot of people who have time to understand politics instead watch SNL and believe what's said without realizing its falsity.

I know little of who SNL is targeting, but from what I can tell, SNL played a large role in shaping how many of us teenagers view Sarah Palin. The video was incredibly popular. I saw the SNL skit before even knowing anything about Sarah Palin, and if I hadn't felt silly and done a little research on her I would have had that SNL image stuck in my head. The SNL skit really isn't as far off as I would hope for a person so close to the vice-presidency, but even so it worked as part of the propaganda against Sarah Palin, in their case slightly inaccurate propaganda. Her brand seems to be working for both Republicans and Democrats alike to make arguments for politicians with higher education and lives in New England based law firms. In general, SNL seems to have pinned Palin as the anti-politician, naive and uneducated, and a lot of people "jokingly" link her unintelligence to her upbringing in rural Alaska.

Sarah Palin probably wouldn't have been a great vice president. She really didn't seem creative or particularly intelligent, but I think that has little to do with her life in Alaska. It's naive of people who pin Palin as a hick from Alaska to think that someone's upbringing can really detract from their ability to lead. Upbringing might subtract from an understand of politics, but with study and work, politics can be understood. Politicians often have inherent traits that contribute to their success. I learned today in my history textbook that Teddy Roosevelt was loved for his charisma and speech giving ability. Those things are specific to him not his education. If Sarah Palin had those qualities and studied hard in law school or on her own, she would probably have made a decent politician. Skits like SNL contribute to this image that the puffed-hair ex-beauty queen from Alaska was never meant to be in the White House, that she just didn't have the background, the education or the intelligence, detract from our understanding of what makes a good politician. It also restricts progress. I'm sure there are plenty of wealthy people out there who look at Palin and say, you know she just wasn't naturally intelligent, but there are a lot that say she's too sheltered to understand politics. They look at her coal-mining husband and pregnant teen and call her something similar to white trash. As someone who loves the environment and wants to study environmental studies, her environmental policies as a governor appall me. She seems to have a disregard for the natural world, and I shutter to think of her in the White House, but at the same time good for her for getting so far. She was a governor one day, and a step away from the White House the next day. Had Obama not been such a strong candidate or had American sentiments been in favor of everything All-American the results of the election could have been in her and McCain's favor. Obama represents cosmopolitanism and change in a time when Americans want something knew, they want a better standing in the world. During the times of the Monroe Doctrine or during its extension in the late 1800s, Sarah Palin might have seemed like the perfect representative for the people. She probably understands the average American middle-class better than a lot of other politicians, but in today Americans want help from the outside world, they want a change in economics and job status, and Obama represents change. Palin wouldn't have been a good vice-president for a variety of reasons, but to blame it on her life in Alaska is the opposite of change and progress. To be happy Obama's in the White House and then glad that middle-of-nowhere-Russia-viewing-uneducated Palin isn't, doesn't function to promote the ideals of change and progress. It creates a brand name for her that's based on false advertising. SNL is a hilarious program and it often represents general sentiment accurately, but it can lead us to making false conclusions. We see someone doing something on SNL and assume that the subject of the joke does the same, and then we look for answers and come up with Alaska doesn't support intelligence and beauty pageant queens can't be anything more but housewives.

Here I am chastising people for making assumptions about Palin while I make assumptions about them. I've taken all of the conclusions I've made about Palin from conversations I've had with friends and family. My friends and family represent a very small section of the American population though, so it's very possible that I've found the select few people who label, based on her appearance and the media's response to her, Sarah Palin as a sheltered small town girl with no hopes for political success. I'm hoping to work further on supporting my claims in this blog. Videos and photos work to bring up ideas, but the claims I make sometimes feel unfounded or unsupported by evidence. I wonder how journalists strike a balance between presenting their opinion or their spin on events and proving their claims. It's one thing to report just the facts or the facts one might hear, sometimes "facts" are false, but often journalists are called on to process, explain, and make conclusions from the facts. I hope to practice further finding a balance between presenting my own opinions and thoughts and including proof as to why my conclusions feel correct.