Electing Influencers: The Rise of The Political Lifestyle Brand
A few weeks ago, people in various corners of the Internet were beginning to notice that despite being the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, Kamala Harris hadn’t really developed much of a platform of policies yet. In fairness, her candidacy was still very new and had the unique challenge of being both beholden to the record of the Biden administration (which she is of course a part of) as well as distinguishing herself from the widely unpopular former candidate.
Even still, it got my brain turning. How had she managed to drum up so much enthusiasm (and donations) on what could be largely chalked up to vibes? How had Donald Trump, who himself has always been light on real policy, done the same? What are they actually selling to the American people to get them to vote for them?
And from the embers of “brat kamala” a thought was born: these aren’t candidates anymore. They’re influencers.
Image perception and influence have long been one of the chief goals of any electoral campaign. Sure, policies are important, but they only matter insofar as how they make you come across to the public. At the end of the day, you need to get people to show up at the ballot box for YOU and your candidacy. That is how this core goal has evolved into the complex political machinery we see on both sides of the aisle today where our parties are more like lifestyle brands than ever.
Slogans
“Make America Great Again” is probably the most famously viral political slogan of the last decade if not two. Its associated red background and white text have shown up on endless types of merchandise from flags to hats to mugs to dog shirts. As a brand, it’s even spawned media outlets and social media networks. It’s basically the “brat” of its time—an inescapable and instantly recognizable marketing machine politicos dream of having.
In its own way, it’s evolved from being just a slogan to being the chief operation of the Trump candidacy. Everything is about making America great again. It doesn’t matter when it stopped being that, it doesn’t explicitly matter how it could be again. “Make America Great Again” has been defined by political pundits and followers as a movement, but I think it's more apt to call it a brand—especially as Trump is one of the few candidates to ever try and succeed to trademark a political slogan. It's a psychographic—complimentary or derogatory—that goes well beyond strictly political affiliation. Psychographics are the psychological and cognitive attributes of a consumer that reveal their beliefs, values, and goals. In marketing, psychographics are used in conjunction with demographics to understand and market to consumers' purchasing habits. So in the case of MAGA it takes politics beyond a simple breakdown of red and blue demographics. It gets deeper into the psychology of a certain American. There are people who will vote for Trump because he is the Republican candidate. They’re not MAGA. I know that. You know that.
MAGA as we know it today is a type of person that transcends typical political leanings. They don’t just turn out every 4 years. They are fierce advocates for a whole slew of lifestyle choices from defending gun culture to defending red meat consumption and opposing a certain coastal-minded globalism. Voting is important, but it’s more like a given as anyone can vote for Trump. To be MAGA means taking it a step or three further. It’s the classic branding tactic of creating exclusivity at all costs, and MAGA does it through specificity and intensity.
If we contrast it with another iconic campaign slogan from former President Obama—“HOPE”—there’s a clear difference. Sure, Obama got some great merchandise out of his slogan and it became a defining part of his election. But removed from that relatively narrow timeframe, “HOPE” doesn’t define a psychographic. It’s just a powerful political slogan.
Polling vs Policy
The Cola Wars is an event taught as a lesson to every branding and advertising student. For those who need a refresher, Pepsi ran a now-iconic gimmick in the late ‘70s that saw them conducting blind taste tests for Coca Cola drinkers to see which they prefer. And the results were that, in general, drinkers did prefer Pepsi. So why does Coca-Cola still hold dominant market share?
The easy answer is marketing. According to Bartow Elmore in a history of the Coca-Cola company, “Coke’s genius lay in its ability to link its product to patriotic events, American family life, and even religious iconography,” such as “rosy-cheeked Santa Clauses and smiling GIs.” In short, great branding is about more than making people aware of a product—it requires creating emotive associations. This might explain why when polled about the issues of the day, Americans tend to be more liberal (and at many times outright progressive!) yet still vote for the Republican candidate.
If Americans voted on policy, the GOP would likely not be very influential, but they’ve found enormous success in appealing psychographically to voters. It’s not about issues; it’s about culture. There are Christmas movies, music genres, and even coffee brands like Black Rifle Coffee (who themselves make their political leanings a fundamental part of their branding as the ‘Starbucks of the right’). There’s a whole capital ecosystem around being part of the Right these days. And after years of relying on President Barack Obama’s charisma, the democrats are starting to realize that a large part of his success was his ability to make a vote for Obama a vote for hope and optimism.
Which might explain the out-of-nowhere appeal of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. As it became all but clear he would be the vice presidential nominee, think-piece after think-piece was written about how he was an “aggressively normal dad” with funny but potent one-liners like “these guys are just weird!” Policy has largely taken a back seat in his appeal. He’s the guy who wants us to have a normal Thanksgiving again after nearly a decade of awkward encounters. A vote for Harris-Walz is a vote for normal. That’s not a policy, it’s a branding principle.
Merchandise
That very clearly Chappel Roan-inspired Harris-Walz hat is doing a lot.
It’s appealing to The Youth™ in the camo trend and Chappel Roan-adjacent design
It responds to the MAGA cap
Most importantly, it adopts a pattern once staunchly associated with conservatism and rebrands it to liberalism
Fashion is a funny thing. Prior to 2015, a red hat was a red hat. But, as Alyssa Hardy wrote in Teen Vogue, after Trump released his MAGA hats, “it was a signifier of its wearer’s political and social positions. It showed their love for Donald Trump and, probably, everything he stands for. The red hat was forever changed.”
Now the same thing is happening with camo. Hitting a new resurgence in the fashion 20-year cycle, camo is more popular than ever among Gen Z. There are a lot of theories…mine is that 20 years ago, camo became a defining image of Americanism in fashion—rugged, outdoorsy, expressive, utilitarian, labor-specific (always going through cycles of trend in the U.S.). But more namely, it became a defining image of American conservatism especially in the wake of 9/11—the only world Gen Z has known. The recent moves by artists and the fashion industry to reclaim camouflage as an aesthetic choice has little to do with an uptick in hunting, and is more so a response to Trumpism and neo-conservatism by trying to stake a claim to a sort of New Americanism. Lest we forget, Kamala Harris’s slogan is “A New Way Forward,” and her new way forward is meant to be inclusive of all Americans.
By de-fanging some of the cultural associations of certain fashion choices, it signifies a new era in American politics. If MAGA red is boorish vengeance, Kamala Camo is the sleeper in the bushes quietly trying to rally everyone scared off by the big, bad red. Democrats, with a voter base of very different demographics, have historically had a harder time creating branding that appeals to these drastically different lifestyles; what one group may find cool and fun, another may find cringe and repellant, and vice versa; sanctimony is never attractive branding. In the camo choice, they’re vying for everyone’s appeal. That’s a lot for a little cap to say, right?
Activity
And then there’s Donald Trump Jr. and his latest venture into the lifestyle space via his outdoor and hunting magazine, Field Ethos.
The quarterly print magazine—which received good reviews from, of all places, left-leaning site Slate—and website are full of striking landscape photos accompanied by pieces about pheasant hunts in the Midwest or deer hunting retreats in Hawaii, plus gear reviews. There’s also a shop selling all manner of outdoors merchandise. It’s even got a travel agency business, Outrider, to help customers arrange trips and organized outings. And it all comes aimed at someone with a decent amount of money to spare. They say they stay out of politics (as any lifestyle brand would), but you don’t have to scroll far to find articles railing against wokeness.
If this seems like an odd pivot for a guy raised in Midtown Manhattan, it’s just the latest venture in a slew of what’s being called the “freedom economy”—foils for the mainstream brands which have increasingly taken political positions over the last several years, often angering conservatives. If there’s X, there’s Truth Social. Starbucks, Black Rifle. You get the picture. As Politico puts it, “These companies aren’t literally in the business of politics, but they show the extent to which the political has seeped into everyday life: the things we buy, the hobbies we take part in, the books we read.”
According to Trump Jr. himself, Field Ethos is about “Creating an alternate viewpoint for the Americans who felt like they’ve been left behind who don’t want to support those things.”
The Trump era is where I think we can begin to track the most dramatic shifts towards the lifestyle branding of our politics; nearly every day on the campaign trail, there was a new “policy,” only they weren’t policies at all—at least not in the way we’ve typically thought of them as being so. They were nicknames, aspirations, frustrations. They were almost strictly emotional appeals that were perfect for acting as unifying social-political beliefs. They were also easy to transform into merchandise, sales pitches, and messaging other businesspeople in the market could also capitalize on. This has had the effect of creating a wider web and ecosystem around the Trump-era policies and politics where there are tiers of engagement that demonstrate devotedness to the cause or lifestyle, starting with believing, parroting talking points, attending rallies, and culminating in merch purchases and political donations.
But now we’re seeing Democrats hopping on board as well. Meeting the moment, marketing pivots like “kamala is brat” and events like “Hotties for Harris” (itself a sort of evolution of the pre-viral Internet Obamagirl videos in 2007) show that it’s not just the GOP embracing the kind of branded lifestyle marketing that voters evidently crave.
This is the new political moment we’re in. It’s all about the brand that you can live, breathe, buy, and believe in. If politics are about our lives, the brands they’re creating are how we live them.
<~>
I think that this is why the endorsement of celebrities has taken greater importance than it has in the past. In 2016, every major celebrity came out in support of Hillary Clinton and, truthfully? It didn’t really move the meter of conversation around her. But see the latest (and most bizarre) controversy around Chappel Roan choosing not to endorse Kamala Harris and there’s a distinct difference in the weight people are attaching to the practice of endorsement this time around.
Suddenly, because she has decided not to publicly endorse Harris (or any candidate), her commitment to queerness, women, and democracy has been called into question. It doesn’t matter her reasoning—that she cannot in good conscience throw enthusiastic weight behind a candidate who remains seemingly committed to the obliteration of Palestine. Chappel Roan is no longer passing the vibe test. She’s a jezebel grifter looking to make money off of drag queens and queer people, but can’t be bothered to turn out and vote for them (which she did not say).
Or look at Taylor Swift, seemingly an enemy of both the left and the right for her relative political muteness (though recurring public endorsement of democratic candidates). At one point she was a darling of the right for her popularity among conservative country listeners, but then came out against the alt right and Donald Trump and earned their scorn. Next, she didn’t position herself proactively and often enough as leftist enough to be a “true” member of the left (despite the aforementioned endorsements and prompts to register to vote) so she’s a conservative in sheep’s clothing. She’s maligned as an idiot by the right and a shill by the left.
Why do we care so much?
It just goes to show how effective messaging like “save our democracy” from xyz bogeyman has been in rendering every aspect of our political life into an apocalyptic for-profit industry culture war. I don’t genuinely think anyone complaining about the endorsements or lack thereof of these celebrities is actually waiting for their go ahead to vote for a given candidate. I don’t think 8 years has given their opinion any greater political weight. But I do think consumers care more about brands aligning with their values than they ever have. As we’ve veered onto the off-ramp of late capitalism doing 80 mph, we’ve collectively agreed that the most valuable expression consumers have is how we spend our money. We are our money. It is our value. It’s a reflection of who we are, and brands seeking to ingrain themselves in our lives must comply or be quiet (or seemingly necessary) enough that we can stomach them doing otherwise.
And political parties have taken this to heart. Now, the democrats can remove the abolition of the death penalty from their platform and commit to the unconditional arming of Israel despite a mounting regional war because they’ve said that if we don’t vote for them, drag queens and women’s rights will be wiped out. The GOP can similarly warp and twist every element of conservatism to their whim if the unyielding credo is that its for the greater project of preserving America, the brave and beautiful. They’ve become master branders of a political lifestyle, the stakes of which, should you not commit to one, are your social, professional, and at most extreme, bodily lives.
I don’t have a precise answer for how to solve this. Critical thinking would be a good start, but that feels like a very passive request. I suppose my only wish here is that we at least start becoming wiser to the mechanized guilt trips and see what waits on the other side of awareness.