After New Hampshire, Desperate Establishment Will Market Identity Politics

For anyone who doesn't understand the term "identity politics," it is the idea that it is time for a gay person or a woman to take charge, and so anyone who is not gay or a woman does not meet the qualification. If you think it is silly, you have never attended a meeting conducted by marketing people. Selling benefits instead of features is one of the prime keys they emphasize. 

"Imagine vacationing in Mexico," but don't mention that it will take 18 years to pay back with minimum payments, is an example of selling the benefit of a credit card. A successful marketing campaign is one that lures people in with the image despite that it really comes with a huge burden. Now, you shouldn't get me wrong, I don't think marketing is inherently evil. It is the people who succeed in marketing who are inherently evil. Well, maybe not all of them, but all of them who peddle long-term problems with images that are deceptive.

You will see a flurry of this type of marketing. It is an act of desperation.

We are already seeing headlines about Buttigieg's second-place finish in New Hampshire, and what that means for gay people. We are already seeing headlines about Klobuchar finishing in third after finishing in fifth, and what that means for women. We are already seeing advertising promoting the idea that Bloomberg could draw Trump's supporters into the Democratic party! What images!

You can also find headlines that Bernie won the New Hampshire primary. That actually may be journalism because it is unbiased fact. So, too, is the fact that Tulsi Gabbard finished in seventh, but that should actually concern the establishment in general and Hillary Clinton in particular. Much of the summary dismissal I see about her campaign on social media has to do with her being a plant or an agent. She has a defamation lawsuit going against Hillary Clinton for creating that image of her.

The establishment should concern itself with Tulsi's finish based on the reasons many are giving for dismissing her as an option. They won't. If they can get control of things again, they can manipulate justice just as Trump does now. They won't be as despicable, perhaps, but they will still do it. Ultimately, it is about the power that money can buy, and how that power is used to silence dissidents and other people they market with identities as villains. 

For example, both Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning are considered villains by two groups more than any other groups: Republicans and establishment Democrats. In other words, the people with money. The result of the campaigns that market them as villains is that people who support free speech, the first amendment, and freedom of the press kind of understand why these two need to be punished. 

It has something to do with patriotism and standing up for America and the flag, but it's hard to explain after that. 

Let me be Captain Obvious for just a moment: the reason that it is hard to explain is because there isn't a good explanation. The marketing people want you to associate "keeping state secrets that prove the state is lying" with patriotism. If it works, we will agree because that's what patriotic people believe. We all want to believe ourselves to be patriotic, so, without further thought, we buy what they are selling, even if we can't explain why. That is why we laud people like Thomas Paine while throwing people who behave like him in prison. There were those who supported the king who thought that of him back then. They called them Tories.

Did something just click?

This is not some ploy that they are trying to use that won't affect you. If you identify as independent, free from the control of others, and into marching to the beat of your own drum, you are susceptible to marketing that will try to lure you into becoming a non-conformist just like everyone else who identifies as those things. It is based on science.

The good news for the progressive candidates is that they have the truth to counter the marketing. However, they are going to have to use the truth to counter attempts to lure people into supporting Klobuchar because she is now the woman with the most votes, or Buttigieg because, if we can't elect a woman, we should elect a gay man. Bloomberg will soon be putting a whole bunch of money into marketing. However, the truth that he is a billionaire media mogul who most recently was the Republican mayor of New York City helps the progressive candidates.

The progressive strategy to counter these marketing ploys must be to loudly state the disclaimers that the establishment won't include in their ads but should. If they try to associate one candidate as best for women, the LGBTQ community, or Black people, they are marketing identity politics. The truth is, unless someone is among the richest people in the world, and honestly believes that they are earning the profits they make by dropping health care coverage on employees, the progressive candidates are the best choices. 

Some of the landscape has changed. Andrew Yang has ended his campaign. He offered some new ideas on how to deal with the changing economy, and his supporters were strongly in his corner. He seemed to be aligned much more closely with the progressive wing than the establishment wing, and both Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard seemed to be impressed with what he brought to the table. His understanding of economics and business dynamics challenged those who are arguing for the status quo and perked the ears of the more enlightened people who want to hear more of what he has to say.

If nothing else, maybe his business acumen would make him worthy for consideration to run the DNC when Tom Perez resigns or gets fired by popular demand. That could actually be the future Secretary of Commerce replacing the former Secretary of Commerce, but Yang may not want to take that much of a pay cut. We can, however, hope he would.

The people who are saying Hillary Clinton should have been president because she got the most votes are now in the position of trying to spin why that standard should not apply to Bernie Sanders for their own nomination process. The people who were saying that Tulsi Gabbard was a Russian asset are now trying to spin why people who won't support her for that reason didn't really buy the marketing campaign. 

These are really evil people who are using scientifically proven methods of persuading people into believing the images that Buttigieg plus Biden equals something, or that Klobuchar plus Warren added together proves something else. In any case, the truth is that Bernie won both the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primaries. 

It is time for people to consider what is truly important to them. For the revolution to succeed, people must raise their voices and take to the streets. With Bernie's clear victory in New Hampshire, it is time for Tom Perez to resign and for Bernie Sanders to have a huge say in who succeeds him. He is the party's frontrunner, and that is the best way to rally the troops for the stated purpose of defeating Donald Trump. 

If Perez doesn't resign, or if he does and Bernie does not get a say in who succeeds him, then the image of defeating Donald Trump as the objective is simply an identity politics marketing campaign by the DNC and paying for it with four more years of Donald Trump will be the cost for buying it.

It will be up to each person individually, though, whether to buy the image or accept the truth. The way the establishment are amping up the campaign to sell the images, it is obvious that they are concerned that people are accepting the truth!