A Madison Avenue Presidency

It's long been the case that the modern presidency is more defined by its carefully managed image than the reality of its policies. Now that's not to suggest that the White House has been the one managing that image since in more recent years the image is shaped by a media who are self-aware that their responsive role is no longer to report the news, but decide what it should be. However, in an interesting twist for an administration which has given rhetorical focus to the idea of reducing the imperial presidency, the Obama administration is now in overdrive to protect the all-powerful and dynamic characteristics that are "Brand Obama."

Bloomberg reports that White House lawyers are busily assessing their options on how to control the likeness and image of the new Endorser-In-Chief, a heretofore unheard of kind of executive legal zeal. Given the voracity with which American consumers and - of more concern - organized labor, interest groups, and corporations have been demanding and manipulating Brand Obama respectively, there may be some sense to the White House's lawyering. However one feels about whether the White House has exclusive rights to how the images and words of the President are used, there are far more fundamental issues this news raise in which TAP is more interested. In brief, should this President whose strength comes from his aspirational brand attributes and whose advisors seem keenly aware that fact, be a President trusted to drive a policy agenda? Brand marketing sells product by making the product fulfill some need a consumer has or is made to believe that they have. The TAP fears the latter. TAP seems inclined to think that the government's functional role should not be a market commodity - there are constitutional and philosophical lines to its production capacity. In a world in which Americans seem oddly willing to buy things like pet rocks and $8 cups of coffee, which Madison Avenue (TAP's antiquated proxy term for the likes of Saatschi and Saatschi and Ogilvy) has convinced us we must have there lies great risk. We should fear the scope and usurpation of freedom of a government run like the world's largest corporation with a marketing budget of, well...how much you got?