Marketing woes for the religious right
New name for an old image?
Marketing woes for the religious right
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
In the annals of marketing, the "re-branding" concept is not new. Sometimes, when a company or organization is saddled with an image problem, it decides to change its brand name - in the hopes that, presto, all the nasty old connotations will be flushed down the memory hole.
Not long ago, for instance, Philip Morris was stuck with a bad image problem, due to the fact that its signature product helps to kill many thousands of Americans. The solution was not to do away with the killer product (heaven forbid). Rather, the solution was to dump the name that had become synonymous with death; Philip Morris Companies Inc. simply became Altria Group Inc.
Meanwhile, you may have heard about the image problems that have lately plagued Blackwater, the U.S.-based security outfit that killed 17 Iraqis in a crowded square back in '07, an incident that triggered congressional inquiries and recently prompted the Iraqi government to deny Blackwater a new operating license. Well, Blackwater has now decided to retool its image, and step one was to dump the name Blackwater. The company is now calling itself Xe (pronounced zee); presumably that will make all the difference.
The same kind of thing sometimes happens in politics; as I noted recently, liberals these days much prefer to be called progressives, having decided that the old label carries too much baggage, that perhaps Mike Dukakis ran over the word with his tank back in '88.
Which brings us (finally) to the article that appeared late last week in Christianity Today, informing us that the religious right is seeking to re-brand, having somehow decided that the term religious right has too many bad connotations, and that a new name would spiff up the religious right's image.
It's understandable that the religious right would want to do something for itself, given the fact that the movement has stalled so badly. Nine years ago, having played a pivotal role in electing George W. Bush, the religious right was riding high. A string of successes seemed in the offing: a ban on stem-cell research, the enshrinement of an abortion ban and a gay marriage ban in the U.S. constitution, all sorts of laws encoding the movement's God-ordained values. But today the outlook is bleak; having been rendered largely toothless by the '08 election results, the religious right is stuck on defense for the foreseeable future.
Hence the apparent need for a re-brand. What's most striking, however, is that religious right leaders don't believe they bear any responsibility for their own image problems. They simply trace their woes to the religious right term, and the Christianity Today article dismisses the term as just something that's "thrown around in journalism and academia."
As arguments go, blaming the media is not exactly original, but in this case it's fascinating nevertheless. Over the years I have used the term religious right - because it was a widely accepted shorthand for the movement. I knew it was widely accepted precisely because so many of my conservative Christian sources, and Republican strategist/pollster sources, and the ex-lobbyist for the Christian Coalition, all used it in conversations with me.
Among many others, Elmer Rumminger, a publisher of Christian textbooks and Bob Jones University professor, told me six months before the 1992 election that "the religious right may just decide stay home in November." Neil Newhouse, one of the most respected Republican pollsters often used to tell me, "Thirty percent of our voters are from the religious right." Conservative strategist/pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick told me during the 2000 Florida crisis that if Bush lost to Gore, the next GOP candidate "would shine a bigger light on the kinds of issues that the religious right, and the moral right, has been asking for."
Conservative scribes have frequently used the term without seeking to dispute it. Ed Dobson and Cal Thomas, co-authors of the 1998 book Blinded by Might, write at one point: "Before the presidential campaigns of 1980 and 1984, the Religious Right continued to lobby Congress and register new voters." Moreover, the late D. James Kennedy, in his 2008 book How Would Jesus Vote?, writes in passing on page 18: "Modern secularists often accuse the religious Right of calling for a theocracy in America. Despite these claims, I am not advocating theocracy."
The religious right should probably start by acknowledging that it has long used the term to describe itself (here's another, from a 2003 lecture by religious right blogger Stephen W. Carson: "I can pretty fairly be classified as a member of the Religious Right myself.") Then perhaps members of the movement can solicit ideas for a nice re-brand. Here's one idea from Gary Schneeberger, spokesman for Focus on the Family: "Terms like 'Religious Right' have been traditionally used in a pejorative way to suggest extremism. The phrase 'socially conservative evangelicals' is not very exciting, but that's certainly the way to do it."
But would that really "do it"? In the end, the movement's image problem is perhaps traceable not to its terminology, but to its morally judgmental attitude. Put another way, a product doesn't necessarily benefit from a new name if the old ingredients remain.
Let's test my argument. Consider this factual sentence: On Sept. 13, 2001, religious right leader Jerry Falwell blamed the 9/11 attacks on "pagans and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifetyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped make this happen." And religious right leader Pat Robertson, his co-guest on the TV appearance, replied, "I totally concur."
Now substitute Schneeberger's preferred terminology: On Sept. 13, 2001, socially conservative evangelical Jerry Falwell blamed the 9/11 attacks on "pagans and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifetyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped make this happen." And socially conservative evangelical Pat Robertson, his co-guest on the TV appearance, replied, "I totally concur."
See the problem?
Marge, I don't think you really want to know, but since you asked, here goes! The GOP is at fault for cutting taxes while not cutting spending or the size of govt. the last 8 years and running up the natl. debt (like we were dems or something, though 9/11 had something to do with it). The GOP lost its conservative roots while trying to defend the country. The Dems are at fault for spurring the subprime lending industry through faulty legislation and govt programs! Luckily, it only took 1 overreach by the Dems in Congress to remind the GOP what it should stand for, less govt, lower spending, etc. & unite the party! You have to admit some of the things in the 'porkulus' bill and the way they passed it (late on Friday, waiting for a Sen. coming from his mom's wake) leave something to be desired as far as transparency and campaign rhetoric go! This bill also redoes the welfare reform that Clinton passed and goes back to the old way of doing business, good grief! The govt. will now give incentives to states for increasing the welfare rolls? And finally, the Dems always pass bills supposedly to try and help poor people, but the laws they pass (great society, housing for poor, public education, etc) always end up hurting the very people they try to help! Ironic isn't it:)— NEPhilly- Dang! If they change the name, it will deprecate one of my favorite bumper stickers of all time - "The Religious Right is Neither". I do like the suggestions with Taliban in them, though - that's definitely the right sort of association for these people.— yoda
- The regilious-right problem would go away once people realized there is no God. Does anyone on this site believe in God? You know that's a supernatural being, right? If you believe in supernatural beings, why not believe in Santa Claus, ghosts, vampires, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny?— Djoko Pritza
- Hey, tjhaol, why wait to sign? We're giving the Repubs time to read the bill. LOL— Djoko Pritza
- NEPhilly, if only you hadn’t been brainwashed as a kid, there might be hope for you: “The GOP lost its conservative roots while trying to defend the country.” What total horse pucky! The whole shtick of conservatives is national security. You can’t say they lost their way by doing what they advertise as their strength! “The GOP is at fault for cutting taxes while not cutting spending or the size of govt. the last 8 years and running up the natl. debt.” I’ll ask you the same question I asked SMike (which he has wisely avoided trying to answer): Why did they not cut spending? And don’t say “because they messed up.” Why did they mess up? If you can answer that, you may be on your way out of the fog you find yourself in. The rest of your post also merits challenge, but I’ll wait till you reply to this … if you do.— Djoko Pritza
- Story coming out now about how a Muslim TV guy has beheaded his wife in New York. Ah, religion; what would we do without it?— Djoko Pritza
- Djoko, belief in God encompasses a wide range of faith issues. It's something I struggle with myself. But one thing I do know. There are many things in this world that simply cannot be explained. So I try not to shut the door on them. And I think it's comforting for many people to believe that there is a benevolent, if non-interfering, guiding hand. Maybe some simply find that presence inside themselves to be conscience or ethics -- or in the case of Quakers, the inner Light. To me, the most important aspect of it is its influence for good, for understanding, for kindness. That's what really counts, in my opinion.— NigeltheMastiff
- The big problem the repubs have in explaining themselves in the current situation is explaining why they have changed their minds that "deficits don't matter." (quote from Cheney). Especially since their deficit spending was the opposite of what economists recommend: deficits when the economy is bad (like now) and raising taxes to pay off the debt when times are good (llke 2003-2007), How can they give a coherent explanation why deficits are suddenly so frightful that the govt shouldn't spend money as unemployment rises? I'd like to get a coherent explanation of this from them--still waiting.— liberal
- The problem I always had with the religious right started when I was in college and some student evangelist tried to talk me into becoming a "christian." This offended me since I was at that time suffering under the burden of being Roman Catholic, thus a member of a church founded by Christ's apostles themselves, if not the man himself. Where did they get off calling the RCC 'non-christian?" Made me want to bring back the Inquisition. Old Torquemada would know what to do with some guy from a quonset hut church on the wrong side of the tracks founded by some redneck in 1962 who was claiming exclusive franchise to the Christian brand.— liberal
- Djoko- You are claiming I did not answer your question on why Republicans did not cut spending. I think the reason is because Bush is a liberal and pushed the presciption drug plan. He campaigned on that. Then 9-11 happened and he got pushed for passing the office of Homeland Security. This bloated beauracracy gave us color coded threat levels. All for several hundred billion dollars. My 11 year old could have come up with and he'd have charged a lot less. So to answer your question I disagree with the spending. But don't kid yourself, the democrats happily added pork to every piece of legistlation they could. Without a line item veto the president, regardless of political affiliation, is basically stuck with the whims of career politicians in congress. It's not about the country for any of these people. It's about getting re-elected.
- Djoko, the GOP didn't cut spending and the size of govt. for one simple reason, 9/11! GWB did cut taxes to spur the economy, which did work and helped us recover from 9/11 and the Clinton recession, the 1st part of a good conservative govt. He did not however cut spending as a direct result of 9/11, which is the 2nd part of a good conservative govt. Adding Homeland Security Dept, enforcing the Patriot Act, rebuilding our military decimated by Clinton, war in Afghan., war in Iraq, etc. all led to more govt. spending. Which actually was a giant spending bill, building tanks, outfitting Humvees, feeding troops, etc.! Add conservative compassionate, AIDS relief to Africa, Medicare drug program & No Child Left Behind, left no room for spending cuts, which is a shame and a main reason the GOP brand is tarnished today! The GOP should have taken on entitlements by slowing their growth (which is not a cut, if you slow the cola to less than inflation), enforced our borders, strengthened welfare reform, cut the size of govt. at all other federal departments other than defense, intelligence or the military. The GOP should have also not taken 'no' for an answer from Dem Reps. when trying to crack down on Fannie and slowed down the CRA instead of embracing it! It is all Monday Morning Quarterbacking now though and nothing unites the GOP like a spendthrift left leaning Congress with their own agenda:)— NEPhilly
- Nigel, you in your humanness have the ability to live your life by the principles you stated. I have no problem with that if you want to attribute it to something beyond knowing. It's the people who cut off the heads of their wives becauase the Koran says God says they have that right who I have a problem with. Or those who say 9/11 happened because gays angered God ...— Djoko Pritza
- SMike, the drug plan happened AFTER 9/11 and it was approved by all the Repubs in Congress, even though there were reports it would cost tens of billions more than was advertized. Anyway, thanks for the reply. I'm not sure what I think about the line-item veto. It makes sense in keeping spending down, but a whole new dynamic of the unitary presidency comes into play. Bush already has previewed some of those problems.— Djoko Pritza
- Chavez finnally suceeeded in ruling Venezuela for life. He kept having an election until he got the desired result. I wonder how long before the left clamors for the same thing in this country. Shut down the opposition through the "fairness doctrine", import enough poverty to forge and electable majority for years to come, Bring he census under presidential control. All the tell tale signs are starting to emerge that we are pointed towards a socialist tyranny.
- NEPhilly, thanks; it was a valiant effort to explain all the spending under Bush. The poor guy; he had no choice! Here's a simpler answer: Cutting spending is what you argue when you're out of power; spending is what you do when you're in power. What no one should do is launch a way the cut taxes. Duh!— Djoko Pritza
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
