Few things inspire as intense a divisiveness and passion as politics. Perhaps religion and phone choice come close, though none is perhaps as immediately relevant to politics as, of all things, video games. In most competitive areas of human existence, there is no one all encompassing strategy that perfectly prepares you for what your competitors might attempt. As society and its problems evolve, so do the strategies necessary to win in the political arena. It’s clear that the strategies the Democrats are employing have failed. In particular, the party should look to Nintendo to understand how to turn around their slow slide into powerlessness.
The DNC and GOP, for decades, operated roughly akin to the rivalry between the Xbox and Playstation: though power has swung more to the GOP than it has in awhile, for the most part, neither has had long periods of dominance. The balance of power has shifted back and forth constantly. However, the problem is, over time, especially after the Clinton era, Democrats have focused more and more on trying to compete toe-to-toe with Republicans on the issues they deem important. Most policy-making and campaign platforms have started by asking what the Republican position is and, from there, to only stray so far. The theory is it is important to not alienate the moderates.
Nintendo once operated in much the same fashion as Xbox and Playstation. Of course, they were largely responsible for resurrecting the industry after a major crash in the early-to-mid 80s. Though games for the Nintendo 64 were severely limited in space by comparison to the Playstation 1 due to the lack of an optical drive, it was a substantially more powerful machine. However, after a disappointing performance with the GameCube, Nintendo began to rethink their approach. A book came out in 2005 that, by Nintendo’s own admission, had an immense impact on their executive culture, Blue Ocean Strategy by W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne.
The core theory of the book is that one can compete in “blue oceans” or “red oceans,” the insinuation being that the latter is fraught with blood. Rather than compete directly with your opponent, it is better to focus on establishing how you are compelling in entirely different ways than your competitors. Instead of trying to make something similar to an Xbox 360, Nintendo created something radically different in the form of the Wii. The 2016 election was the reddest ocean the political arena had seen in awhile. Clinton’s ads and talking points focused, at record low levels, on actual policy, instead focusing on the ways she wasn’t Trump.
Red oceans in politics are leading to red victories. For the Left to win in America, we need to pivot towards the blue. The reason why folks such as Corbyn and Sanders were such a surprise to the establishment is that they were “Blue Ocean” candidates. They were deeply focused on offering a genuinely compelling alternative rather than simply attacking their opponents. Yes, the “for the many, not the few” slogan cut to the heart of the Tories’ philosophies, but it did so in a way that not just drew boundaries but placed an enormous gulf between the two of them. Their message was far more substantive than anything the Democrats have provided in decades.
That’s not to say this strategy is foolproof. The Wii U had underwhelming sales and almost killed Nintendo. But in this case, the failure happened because of ways the tech world differs a lot from politics. Nintendo was trying to offer something completely different than what audiences had ever seen before. All a “Blue Ocean” politician has to do is actually focus on issues that excite people that aren’t usually brought up: free tuition, single payer, drug law reform, or even, dare I say it, universal basic income.
The primary motivation against doing so is that politicians who rock the boat too much, especially in ways that are unfriendly to big business or the military-industrial complex, miss out on much needed campaign-funding. But the constant upsets recently in the political world demonstrate how brute force spending has become less and less effective a campaign metric. After all, perfectly pruned centrist darling, Jon Ossoff, had a whopping six times the spending of Karen Handel and still lost.
When the debate becomes about whether or not you will raise taxes, “classic” Democrats have already lost. However, when a candidate can sell a compelling vision for why they aren’t promising lower taxes that amounts to tangibly more than maintaining the status quo, people hop aboard. The so called “centrists” might better be thought as independents. Time and time again shows that they are willing to stand behind policies from either party that are anything but moderate as long as they are packaged and presented in a way that is a compelling solution to the problems they see in the country.
As Mr. Ossoff did, you can promise to lower taxes and balance the budget all day long, but the conservatives who that will impress will, for the most part, simply vote Republican. Instead the narrative on the Left has to focus on our identity and not the ways we differ from the Right. We have to define our own narrative rather than simply respond to theirs. We have to tell a story and convey a vision that is uniquely inspiring and wholly our own.