Political Marketing
The
rich back Mitt Romney and others Barack. This is the real
and central election agenda on which public will give decision on 6th Nov.2012. Apparently; there are
many big issues like ailing economy, high unemployment, Obamacare etc. Among
all election issues, the central point is social versus market, wealthy (1%)
versus un-wealthy (99%). That means rich versus others. This issue is not
very visible at all, but it has created a strong under current affecting people
who will bring win to Barack.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no
matter what," he said. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who
are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe
that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they
are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.
"Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no
income tax," he continued, adding that his job "is not to worry about
those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility
and care for their lives."
Now election is very
clearly polarised in two camps in disguise. One camp is 1% while other is 99%.
This issue was buzz word of a movement- Occupy Wall Street (OWS). OWS is a
people-powered movement that began on September 17, 2011 in Liberty Square in
Manhattan’s Financial District, and has spread to over 100 cities in the United
States and actions in over 1,500 cities globally.
OWS is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and
multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall
Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession
in generations. The movement is inspired by popular uprisings in Egypt and
Tunisia, and aims to fight back against the richest 1% of people that are
writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future.
David Maraniss recounts in his new
biography, “Barack Obama: The Story.” By the time that Obama ran for President,
in 2008, his relations with the financial industry had grown warmer, and he
attracted more donations from Wall Street leaders than John McCain, his
Republican opponent, did. Yet this good feeling did not last, despite the
government’s bailout of the banking sector. Many financial titans felt that the
President’s attitude toward the “one per cent” was insufficiently admiring,
even hostile.
Washington fund-raiser sees it. The White House social secretary must spend the
first year of an Administration saying, “Thank you, thank you, thank you.”
Instead, the fund-raiser says, Obama’s first social secretary, Desirée Rogers—a
stylish Harvard Business School graduate and a friend from Chicago—made some
donors feel unwelcome. Anita McBride, the chief of staff to Laura Bush, says,
“It’s always a very delicate balance at the White House. Do donors think they
are buying favours or access? You have to be very conscious of how you use the
trappings of the White House.
But
you can go too far in the other direction, too. Donors are called on to do a
lot. It doesn’t take a lot to say thank you.” One of the simplest ways, she
notes, is to provide donors with “grip-and-grin” photographs with the
President. “It doesn’t require a lot of effort on anyone’s part, but there’s
been a reluctance to do it” in the Obama White House. “That can produce some
hurt feelings.”
Obama's
ban on the influence of lobbyists was one of several measures he implemented in
2009 themed around changing the Washington establishment. A federal judge upheld the attempt by
President Barack Obama to cut down the influence of lobbyists, ruling that
Obama was within his authority when he barred them from serving on government
boards.
From
family background both belongs to two
opposite school of thoughts . Barack has lived poverties,
scarcities, and difficulties. Hence, it is but natural that his thought process
will be like that. He is pro middle class, deprived. Mitt is from an affluent
and rich family. His father was Governor. So he talks about rich class,
decrying the others (47%) on the basis of different benefits offered to them by
the government.
On party line,Democrats believe that we're greater together than we
are on our own—that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when
everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules. Our
party, led by President Obama, is focused on building an economy that lasts—an
economy that lifts up all Americans.
On party line,Republicans believe in the power and
opportunity of America’s free-market economy. We believe in the importance of
sensible business regulations that promote confidence in our economy among
consumers, entrepreneurs and businesses alike. We oppose interventionist
policies that put the federal government in control of industry and allow it to
pick winners and losers in the marketplace.
In 2008 chief agenda was the change, we can. The
public was fed-up with and wanted to get rid of misrule of then republican
president. Empirically, it is proved that, in general, one agenda pays once.
During his working as President, he strategically set the agenda. He avoided
photos with big donors of 2008 to prove to his voter that he is pro them. He banned
lobbyist to send benefit to his voters. He, tacitly, lends his support to OWS
to help remove inequality from the society.
It is
very hard for Mitt to break the image of pro rich. He is trying to avoid this
ghost to muster support of middle class voters. Only rich can’t fetch win to
him. They can give big donations but in vote count all are same.
This
is the chief election issue fanned by Barack camp by a privately recorded
speech during a fund raising activity. This recorded message has done the work
of Barack. It has created a strong undercurrent in disguise in masses among
voters who are pro Barack on social issues. To make it an issue, very silently,
he behaved like this in his current presidency at the cost of annoyance of rich
who are vehemently opposing him in different ways. This time his donations are
small but from bulk numbers to top the fund raising.
There is no sign yet in sight
that Mitt will be able to remove his pro rich image. Barack contested 2008 on
visible issue of change; but in 2012, he is contesting on invisible issue. This
situation is more dangerous for the challenger. If this situation prevails
which is most probable? This ongoing situation will re-elect Barack President
on 6th November, 2012.
Heera Lal
(Views are personal and based on
different ref.)
Ref
No comments:
Post a Comment