In the wake of the presidential election, I’m thinking a lot about Mcdonald’s. And Charli XCX.
Specifically, I’ve been reflecting on how elections (like this recent one) draw out a level of pageantry that is entertaining and thought-provoking. For those who may not have followed, a specific example of such acts is the Mcdonald’s “exchange” between candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.
Photo from The New York Times
It started with Harris’s early claims of being employed by Mcdonald’s in college. In response to this, Trump spent some time “working” at Mcdonalds: the campaign staff and Secret Service locked down a location and had selected participants come to the drive-thru to be served by Trump.
For both candidates (in the most simplistic analysis), this seemed to be a strategy to align with working class values, as well as adopting the americana spirit of one of the country’s oldest fast food chains. It was objectively interesting and hilarious to watch Trump make french fries. It was objectively interesting and perspective-changing to consider Harris as a former worker.
I am not really interested in the particular motivation from each candidate, but I am fascinated with this particular example of campaign “gimmicks” and the general use of such actions on the political battlefield.
In this day and age, short-form video, viral content and blocks of voters who are “chronically online” have perhaps caused an uptick in candidates seeking “meme-ability” to access these media avenues and claim the attention and regard of potential voters. Many candidates seem to tap into even the most “brain rot" trends, using increasingly outrageous one-liners (“they’re eating the dogs”) as a kind of rage bait, or aligning with abstract or viral trends (“brat summer”). These mirror general social media strategies prevalent in garnering attention, outrage or followers. I don’t think the marketing strategy of people-pleasing is new to politics, but social media has given it an interesting twist.
In the past, “no such thing as bad press” may have been the rule of the day, but in my estimation, these actions are orbiting farther and farther from professionalism and normalcy. One of my peers had an important insight into the gimmick-campaign spirit of the age: while such actions might claim a multitude of attention, they also might serve to degrade the quality of a candidate's standing. Perhaps views, likes and laughter at a person’s antics doesn’t translate to votes.
I’m no marketing student, nor am I a political scientist, but in conversation with peers and consumption of various news media, I sense an exhaustion with such campaign methods. It may be time for candidates to just put the fries in the bag and maintain a cohesive and professional approach. Will that happen? I severely doubt it.
Thumbnail photo from The New York Times