Who's on Point?

Let's set up a hypothetical scenario.

The budget has grown beyond control, as the Democrats refuse to fix Social Security, and the Republicans have run up enormous deficits with purposefully irresponsible spending.

The political establishment has decided to make major cuts in the military budget.

No interest groups or large swaths of protestors are making themselves known to be in favor of the cuts, but it seems pretty obvious that they're necessary.

The only people who seem to be opposed to it are right-wing militants, carrying signs that say we can't deny them their ability to wipe out foreign populations, to defend their piece of Nevada desert from the aliens, and that"Might Makes Right" and "Peace by Power".

Now ask yourself, which side do you support? Have you decided?

It turns out that only tiny portions of the cuts actually pertain to the nut-jobs you see on television. Most of the cuts will be from the VA budget, and the actual arms money that gets cut will be replaced by selling new jets to China and Russia, requiring us to develop new ones. So it looks like you chose wrong if you supported the cuts.

Here's a little secret: If 500 people show up to yell at the President, or support a legislative bill, or protest that bill, the people that the media takes footage of will be the craziest people in the group. So...

...If you're promoting gay marriage, the media will ignore the 498 men and women in casual business attire, and focus on the guy in assless chaps and the lady with a crew cut in a flannel shirt, and...

...If you're supporting a woman's right to choose, the media will ignore the 498 men and women who don't consider abortion to be a form of birth control, and focus in on the two girls in front who dress like strippers with a "My Body, My Choice" tanktop two sizes too small that now means something completely different to middle America. And...

...If you're opposing the war, the media will ignore the 498 people who look like everyone at home that is on the fence and say all the things that will sway those on the fence, and focus in on the two hippies who look like anarchist pot-smokers who must oppose war because they hate America and love Che Gueverra.

Fact: Abbie Hoffman had to change his appearance and his behavior to relate to those most affected by the Viet Nam War, the youth.

Inintended Consequence: His failure to change the appearance and behavior of the movement he led to relate to those tens of millions with the power to end the war made it harder to end the war than if he'd just gone to middle America to begin with. His saturation of the antiwar marketplace with hippies who thought Gene McCarthy was too weak on ending the war split the party and gave the GOP the opponents Nixon wanted. I know Nixon gives credit to the movement for forcing him to end the war, but the movement is responsible for his being there to carry on the war.

People will not assume someone who obviously has different values from them has the same basis for arriving at the same conclusion they have. You can actually repell support by being too creative, by trying to do too much with your presentation.

If you want majority support for gay rights, don't send a guy in assless chaps.

If you want to protect your right to choose, don't send someone who looks like she's going to callously exercise that right.

If you want to promote peace, don't send someone who looks like he bases his support of peace on that being it's a shorter trip back to his parents' basement to smoke pot than a year in Iraq would be.

Your target audience must be able to relate to your messenger as much as your message. You can't expect to piss someone off into agreeing with you.