Icons

I understand the appeal of icons. I also understand the appeal of Ronald Reagan as a conservative icon. What I don’t understand is how Reagan actually is a conservative icon today.

In the 80s Reagan represented what the Republican party stood for. He didn’t actually do those things, but he was the public face of party policy. He was the President so he was the image of the party’s position on the issues. The public image was in large part opposite of what was happening. But the President gets the benefit of the doubt especially when the messaging is so good.

But today the facts are obvious and well documented and disseminated. Yet the icon remains.

I suppose it’s the need for a symbol that is driving the message. Very little that Reagan actually did lives up to modern standards for Republicans. So the focus is kept narrow to allow the image to survive. Without that there is nothing to rally around. That gives strength to the message. It gives strength to the Republicans. So the icon must be supported.

It is a weakness for Democrats that they don’t have that sort of image to use to focus attention and action. It makes the message weak, whatever the strength of the message. The image outweighs the facts. A strong image supports the message even if it is built on lies and half-truths. A weak image destroys the message however important the message is.

Marketing strategy is very important when you are trying to sell something.