The Branding of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez Eileen F. Toplansky
If Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is the new brand of the Democrat Party, let’s unwrap the claims she uses in order to attract a new audience. Many years ago Jeffrey Schrank wrote “The Language of Advertising Claims” and it is fascinating to apply these claims to this new face of the Democrats.
Schrank asserts that many people are “notorious believers in their immunity to advertising” because they believe that “advertising is childish, dumb, a bunch of lies, and influences only the vast hordes of the less sophisticated.” He then goes on to elucidate different persuasive ways that advertisers use to lure in the consumer.
If these claims can be applied to Ocasio and her ilk, perhaps the American voter, particularly the millennial, will be able to see through the bilge that Ocasio regurgitates.
One of the most widely used advertising methods is the use of “invisible” or “weasel” words. A weasel word “is aptly named after the egg eating habits of weasels.” A weasel will suck out the inside of an egg and then turn the egg over so when the mother bird returns to the nest and continues to sit on her egg, she does not realize that there is nothing growing anymore. Thus, “weasel” words or claims appear at first to be substantial but “disintegrate into hollow meaninglessness” upon analysis.
The word “new” is one of the champion weasels. But most people think that if something is new, it must be better. Thus, with her so-called dazzling smile Ocasio touts the New Green Deal. But it is the smarmy smile that is the real “dead giveaway.” It was what she did when Anderson Cooper asked “When people hear the word socialism, they think Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela. Is that what you have in mind?” She totally ignores the disasters that these countries have disintegrated into. She hopes that most millennials have no idea what harm socialism has inflicted upon people. She is either ignorant or indifferent to the harvest of sorrow that has wreaked havoc on people whose leaders embraced the ideas that she touts.
Instead she does a bait and switch (another advertising practice) and claims that she is looking to “socialist” countries such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland and Norway. Apparently the Boston University educated economics major is unaware that
two of the countries she cites as role models have partially privatized their social security programs to save taxpayer money and provide better retirements for their citizens.
And,
Sweden partially privatized its social security program in the mid-1990s. Britain began partially privatizing its public pension program in the late 1950s. In both countries, workers can invest a portion of their payroll taxes in individual, private accounts.
In fact, there is nothing new about the “Green New Deal.” It is a repackaging of socialism that ultimately destroys the body and the soul. If the Democrats have their way, Americans will ultimately end up living like we’re in Venezuela and modern amenities will disappear. In fact, to be true to her cause, Ms. Cortez should immediately give up her iPhone, Android, MacBook and PC, close down her Amazon account, never be able to search on Google — and certainly give up those Uber rides. Perhaps she wants to book a room with Airbnb or continue “chatting” on Facebook, Instagram or Snapchat?
No to all of them in her brave new world.
The pseudo-information that informs most advertisements is predicated on “the unfinished claim whereby the ad claims the product is better, but does not finish the comparison.” So when Cortez says “To me, what socialism means is to guarantee a basic level of dignity” one can ask as compared to what? In true dictatorial and socialist fashion, she ignores the fact that it is under capitalism that more people in the world have risen out of poverty.
Then there is the “so what” claim which asserts that while something may be true, there is no real advantage. Cortez may claim that she “always felt that elections should be joyous, celebratory events,” but the response is “so what.” Even better though is her declaration that she “wakes up every day, and [she’s] a Puerto Rican girl from the Bronx. Every single day.”
So what?
But since she is making a point about her Hispanic heritage, how about she comprehend what other Hispanics who have struggled under socialism have to say about this corrupt system. Felipe Moura Brasil has poignantly written how socialism ruined Brazil. Does Alexandria have a moment to read how Lula da Silva whose nickname was Lulinha paz e amor (Little Lula peace and love in Portuguese) brought nothing but fraud and corruption after initially increasing the minimum wage and many social programs — all under that favorite slogan of “social justice?” But as happens every single time, as the government spending kept increasing, the “socialist paradise fell apart and the economy fell with it.”
Perhaps Latina Cortez would care to read Juan Carlos Hidalgo who has written “How socialism has destroyed Venezuela.”
But since identity politics and race-baiting are the driving forces of the Democrat Party only when they serve leftwing policy, the truth tellers no matter their ethnicity will be completely ignored.
Another favorite advertising claim is the “vague claim.” The key to the vague claim is the use of words that are colorful but meaningless. It is chock full of subjective and emotional opinions that defy verification. Could this apply to Ocasio’s following quotations?
Mentors of mine were under a big pressure to minimize their femininity to make it.
What in the world does this mean? Does it mean they didn’t wear red enough lipstick? Does it mean that they wore their hair very short? Does it mean they hated pink clothes? Or perhaps they preferred to be called Jack instead of Jacqueline.
Ocasio delights in vague claims that are intended to whip up emotional responses from naive individuals who do not have the intellectual curiosity to actually ask what she means. Here is another Ocasio vague claim.
Give people the respect of your honest opinion, and always meet them where they’re at.
As if this is supposed to contain some insightful thought!
Or “. . . the America we are proud of is one in which all children can access a dignified education.” Has this woman never heard of public education” Moreover, what exactly is a “dignified education?”
Then there is the completely uninformed — hence vague claim regarding how to pay for her environmentally disastrous plan — “How in the world can we pay for this? The answer is: in the same ways that we paid for the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs, the same ways we paid for Word War II and many other wars.” Notice the pseudo-profundity and absolutely no-answer reply. In fact, the “Green New Deal isn’t a plan. It’s a socialist Christmas list.”
Another claim is the “compliment the consumer” whereby the assertion butters up the consumer by some form of flattery. Hence, Ocasio maintains that “People tell you things. And they tell you what they believe. And they tell you what they want for themselves, for you, they tell you their stories.” And, of course, predicated on this, you will always have Ocasio’s ear because she really cares. Reminds one of the well-known poem about a cunning spider and a little fly. The spider tries to lure the fly into his web, promising interesting things to see, a comfortable bed, and treats from his pantry. At first the fly, who has been told it is dangerous to go into the spider’s parlor, refuses. But when the spider compliments her gauzy wings and brilliant eyes, she finds herself unable to resist and winds up trapped in his web.
Then there is the “rhetorical question” claim or what I would call the hardened-statement approach whereby the listener is supposed to answer in such a way as to automatically affirm the goodness of the assertion. Consequently,
Capitalism has not always existed in the world and will not always exist in the world.
or
We have built power. We have organized. What we have built is permanent. No. Matter. What.
Of course, coupled with the above advertising techniques, is the hubris or excessive pride that knows no bounds. Cortez may maintain that “you don’t have to be perfect, but you do have to be 100% committed” but will the star-struck millennials ever bother to ask “committed to what?” Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot were committed — to murder, genocide, and torture.
And then there is the “poor girl” routine when she says “[t]his is not an end, this is the beginning. This is the beginning because the message that we sent the world tonight is that it’s not OK to put donors before your community.”
Pardon me, Alexandria, but how do you wiggle your way out of the recently discovered information that your Chief of Staff ran a slush fund and funneled over $1 million in campaign donations to his own companies? In fact, “It appears Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her associates ran an off-the-books operation to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, thus violating the foundation of all campaign finance laws: transparency,” according to Director of National Legal Policy Center Tom Anderson.”
Notwithstanding all of the above, we should, however, pay very, very close attention to her when she emphasizes that she “is not going to compromise who [she] is.” In fact, she is a very dangerous incarnation of the most radical leftwing ideology and her aim is to destroy America. Her bag of “psychosell and persuasive magic” should impress no one. This is how all truly radical disasters begin, with a glorious Utopian promise of “massive transformation.”
Comments are closed.
