D
didymus
Guest
Scott Adams who writes the Dilbert cartoons also has a blog where he sometimes comments on politics. Here’s his take on Trump’s and Clinton’s slogans:
**
**
**Make America Great Again
Trump’s slogan uses the following persuasion techniques:
- Provides no targets for disagreement.
- Everyone has their own sense of what “great” means and how to do it. That vagueness is hardcore hypnosis technique.
- It speaks to identity (the strongest form of persuasion) as Americans.
- It suggests we lost something. Humans have more emotional connection to loss than potential gain.
- It has “America” in it. That word is persuasion catnip for Americans. We have been brainwashed to have a twitch response to it.
- It appeals to both genders.
- It is aspirational. We all want to be better, or to make the country better.
**
We’re Stronger Together
I think he’s right about Clinton’s being a total bust but I also distrust “Make America Great Again” or any variation & any politician using it.Clinton’s slogan uses all of the persuasion techniques listed below.
- None
Maybe I should tell you what is wrong with Clinton’s slogan from a persuasion perspective. Otherwise, we’re done early.
From a 2D perspective, where we pretend logic and reason matter, it makes perfect sense to prefer togetherness. And you can see how that might improve strength. But no one cares about the logic of it. Here’s what it gets wrong:- “Together” is a concept that skews female, at least in this specific context. Estee Lauder probably thought it skewed female when they thought of it too. We’re socially primed to see women as the gender that cooperates, while men are the gender who refuse to ask directions. Clinton’s slogan suggests we are stronger when we cooperate like women. This probably plays well with women and not so well with men, at least on an identity level.
- “Stronger” is generally a good word, but Trump already dominates that branding. It is far too late to frame Clinton as the strong one. So it comes across as a mixed message.
- Togetherness sounds good(ish), but it falls short of an aspiration. No one wakes up with a passion to pursue togetherness. Half of the country is comprised of introverts, loners, and competitive a-holes. Those folks want less togetherness, even if they mean it in an entirely different way. On an irrational level, togetherness – in all its forms – is simply not a universal desire. Compare that to making America greater, which is all good, all the time, to all Americans.
- “Stronger together” reflexively reminds you of socialism. America already has plenty of socialist parts, but the majority of voters probably want some limits on how far it goes. By comparison, no one wants to limit how “great” America gets.