What if We Approached Politics Like Salespeople?

If we were trying to sell a friend a car, we’d be patient, curious, helpful, and happy–or else we’d be out of a job.

But when trying to sell political ideas, we behave very differently. What would happen if we changed our approach?

Erik Fogg

Erik Fogg is co-author of ReConsider’s written work, co-host of the ReConsider podcast and author of Wedged: How you became a tool of the partisan Political Establishment and How to Start Thinking for Yourself Again. Erik has a masters degree in political science from MIT and has spent years working with various NGOs, Harvard, MIT, United Nations and various private advocacy groups organizations. He’s ghost-written published books. He’s now running a software startup. Erik grew up in a very red part of Pennsylvania and moved to a very blue part of Massachusetts. Having a foot in both worlds has enabled Erik to see how both sides of the political spectrum caricature the other and has sparked his mission to create a real dialogue that cuts through the noise. Erik podcasts from his office in suburban San Mateo, surrounded by 17th and 18th-century European art, a costume-construction toolkit and table, a VR kit, and a small bed for his Boston Terrier, Oscar.

View Comments

  • Funny enough, I tend to think of car salespeople as just as pushy and untrustworthy or worse than people trying to "sell" political ideas. Somewhat different power dynamic at play there too.

    I get what you're saying, though -- let's be considerate and interested in each other's opinions rather than just yell at each other; let's try to understand and figure out what works for both of us. It's a bit harder in politics, I think, because the language used is somewhat different and has so many connotations, so people from opposing sides in some ways literally speak a different language. The following excerpt is from a really long but interesting piece related to that and to your post/StC in general. If climate change were pitched as an elephant rather than a donkey cause:
    "In the 1950s, brave American scientists shunned by the climate establishment of the day discovered that the Earth was warming as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, leading to potentially devastating natural disasters that could destroy American agriculture and flood American cities. As a result, the country mobilized against the threat. Strong government action by the Bush administration outlawed the worst of these gases, and brilliant entrepreneurs were able to discover and manufacture new cleaner energy sources. As a result of these brave decisions, our emissions stabilized and are currently declining." (It continues.)
    Source: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/04/ethnic-tension-and-meaningless-arguments/

    • The analogy of the car salesperson is, in retrospect, slightly unfortunate. Sigh.

      I like the language analogy and I definitely want to incorporate it into our (ever-evolving) messaging. I really like the idea of putting the responsibility on the "speaker" for making sure their message gets heard as they want to hear it--too often we say something that (if we asked ourselves) we'd know was going to just irritate those that disagree with us, and then our prophecy fulfills itself and we roll our eyes at our audience, rather than asking ourselves: "how could I frame this conversation to make it easier to agree with me?"

      • So long as the speaker still believes in what s/he says, I'm down with it! It /is/ important to account for people being people -- wanting to save face, still feeling like the "good guy", etc.

        It's still such a bizarre experience to read something that supports your point of view, but is phrased in language you've been primed to find annoying and disagreeable. Or, I'm sure, the other way around. I do recommend taking a look at the link I posted, if not for the whole thing (although it makes some very good points on how people form opinions / choose sides), then to read the rest of that excerpt.

  • To respond to the post - I kind of like this idea and think it provides an interesting and potentially useful way of thinking about political dialogue. In today's current political climate we do all the things that would be a TERRIBLE strategy from a sales perspective, and perhaps that's why the current climate feels so polarized and impossible to broker solutions. But when thinking about why we act like bad salespeople in today's politics, it makes me wonder what the underlying motives are in today's politics. Are the two sides really trying to sell their ideas to each other? That would be the ideal system - politicians debating their ideas with each other with the goal of solving problems for the greater good. But to me, it seems like politicians are only trying to appeal to their base. Their political 'debates' are more like political performances where they try to show off that they are saying the right things to appeal to the right people. There's no interest in genuine debate anymore; there's no interest in solving problems; and there's especially no interest in changing one's mind. The problem with this system is that each side's base has no interest in solving problems that lead to the greater good - they only have an interest in solving problems that lead to the greater base. This is particularly relevant when your base isn't made up of people and their opinions, but is made up of corporations and their money. I hope that one day our government can add an amendment to the Bill of Rights that states that constitutional rights are only granted to citizens, not to abstract entities of citizens like a corporation.

    To respond to Svetlana - I at first agreed with you about car salespeople being pushy and untrustworthy, but I think the difference between the stereotype of car salespeople and the car salesperson in the video is the same difference of a sleazy salesperson and a great salesperson. I think the appropriate model of selling a political idea should follow the model of a great salesperson, which I think the video captures.

    • You've nailed the key question on the head, I think :)

      My impression is the same as yours: politicians win by energizing their base, so that's what they do. We're working on a book called "Wedged" that'll come out this year that hopes to condense the pretty-long story there into a more digestible piece that says, "why do politicians spend their energy on the extremes rather than the middle?" I'm excited about it.

  • This will be long. Apologies in advance.

    I think the analogy of car salesman is perfect because of the stereotypes of them doing nearly anything (including lying and manipulating) to make the sale parallels the way many people practice politics. Cultivating brand / party loyalty. Learning about customers / voters to push their buttons, rather than get them to make the most logical choice. Getting people to think there is a 'best choice' for everyone, when in reality people have differing needs. Some people do better with a Ford. Others really ought to pick that Subaru. My needs are very possibly not your needs

    But consider someone with no brand loyalty, who buys the best available option. Sometimes they buy a Ford, sometimes a Subaru, sometimes a Toyota. And they realize the best car for a single commuter is not the best car for a family who goes to the mountains three weeks a year. They might never want to talk someone into a particular brand. They might prefer someone shop objectively, even if they disagree with the choice that person ultimately makes, because overall, we're all better off if we pick cars (or politicians) that way.

    Sometimes they might pick a car with one amazing new feature, even if the rest of the car has issues, simply to encourage other manufacturers to put that feature in their vehicles. Sometimes they might favor gas mileage more heavily due to outside circumstances (like gas prices doubling) or they might care much more about options (because they now live somewhere where AC is mandatory) .... they evaluate everything uniquely, based on the current situation. And they want you to do the same thing.

    Of course this breaks down in elections, because we are all, in effect, buying the one car for all of us. Still, are you better off getting people to vote the way you want to in a particular election, or to think independently and impartially, in every election? Do we really want to sell someone our ideas? Does that make us any better than the used car sale people out there, using bumper sticker ideology to get people to support them? Or do we do better, long term, getting people to see past those tactics entirely, and vote for meaningful issues.... though yes, this is a much harder task to accomplish.

Recent Posts

Ukraine XI: Asymmetric Momentum

Ukrainian victories on the ground have been swift, dramatic, and devastating. And each win seems…

1 year ago

Ukraine X: The Absolutely Dazzling Counter-Blitzkrieg

The Russians just got whipped. What the heck happened?

1 year ago

ReConsidering Russia: The Complex History of Russia

Mark Schauss is the host of Russian Rulers History and Battle Ground History. Known for…

1 year ago

Ukraine IX: Oh HI, MARS

https://play.acast.com/s/d1a6ddca-f102-4b5c-8d87-630132fe5aaa/62f43f685dc1ea00136539f2 Hot Updates Severodonetsk fell slowly as expected, but then Lysychansk fell quickly because Russian…

1 year ago

It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times, Part 2

https://embed.acast.com/d1a6ddca-f102-4b5c-8d87-630132fe5aaa/62d0a6529385dd0012e405d1 Lots of ways we can split this. Much has been discussed about decoupling of…

1 year ago