How Personalities Shape Our Perception of Parties
The people we see on our screens are shaping the parties we believe in, but we still get to decide whether we buy the story or demand more
My news feed this week was a study in contrasts. From the Trump administration came billionaire U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, defending the new tariffs that launched my 401k down a black diamond run of negative performance. I caught glimpses of JD Vance visiting Greenland and expressing surprise that it was cold. And who could miss Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, dressed as Battle-Ready Barbie recording a press video in front of caged men, her carefully staged toughness conveying the administration’s aggressive stance on border security.
From the Democrats’ side was New Jersey Senator Cory Booker speaking for 25 hours on his party’s vision for America’s future. Susan Crawford rallied widespread support and handily won a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court despite Elon Musk showering the state with bribes. Later in the week, State Senator Mallory Morrow announced her Senate campaign with a passionate video that quickly went viral, her authentic story highlighting her party’s emphasis on individual rights and collective possibilities.
These people aren’t just politicians. They are brand associations. In the same way brands build their identities through carefully chosen celebrity partnerships, political parties shape public perception through the people they put in the spotlight.
Their words, actions, and even their personal styles become inseparable from what the party represents. This simple tactic allows parties to evolve more quickly and adeptly than they can through policy or leadership changes. They can push a personality forward and see what happens.
The Strategy of Association
Commercial brands have long understood that partnerships with the right personalities can transform public perception. When done well, these associations fundamentally reshape how we perceive a brand, humanizing abstract values and adding more depth.
When Rihanna became the face of Fenty Beauty, she sold more than makeup. She reframed who it was for by emphasizing a wider range of skin color. Colin Kapernick’s partnership with Nike boosted their sales but also underscored the company’s commitment to social justice.
Political parties use this same strategy. They select or promote representatives who can translate policy positions into relatable human stories or who can add distinctive touches of style, personality, or experience. These associations become particularly powerful on complex issues that voters lack the time or expertise to fully understand.
Tariffs are a good example. I have an MBA and three decades of business experience, yet I’m struggling to understand the inner workings of Trump’s new trade policies. To remedy that, I listened carefully to Lutnick’s explanations, hoping his knowledge would help me make sense of my shrinking investment portfolio.
His confident defense reinforced the Republican brand as combative, unapologetic, and unwavering in its conviction despite the market downturn and international alarm. His message was stern: America needs tough negotiators who won’t back down even when the immediate consequences seem painful. But he neatly sidestepped the economic realities of this action.
He did not explain how poorer countries could possibly correct their trade balance with the much wealthier US. If Bill Gates is the US and I’m Lesotho (a small African country), no threats can correct the imbalance of our respective bank accounts. I will never be able to buy more from Bill than he can from me.
Similarly, Lutnick offered no concrete plan for replacing tariffed foreign goods that we don’t manufacture domestically. Sure I can buy an American-made car, but I can’t buy American produced coffee and a standard quality T-shirt made in the US starts at $50.
I didn’t listen to all of Cory Booker’s marathon speech, but the portions I caught painted a starkly different picture of our country. It was a major brand announcement that evoked an America committed to fairness, dignity, and possibility. Through Booker, the Democrats were claiming to be the party building toward something hopeful and less divisive. In his words: “This is not right or left, this is right or wrong.”
But like Lutnick, Booker broadcast the Democratic brand image without explaining the underlying reality. His message resonated with many, but didn’t offer a specific plan on how we can overcome the intense polarization of this era or how we can become a nation of builders and dreamers when we’re overburdened with regulations and debt.
What These Associations Tell Us
When we look beyond these two examples at the collective associations each party offers, their new identities come into even sharper focus.
The Republican brand has shifted from representing staunch conservatism to portraying itself as a forceful defender of an America under siege from global forces abroad and liberal agendas at home. They promise to restore American dominance through righteous retaliation against those who’ve taken advantage of us. Their brand ambassadors project strength, power, and traditional values as the solution to national decline. These expressions connect with people’s need for security, their sense of nostalgia, and their anger with the status quo.
The Democratic brand is repositioning itself as fierce advocates for individual rights and collective possibilities, avoiding the identity politics of its recent past. They emphasize the rule of law as a check against concentrated power and the rule of oligarchs. Their brand ambassadors communicate a commitment to grassroots issues, protection of the working class, and belief in America’s capacity for continual improvement. These expressions appeal to people’s need for hope, fairness, and strength through community.
The people coming forward to present these new identities humanize their parties and make emotional connections. We don’t buy into their arguments or visions because they’re logical. We buy them because they make us feel something. Like all brand partnerships, that feeling can inform us of real benefits or it can blind us to the defects in the product.
The Risk of Brand Ambassadors
Brand associations are by no means foolproof. Jared Fogle became the face of Subway’s “Eat Fresh” campaign for over 15 years, his weight loss story made the brand’s health claims concrete and relatable. He was the brand for a while, but when his involvement in child pornography and sexual misconduct surfaced, he went to prison and Subway might as well have gone with him.
Political associations have suffered similar damage and the risk remains. When Andrew Cuomo fell from grace, Democrats quickly distanced themselves from their once-celebrated COVID hero. When Matt Gaetz faced scandal, Republicans did the same. The Republican Party’s current deep association with Trump means they rise or fall with his fortunes. Similarly, emerging Democratic leaders like Booker, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Fetterman, Buttigieg or someone yet to come, could hold the future of the party in their hands.
What reduces this risk is authenticity. Representatives who speak honestly from deep experience and passionate conviction are more reliable than those who read a prepared script, even if they aren’t a perfect icon. Buttigieg is slowly but surely overcoming concerns about him being gay through his ability to clearly and convincingly debate nearly any topic he tackles. Fetterman’s shorts and hoodie uniform reinforces his commitment to what he feels is right, regardless of his party’s position.
These brand representatives may still make missteps but they are less likely to be erratic in their beliefs or principles. Unfortunately, determining whether someone is authentic or not isn’t easy. You can read their Wikipedia page and hope it’s accurate, but its portrayal is easily clouded by a viral post claiming they have some hidden defect. Some may be adamant in their opinions, but then change abruptly as Trump did (he was originally a Democrat who favored women’s right to choose). It is only over time that a person’s authenticity becomes firmly established.
Adding Reason to Emotion
I am as likely as anyone to get caught up in the emotion of a moment. I lean Left so I’m looking for connection with associates of that political brand. My friends who lean Right do the same, but they are looking for connection with those on the other side.
All of us can do better.
Political brands help us navigate a complex landscape. But when we mistake the shortcut for the destination, we lose our ability to hold our representatives accountable for actual results. By consciously separating our emotional responses from our thoughtful assessments of their policies and actions, we can enjoy the show while still making decisions based on substance.
When Susan Crawford won her Wisconsin Supreme Court race despite Musk’s financial intervention, I felt a surge of satisfaction that had little to do with her judicial qualifications and everything to do with my own brand affiliations. Recognizing this doesn’t mean I should change my support. It means I should supplement my emotional response with a substantive evaluation of her judicial philosophy and experience.
When we listen to a billionaire defending tariffs we should be able to understand what those actions mean to us. Similarly when we hear a charismatic Senator calling for a renewed commitment to the future, we should expect a plan for getting there to follow soon after. This conscious approach to political brand associations won’t make us immune to their influence, but it will help us be more informed and deliberate participants in our democracy rather than passive consumers of political marketing.
Your Turn
The people we see on our screens are shaping the parties we believe in, but we still get to decide whether we buy the story or demand more.
Which political personalities are resonating with you right now?
Why do you believe what they are saying?
Which ones make you suspicious and what are they lacking?
If you feel this post should be shared, please hit the ❤️ “Like” button below. That tells the algorithms to promote it to others.
If you’re new here, one of those algorithms probably guided you. In that case, I recommend you confirm who I am, where my expertise lies, and what biases I may bring to my posts. If you want to read more, my foundational post, The Hidden Influence of Branding in American Politics is a good starting point.
I still look for brands like, Ike, Truman, FDR, and surprisingly Nixon with a dash of Kennedy. The way life felt like during the administration of any of these politicians is what I remember when I make a choice. Although it is probably a flawed approach, I find myself wanting to return to the way things felt in the past. Yet, I understand that the past is, essentially, vanished. Nevertheless, I understand that my choices are sometimes based more on a wish than on reality.
Currently, I don't feel that I have made a brand choice with this administration. Rather, I am more worried about being branded, literally.
Thank you for the column.