[[Ted Gioia]] is almost always worth reading. [[15 Observations on the New Phase in Cultural Conflict|Here]], he's looking backwards a bit and being damn smart. Referencing an obscure(ish) 20th century Spanish philosopher named José Ortega y Gasset in a book called *The Revolt of the Masses*, Gioia cites an observation nearly 100 years old* ![[15 Observations on the New Phase in Cultural Conflict#^citeone]] Ortega probably had the conditions that surrounded the Spanish Civil War in mind. There are lots of smart takes ([here's one](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/learning-from-the-spanish-civil-war/)) on how it's a great parallel for contemporary American political division, but that's a different note. Historically, these up-down movements tend to ebb and flow as parties and ideologies seem less effective and relevant to people. And the most durable coalitions in American politics tend to blend a left-right majority with a down-up sensibility. During the Depression, a new economic system, inspired by European socialist movements, seemed to be an answer to voters. Fast forward 50 years, when the New Deal promises of federal solutions to social problems had gone stale, and the bill for regulatory expansion had gone up; the new monetarist/free market ideas with roots in the Austrian School (e.g. Frederick Von Hayek) and the Chicago School (Milton Freedman, Alan Greenspan) made sense to voters [[Communicating Political Ideas|in simple terms]]. Cutting marginal tax rates that were up in the 70% range got a lot of downscale votes for the GOP. FDR and Ronald Reagan of the left and right respectively, both well understood down-up politics: they didn't talked down to their voters. Unlike Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover; both the kind technocratic 'experts' poised to inspire loathing. Forty years on from Reagan, the only core ideological architecture driving an American political party is the "successor ideologies" of the 'woke' left. [And it's not a winning argument.](https://www.aei.org/op-eds/is-wokeness-one-big-power-grab/) Talk about smarmy experts poised to inspire loathing. So “up-down” seems to make more sense to voters at the moment. [ An Anti-Vaxxer runs HHS; foreign policy is run by group chat; those most offended aren't Republicans anymore](https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge/dp/0190469412). And with no clear, palatable organizing ideas (or leader) driving an optimistic view of the American future, “throw them all out” is taking up real estate in both parties. Here's Gioia again: ![[15 Observations on the New Phase in Cultural Conflict#^faf874]] "The work of hiding this"... think about putting Kendrick Lamar in for the Super Bowl halftime show. Or putting [Mitt Romney in jeans](https://images.app.goo.gl/HzBzxaMKBx2EPK6g7). The intentional leveling of variate, disparate cultural signals by elites often looks like someone is trying too hard. This is a useful heuristic for understanding how (swing) voters understand political choices. More like a vertical milieu with some people on top and others (themselves) around the bottom than a playing field with teams on directionally opposite sides. It's also the root old and sage advice to [[Think Like the Working Man]] when [[Communicating Political Ideas]]. More [[Ted Gioia|Gioia]]: ![[15 Observations on the New Phase in Cultural Conflict#^thisstuff]] Any of that sound familiar to us in 2025? Again, the [[15 Observations on the New Phase in Cultural Conflict|essay]] is well worth reading in depth. And all written before vigilante justice on CEO's of health care companies became an awkward cross current for the supposed party of Law and Order. ##### If there's truth in this framing: that up-down distinctions are at least as powerful to the average voter's political understanding as left-right - is our traditional method of sorting electorates one big category error? 1. Every poll we've ever been a part of in our career on political campaigns asks voters their most important issue at the state or federal level, and ranks or sorts according to that preference. **It's a valid and efficient way to sort an electorate, but it's entirely left-right**. 2. [We know swing voters don't make sense of the world ideologically](https://www.patrickruffini.com/p/the-shape-of-polarization-in-america), to whatever extent they're capable of making sense of [[Four principal characteristics of a Political Idea|political ideas]]. Increasingly, what rises to the top in that soupy, sloshy mess in voters heads about what matters in politics is what cable new bookers say ought to. 3. Less engaged voters can latch onto **cultural** ideas, totally abstracted from policy or governance - like trans athletes in sports - and tip elections; because they see such ideas as a proxy for politics in the purest sense: who has cultural and social power, and who doesn't. Which is why when we make ads, we should look for ways to [[Write How People Speak| lean into those biases]]. 4. Don't write copy like a populist and then film a KPMG commercial. Taking down the powerful probably isn't a brightly lit, sunny-day walk down the fairway of a country club. 5. For most of the lives of most of the people reading this, "up" meant "right"; "down" meant "left". (We don't hear the phrase Country Club Republicans much anymore.) Today, more especially; most politicians on either side don't live, talk, dress or act like downscale voters. He who squares that circle best *probably* wins, and that *probably* means a lot of [[Ads That Worked (2024)|authentic testifers]]. 6. We should never put a [rich guy or gal in flannel or weird hat](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/10/kelly-loeffler-ride-trumps-coattails-georgia-senate)s and make him/her try to sound like a "fighter" or a man of the people. It reads fake, not fighter. 7. If we can marry an up-down message with a left-right message in the same piece of creative, while maintaining narrative consistency; that seems like win. **A handful of the best pollsters we really respect read these notes. Feedback welcome.** --- *(at it's core, The up-Down distinction is as old as politics itself... but the more precise language from Ortega seems hauntingly parallel to our realigning moment today.) ^^Counter Argument (Watch This Space): [[Is this a populist moment or do people just not know how to think anymore]]