For an admin­is­tra­tion that, as a pres­i­den­tial cam­paign, exe­cuted a very suc­cessful brand (“Yes We Can”), it has dis­played a star­tlingly inef­fec­tive com­mu­ni­ca­tions strategy for policy. You could argue that they have no com­mu­ni­ca­tion strategy for policy. The dis­aster of the health­care reform debate should not be ignored simply because the leg­is­la­tion passed. The Obama admin­is­tra­tion, and the Demo­c­ratic party as a whole, failed mis­er­ably to give their policy an iden­tity and com­mu­ni­cate that iden­tity a way that was easy for people to grasp. Con­ser­v­a­tives easily trumped pro­gres­sives: “no fed­eral takeover”. Ignoring the huge lie in their mes­sage, they very effec­tively applied a brand to their posi­tion and were dogged in their dis­tri­b­u­tion of the meme.

It has long puz­zled me, espe­cially in this fiercely “cap­i­talist” society (it’s really cor­po­rate well­fare, but let’s not beat a dead horse) that the tools of mar­keting and adver­tising are not more often used in pol­i­tics. Of course, politi­cians use some of the same research tools to ana­lyze their target audi­ence and craft their mes­sage. Unfor­tu­nately, pro­gres­sives have been really bad at crafting their mes­sage with a good brand and effec­tive com­mu­ni­ca­tion. Con­ser­v­a­tives have many more wins in this regard:

• It’s not the crip­pling of gov­ern­ment ser­vices; it’s the “reduc­tion of government”.
• It’s not an attack on civil lib­er­ties; it’s the PATRIOT Act.
• It’s not tor­ture; it’s “enhanced interrogation”.
• It’s not an unnec­es­sary war; it’s our defense against “the Axis of Evil”.

And I could go on. The point is clear. Not only have pro­gres­sives failed to con­trol the dis­cus­sion of their own poli­cies, they have failed to create effec­tive brands for each key plank in their platform.

Taxes are a good example. Taxes have been vil­i­fied for­ever – thus the phrase “death and taxes.” Ask anyone and they’ll prob­ably tell you, of the two, taxes are worse. Who likes paying taxes? Who likes filling out tax forms?

Gov­ern­ment exists in society to serve three key func­tions. First, gov­ern­ment estab­lishes the rules that enable civil society. If we’re going to have a suc­cessful society, there needs to be some rules. Second, gov­ern­ment enforces the rules and serves as arbi­trator between par­ties when rules are broken. Finally, gov­ern­ment is the way a society pools its resources to pro­vide group ser­vices. Accom­plishing these tasks takes resources. As a result, the gov­ern­ment col­lects taxes from cit­i­zens so that it has the resources required to per­form its functions.

People seem to have for­gotten this. For them, taxes are simply some­thing that gov­ern­ment takes from them. Many people prob­ably feel that taxes are either unnec­es­sary or unfair. A few Sarah Palin-watching zealot/idiots prob­ably think taxes are illegal. The problem here is that taxes are branded in a very neg­a­tive way. So here’s the chal­lenge: it pos­sible to create a pos­i­tive iden­tity for taxes?

I really don’t think it should be that hard. We’re a con­sumer society. There’s a won­derful analogy for taxes in a club or gym mem­ber­ship. The United States is a club. Based on the interest in immi­gra­tion to this country, it’s a very hip, trendy club and people want to be mem­bers (cit­i­zens). In order to join the club, there is a yearly mem­ber­ship fee (your taxes). You pay the fee and you can be a member of the club. Your mem­ber­ship renews on a yearly basis and paying it allows you to stay in the club (country).

But that’s not all you’re buying. Mem­ber­ship has it’s ben­e­fits. By paying the fee, you (and your family) receive the fol­lowing benefits:

• Free public edu­ca­tion (up through high school)
• Roads, high­ways, and public transportation
• Defense against for­eign threats
• Emer­gency ser­vices (fire, rescue)
• Public safety ser­vices (police)
• Public health ser­vices (clinics, FDA, CDC, EPA, etc.)
• Public infra­struc­ture for util­i­ties (power, water, etc.)
• A finan­cial safety net (Medicare, Social Secu­rity, dis­ability benefits)
• and much more

Of course, you can opt out of your mem­ber­ship at any time. If you want to ter­mi­nate your mem­ber­ship, the United States will charge you pro­rated dues for the cur­rent year and ask you to leave the country. It’s that simple.

So you can keep calling them taxes if you want. But you’re not giving away unnec­es­sary money and you’re not simply “con­tributing” to society. You’re vol­un­tarily buying a mem­ber­ship and spe­cial ser­vices. The more you pay, the better your ser­vices are going to be. The less you pay, the crap­pier your ser­vices will be. I don’t know about you, but I’d like better ser­vices. I’m willing to pay for the “gold mem­ber­ship” and I don’t think I’m the only one. Let’s make sure our club remains the hip, trendy one everyone wants to join.

Now, I realize this is a sim­pli­fi­ca­tion of the actual sit­u­a­tion, but it’s a useful one. Despite what the libertarian/anarchists think, we do need to main­tain civil society and doing so is not free. And I per­son­ally believe that society should pro­vide ben­e­fits to it’s member cit­i­zens. Those ben­e­fits improve the quality of life for cit­i­zens. People seem to lose site of the fact that when the quality of life of people around you is improved, your quality of life will improve as well.

We all know that when we go to buy clothes, or wine, or a car, we will get what we pay for. The same is true with gov­ern­ment. “Higher taxes” ought to be rewritten “better ser­vices”, because ulti­mately that’s what it means. And those of you who want to com­plain that gov­ern­ment is so inef­fi­cient might per­haps be more helpful by improving how ser­vices are deliv­ered. I’m looking at you, Repub­li­cans. If it’s so inef­fi­cient, make it better, not smaller. I want my gold mem­ber­ship. If you can make it a little cheaper, I’m all for that.