But not all outgroups are equal - we especially disrespect outgroups we feel are the most unlike us. We play favorites with ingroup members and ignore or dismiss outgroups with perjorative language. Graves: There is a whole field of study related to how we interact based on whether we think we are dealing with someone from an ingroup or an outgroup. Trump has carried us - here, and elsewhere - into a rhetorical land of no return. “Demonizing” is more than a Thesaurus option, deliberately summoning sin and Satan. “Viciously” is an extreme word to fling at a rival’s character and behavior. In contrast to Clinton’s precise, if arcane, language of dismissal, the language of this title reflects Trump’s speeches and tweets: jumpy, hyperbolic, and just plain odd.
The ad finishes with a sharp contrast in language, a typical display of Trumpian language in the closing title. The announcer drives the point home: “People like you…you…and you.” At the very start the announcer establishes Clinton’s elitism: “Speaking to wealthy donors…” But the invocation of a “money elite” is less damaging than her arcane language (“basket of deplorables”) and dismissive labeling. But over these scenes we hear Clinton’s words: “…racist…sexist…homophobic…xenophobic…Islamophobic…” The ad makes sure, for each word, to select a visual that undermines the charge. They’re enthusiastic, diverse, hopeful - eager participants in our democracy.
We see a series of scenes of newly stigmatized Trump supporters. The visuals of the commercial make the label seem even more unfair. It’s this divide that Trump’s campaign was quick to exploit, building an ad around Clinton’s deplorables comment. But when you, Jed Clampett, or I win the lottery or find a gusher of oil, we can move to Beverly Hills - but not to Yale. By the rules of the American Daydream, any of us, through hard work or serendipity, can strike it rich. While Trump is the gilt-lettered symbol of the “money elite,” the money divide does not seem impossibly wide. This distinction makes it less baffling that millions of economically anxious Trump supporters believe that a billionaire can voice their resentments and champion their interests. Today it’s a kind of TED Talk elite: an ingroup of Ivy Leaguers, smooth presenters, and fluent talkers. Adams and Clinton both represent an elite of long standing that’s less penetrable than a “money elite” it’s intellectual, cultural, and verbal. It’s a word Adams might have used to describes Jackson’s followers. Simpson: The use of the word deplorables is an act of linguistic outgrouping.
In the election of 1828, supporters of John Quincy Adams disseminated pamphlets decorated with coffins, portraying Andrew Jackson as a ruthless murderer, while Jackson supporters called Adams, a former diplomat to Russia, a pimp for the Czar. This outgroup trash talking has long had a place in marketing, although sometimes in subtler forms. Which tribe we hope to be identified with, and which we would not want to be caught dead with. This evolutionary baggage defines which tribe we are safe living with, and which presents a threat. All humans have their ingroups and their outgroups. It can be a powerful mobilizing - and polarizing - force. Graves: Clinton’s categorization of Trump supporters as deplorable is an example of what behavioral scientists call outgroup derogation. The question I’m interested in is, when should your competitive strategy involve attacking not just your rival but also their followers? Can that tactic ever prove successful, either in politics or business? Simpson: Hillary Clinton triggered an avalanche of criticism by saying “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.” Her comment had staying power it provoked a stream of counterattacks by Donald Trump’s campaign and came up yet again in the vice presidential debate. presidential election in November, Christopher Graves, a recent Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Resident honoree for behavioral science, global chair of Ogilvy Public Relations, and chair of the PR Council, and Steve Simpson, chief creative officer of Ogilvy & Mather North America, will dissect and debate the candidates’ communications and marketing strategies and techniques. In a series of conversations leading up to the U.S.