Conservative Marketing: Part Deux

In honor of Hollywood’s current trend, I offer you not a new blog entry but instead a sequel to my last post. My little entry had some legs and even garnered a response on the extremist and out of touch web site the Huffington Post. That author, some washed up corporate record executive who clings to the notion that he is “cool” and “hip,” actually called me a “sociopath winger.” Imagine that, rather than debate the merits of my ideas, he called me a name. Based on my resume and personal history, I can only assume that his reference was to my unabashed fandom of the rock band Winger and its leader, hair band maestro, Kip Winger.

I read through all of the comments on this site and on others that linked to the article, and rather than jump in, I thought I would address some of the consistent themes here.

To clarify, the overall idea is that Conservatism needs to be packaged and sold on an overriding concept: freedom and personal liberty. The secondary attribute of this concept is the natural extension that government should be small, unobtrusive, and focused on state leadership opposed to the consolidation of federal power.

You know, that wacky concept that guys like Thomas Jefferson thought was a good idea.

From that premise, we can create solutions to the secondary issues that are important to Conservatives of all shapes and sizes: abortion, women’s rights, gun ownership, gay marriage, public education, tax law etc. These arguments all feed from and are serviced by the limited government concept. Liberty is the ultimate “big tent” idea that everyone can get behind.

I don’t advocate ditching any principals. I’m not one of those people who think that we can win by watering down what we are about or believe in.

Let me give you a real world example. When we develop scripts, especially ones destined for TV and DVD release, we know exactly what the buyers want. As filmmakers, we slip in neat character idiosyncrasies, our political voice, and interesting situations. We never, however, lose site of the fact that the film we are making is about, for example, giant, futuristic robots bent on destroying human civilization.

I had one producer who would simply write “blah, blah, blah” in red ink on the margins of my script when the character moments or other elements that I as a filmmaker wanted to convey got in the way of the main story line. I wouldn’t simply throw these ideas away, but would rework them so that they didn’t distract from the main plot, and potentially turn off audiences who paid to see a specific thing. Sure, as an artist I would curse the heathen producer who was trying to diminish my beloved characters in an attempt to simplify and cheese out my giant robot film. But you know what, it only made me a better writer and made the scripts better and more focused.

We also need to face up to the fact that we, by nature, are not predisposed for this fight. We should not be surprised that they are better at organizing themselves and giving the impression of a unified front. They are statists who thrive off groupthink and the desire to “out victim” each other by classifying people into small sub-groups. We are a bunch of individuals. How do you get a bunch of people, whose ideology runs close to anarchy, to sit down and come up with a cohesive strategy? I, as a Libertarian type, just want to be left alone. I don’t crave a label. I don’t desire to be part of some monolithic group.

That’s why this is so important. Look at the identity polling. The largest voter bloc now call themselves “Independent.” What does that mean? Does that mean that they crave to be part of a society run by a big government? No, it means that they want to be Republicans but the Republican party is so bogged down in “blah, blah, blah” that they don’t feel that they have a home. Right now, the Democrats are riding high. They control the government. They control the media. Every major celebrity, from actors to musicians, proudly refer to themselves as Democrats. By all indicators, worshipping at the alter of the State and Lord Obama is the “cool” thing to do. Yet, 62% of the country rejects them outright, choosing to identify with either the opposition or neither group at all.

I saw “Star Trek” on opening night. I have tickets to see it in IMAX this weekend. While the mouth breathers in the liberal media are blabbing on about comparisons between Spock and Obama (the only connection I perceive is the ears maybe?) I saw a different analogy. Over 40 years ago Gene Roddenberry created his own mythical world. It spawned generations of loyal, rabid fans as well as tons of copycats (my beloved “Star Wars” and “Battlestar Galactica” included). But for decades the franchise suffered a slow death. Stifled by ego-maniacal actors, self-important producers, and a fanbase married to the original “canon,” “Star Trek” became, well, lame. Now, thanks to some aggressive studio bosses and a talented new group of people, “Star Trek” is back. Yes, the new guys changed some things, but they managed to maintain the original concepts and ideas that made the original series and films so popular. They just sexed up the presentation and in the process have created a new generation of Trekkers as well as allowed us old school Trekkies to Vulcan salute each other without fear of ridicule.

Face it, “Star Trek” is cool again. With the right marketing, we will be too