Joe McGinniss showed America that politicians are sold like products.  And we loved it.

~David Greenberg, Politico Magazine, 2014

In The Selling of the President 1968, McGinniss documents how a team of media advisers used television to convince America there was a NEW Richard Nixon.  Among them was Harry Treleaven, a Madison Avenue guru who came up with “Nixon’s the ONE!” and devised a campaign strategy based on image, not issues which he claimed just bored voters.  And Roger Ailes, a relatively unknown local television producer in Cleveland, was responsible for the television spots which portrayed Nixon as the calm in the storm of Vietnam, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy, and the Chicago riots during the Democratic convention.

There is just one problem.  Money and PR can, as they say, “put a shine on a turd,” but it is still a turd.  And eventually the consumer recognizes that fact, and no amount of subsequent marketing can produce repeat purchases or referrals.

Dr. ESP, how can you say that? If you are correct, Nixon should not have won again in 1972.  True in theory, but that year both major parties offered their respective flawed candidates.  And as they also say, “Better the turd you know than the one you don’t know.”  And a few dirty tricks did not hurt Nixon’s cause.

I share this moment in political history because the analogy of candidate as product explains both Trump’s electoral college victory in 2016 and his inability to expand his base since then.  Consider the following business case I wrote during my tenure at Miami University based on a friend’s experience with a new product line.

In 1997, his company licensed the Chuck E. Cheese brand to produce and sell frozen foods in grocery stores, not unlike Boston Market or P. F. Chang.  He hired a marketing consultant to conduct mall intercept surveys of women who were observed shopping with children ages three through twelve, the target market for the branded items.  Seventy one percent of the respondents said they were extremely or very likely to purchase the product.

Initial sales exceeded projections.  However, there was an immediate drop-off, particularly in repeat purchases.  It was not the quality of the products.  Or ease of preparation.  The primary issue was family disruption.  Many parents reported older children had no interest in the product and often made fun of their little brothers and sisters.  You can just hear the sing-song teasing.  “The little baby has to have Chuck E. Cheese.”  The product could have been the best thing since sliced pizza, but it was still not worth the ensuing sibling altercations.

Is that not what the product called Donald Trump has done to America?  During the campaign, his mall intercepts with targeted consumers were arenas with supporters in MAGA caps.  But now he is constantly present in our homes, our extended families and our communities.  And the back and forth cacophony between supporters and resisters is the equivalent of sibling teasing.  It gets old very quickly and continues to irritate over time.

In the aftermath of every era of disruption, Americans yearn for a “return to normalcy,” a phrase coined in a 1920 speech by Warren G. Harding in response to World War I.  Some pundits refer to the recent decline in Trump’s approval rating as the result of “Trump fatigue,”  something it took the Bushes and Clintons decades to achieve.  Colorado Senator Mike Bennett even promised if he becomes president there could be weeks without our hearing from him.  He, like many of us, look forward to a day when we no longer need Frank Costanza’s relaxation cry “SERENITY NOW” as our mantra.

America may have been born by revolution, but it survives and grows through evolution.  Take Medicare for All as an example.  Some day America may have a national health system.  But not tomorrow.  Universal coverage is a worthy goal toward which we were making uneasy progress.  Less than a decade ago Republicans made repeal of the Affordable Care Act a winning campaign theme.  Today, a majority of voters support it.  Maybe we take the next step by adding a public option to reach those still without coverage.  I understand the arguments against the for-profit insurance industry.  But you do not change the world campaigning.  You change it when you govern.  And to govern, you must first get elected.

Which brings me to a final point.  Jill Biden was on the right track, but the way she raised the specter of her husband’s electability makes me wonder if she’s been spending too much time around Joe.  Last month in New Hampshire she urged voters to back her husband even if they consider another candidate to be “better” on the issues.  It would have been more appropriate to present a vision of the policy process in a Biden White House.

We have exceptional candidates running for the nomination and they have presented a range of ideas to improve the lives of every American.  And no one should expect them or their perspectives to disappear if they are not the nominee.  The difference is that when Joe is president, all of those same people will still have a voice.  Because we all agree on the goal whether we are talking about economic opportunity, social justice, health care, climate change or making our country and cities safe.  And Joe knows the way to get there is by bringing more people into the conversation.

Which brings me back to 1968 and Harry Treleaven who I believe misread what was happening.  Issues do not bore voters.  They care a lot about issues but in the abstract.  They want better schools for their children.  Or lower drug prices.  Or assurances they will still have their jobs.  They respond to the vision not to detailed solutions.  Take immigration as an example.  If you believe illegal immigrants are taking your jobs and terrorizing your neighborhoods, you do not care if Trump steals funds from projects that benefit service men and women to build his wall or that he inhumanely separates infants and children from their parents.

Tomorrow night, when 10 candidates again take the stage, they would be wise to play to the voters and not to the pundits who do not view the election with the same prism as the general electorate.  When asked about health care, I hope they remember you cannot make a case for any specific solution in 90 seconds.  Remind voters, those without insurance AND those currently insured, why universal coverage is important to both.  Whether the answer is ACA 2.0 or Medicate for All is not important.  All that matters is that today the financial burden of health care for the uninsured falls largely on subsidies embedded in premiums paid by the insured.  That’s not right and we will fix it.

Then use the four years we give you to convince us of the best way to get there.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP