I like Quora very much. People ask questions there. Since we all know that there are no stupid questions but only stupid answers, I tend to interact from time to time even in cases when my initial sense urges me not to. Some apparently “stupid” question quite often lead to areas of thought I would have never go without the help of such question.
One of like questions was: “what do Republicans say about global warming?” First of all it is quite apparent from the question that it was posed intentionally. In the present high tensions arising from conflicting views on causes for global warming or even on existence of global warming, everyone should know what Republicans say about it: they deny it. Why would then anyone pose such question or even less answer it?
But as already mentioned, there are no stupid questions. And is no excuse not to respond.
Simplistic single voice
Let us start with common sense simplistic explanation.
It is impossible to define what all those individuals that understand themselves as Republicans say about anything. Same rule applies to all individuals that are party members. Even party members might have slightly different views on many important issues. This leads us to important question whether a party as an agent, as a brand, could in principle have a statement about any issue? Don’t we all the time encounter this or that party member that at least slightly disagree with another? How could party single voice come from disagreements? It cannot, in principle.
So according to such simplistic view on unit (person) and community (party) neither republicans nor democrats nor any other party can in theory express any clear position about anything. Should that happen (according to such simplistic view), such party would soon have one member only. There are only individual opinions, views, that might be co-branded to certain party brand. Each such different voice adds up to complexity of party brand.
Same rule should be applied to any brand that rests on more than one person. Sometimes we tend to think that at least a commercial entity could achieve single voice, homogeneous brand. It is in practice easier to obtain higher unanimity of voices in commercial entities, since hierarchy there tends to rest on internal commercial exchange of values (employment contracts) then in entities like parties, countries or regions that are tied with social and not commercial contracts. But even commercial entities can not achieve single voice for the simple but often misunderstood reason stated above: it is a man that represents the highest level of complexity that can still have single voice.
Single voice from the meme point of view
But then we have to take in account less simplistic view on unanimous voice. After psychoanalysis and later neuroscience proved that even one person does not sing unanimously we should search for first possible single voice much lower. And since we know that humans are a kind of meme-machines (according to Susan Blackmore
), only memes are capable to have unanimous voice. Since memes are not responsible agents, but humans only, we should take in account that sacks of heterogeneous and often conflicting memes called humans, have confused voices
. In principle.
But then if humans are sacks of memes, this opens an option for a more complex brand (party brand) to select only those memes from member sacs that do not contradict! At least in principle party single voice is achievable while individual single voice is impossible. It is not a question of contracts, but a question of memes.
What single voice is produced by orchestra?
Worst possible music is composed as single voice. An orchestra sounds good when various, sometimes even contradicting voices emerge coherent result. Although Standard Branding Theory proclaims a search for single voice, such single voice should not be understood as USP (unique selling proposition). Single voice should be understood as finely tuned multiplicity of voices.
So if there are different and sometimes even conflicting Republican voices about global warming, that does not mean that Republican party is in conflict with its members. They might be, but as much they might produce a coherent emergent result from diversity. But the evaluation of weather the result is harmonious or just confused lies on each individual in contact with their music. Brands are intra-subjective. The music played is important, but the music received makes final evaluation.