Does the Name "Modern Whig" have marketable appeal?

Oh boy, here we go again.

Honestly, how I came across this site was actually searching for "Whig" and to learn a bit about the history (to learn what party did the Whigs turn into). I had heard of the Whigs, so I guess I must be old. :) I actually like the name, the rich history, the meaning behind the logo, the colors and symbolism. To me that helps the "marketability" because it appears to legitimize the party by not being some fly-by-night or the latest fad party even though MWP is in its' infancy.

I can see thefidgeter's concern, especially if the "target market" of the MWP's is going after the younger crowd of independents (i.e. college-age students). In essence, what type of name would be more attractive and modern to that crowd.

Would, though, the name "Whig" which the vast population may not know of the history cause conversation to take place? A conversation piece if I may? People will ask what is a Whig, etc? Eventually, as the party increases in size and more visible, people will realize who the "Whigs" are and what they stand for. Libertarian, what is that? Green, what is that? Today we know Republicans as conservative and Democrats as liberals. Hopefully in the future the name "Whig" will be able stand on its' own.

@ Jim: You write "Here we go again." As if there is a previous discussion on this topic but I have not found it. I do read quite a bit about what the platform means to the members, eg: Are we Centrist?, and I also read that the MWP is still branding itself so I found it apropos to ask. Please post the link for this previous discussion.

@Perry: You wrote: "I can see thefidgeter's concern, especially if the "target market" of the MWP's is going after the younger crowd of independents (i.e. college-age students). In essence, what type of name would be more attractive and modern to that crowd."

My response: I spent my fair share of time as a Vol and organizer in the political arena and I think that in this climate the odds are heavily stacked against a third party more than ever. Every little bit counts. The older folks likely have their minds made up where they stand and the number of members any third party will cull from them is not sufficient to stay afloat. Independents tend to lean Moderate but will also vote for the candidate most likely to win (according to most of the research I've read) so we know they are fickle. That said it is in fact the younger voters, and by younger I mean 40 and under, that one needs to target. Name/Branding is huge.

You went on to reply" "Would, though, the name "Whig" which the vast population may not know of the history cause conversation to take place? A conversation piece if I may? People will ask what is a Whig, etc? Eventually, as the party increases in size and more visible, people will realize who the "Whigs" are and what they stand for."

My response: My concern was that when I went to friends to say "Look what I found, a potentially sane third party option." The response 100% of the time was "What's a Whig?" And no, most people don't care to look it up. So I am of the mind that not only is it not a conversation piece (on a large scale, though political history buffs like me may enjoy talking about it), it also is not a name that has any meaning to the person who asks "What is a Whig?" If a person does not know what a Whig is and does not care what a Whig is then how does the brand attract them?
That said, just because someone doesn't care about the historic Whigs doesn't mean they are not inclined to be energized by what the MWP's platform stands for. So I had to ask the question?

You final comments were: "Libertarian, what is that? Green, what is that? Today we know Republicans as conservative and Democrats as liberals. Hopefully in the future the name "Whig" will be able stand on its' own.

My response: Your very questions support my initial dilemma in being asked repeatedly "What is a Whig?" If I may reframe that reply it seems you are saying that the names of the above listed parties do not seem to imply what they stand for. Perhaps not in a real sense given all the spin and duplicity that has become staus quo in politics but those names give the perception of something they stand for in the root of their name and our brains are wired to detect and be attracted to this. Libertarians: The pursuit of liberty, Democrats: American democracy, Republicans: A strong republic, Greens: Tree huggers concerned for the environment, Whigs: False hair enthusiasts?
Furthermore, we don't exclusively know Republicans as conservatives and Democrats as liberals and you know better I'm sure. There are Conservative Dems "Blue Dogs and Liberal Repubs "California Republican." So that part of your reply just doesn't work. Don't even get me started on the 'Buzz Wordiness" of the use of Modern in the name...that's another argument all together.

Regardless I like where the MWP is going and I think any third party that has these values at it's foundation is one that may actually be a vehicle for future change. I will run a little experiment in the form of a survey and see how likely a small sample of independent voters are to vote for a party based solely on the name and get back to you.

thefidgiter,

There have been a number of prior discussions about this, mainly on the Facebook group.

My own opinion is that I like the name "Whig" because of the historical values. It is my view that we really do represent a modern expression of what the Whigs from past times stood for.

I like that there is no baggage attached to the name Whig. Today, anyone who recognizes the name either knows what it stands for, or thinks of the phrase "going the way of the Whigs." I believe the name has strong market potential.

I also think our logo can stand proudly next to those of the current two major parties.

I think it would be a mistake to change our name at this point, especially to one that identifies a specific philosophy such as centrist. We stand for independent thought and responsibility. That is the Whig tradition and it is a very proud one.

@Jim: Thanks for the reply, I did not even think to check for an FB page. Shoot, I still remember the days when I would hand write letters to independent voters to try and persuade them to lean towards which ever candidate I was supporting/volunteering for at that time, so the social media goes over my head from time to time. I will reroute my question there and/or chime in as needed if my concerns have not already been addressed. I truly think that the MWP is on the right track with it's platform and that alone has broad appeal. I may be putting too much emphasis on the name branding but I think in this political climate one should seize every edge one can when trying to propagate a fledgling third party.

Thanks again

Actually, any new discussions on this should be here in the forums on website. My first remark was just a "vent" as it were. :)

I tried to find the look at the discussion on the FB page and did not find it on the MWP stand alone site and did see that there was a MWP for nearly every state so rather that sift through the state-by-state pages could you please cut and paste that link here?

Thanks,
Gabriel

Now you know why we want discussions like this on the website and not Facebook. :)

In all honesty, I doubt I could find them again. Also, many of them took place on phone calls.

That said, feel free to foster this discussion here. You may have already guessed that I am opposed to any name change other than dropping the word "Modern" from the name.

I think the novelty of the name, combined with the lack of any baggage or pre-conceptions, is a huge plus for the party. It allows us to brand it any way we want.

I was with the American Centrist Party when we merged with the MWP; I still prefer the ACP name for marketing purposes. I just think that it is an easier sell to those who are not so much in the political weeds. I think it gives an instant overview of what the party is about, neither Democrat or Republican but reaching out to both.

But I'm in the minority on that.

I wrote a lengthy reply and lost it, so now I will summarize (lucky you).

Republican and Democrat are not descriptive of their parties agenda. In our modern media/social media age, do we need a descriptive name or can we keep on trucking and get the message, ideas, and methodology out there and Whig will become synonymous with that?

FYI, as far as I can tell other than Washington and Adams (predate parties and would have been Federalists which eventually were Democrats) no parties have had presidents other than ones with names which included either Republican, Democrat or WHIG. We have only every had 3 viable polical parties, we as Whigs just got fractured and lost, we need to get the people who would have been pragmatic, common sense Whigs, all along, back from the middle of the Reps and Dems, and those that stayed away from either, to see what has been missing for the last 150 years.

Alan, you say "no parties have had presidents other than ones with names which included either Republican, Democrat or WHIG." This is what I call being in the political weeds. Go out on the street and ask people who the WHIGS were or what they stood for. Most people have no clue about what happened back then and dare say probably don't even care much.

I'm thinking that we need to look forward as a practical matter. We need to establish ourselves as a new entity. Democrats and Republicans don't need to establish name recognition, we do. Bring people to the party first by catching their eye, then with our ideas.

FredN wrote: "I'm thinking that we need to look forward as a practical matter. We need to establish ourselves as a new entity. Democrats and Republicans don't need to establish name recognition, we do. Bring people to the party first by catching their eye, then with our ideas."

I would have to agree. A viable third party will be one that is easily identified with. I've spent years both in graphic design and in marketing and in both scenarios there is a rule: Whatever it is your advertising give it a name that is simple to remember and able to be heard without having to be repeated.

Look, I like what the platform of the MWP stands for, it is sound, pragmatic, and progressive. I think a platform like this stands a shot at becoming viable as a larger third party and there lies my point: If another centrist, reformist, public service-minded party comes along with a nearly identical platform but a catchier name then what?

I did my years working as an organizer and intern for the Dems and I know it is all about winning (and fundraising, but that goes without saying). A third party needs to be well branded with a name that is easy to remember and needs no explanation because I am of a mind that if the name has to be explained then you are poorly branded and not memorable. I just wonder what the conversations will be like if the name stays:

"A What won the spot on city council?"
"A Modern Whig?"
"A what!!!"
"Like an old Whig, you know like Henry Clay...but Modern."
"Nope. I don't follow you."
....and so on.

I digress. I may be wrong and maybe this party needs no name change at all, time will tell.

I think that if we change the name at all it will only be to drop the word "Modern" from it.

One of the best things about the name "Whig" is that we can brand it any way we want to. But thanks to the history books, it might not be that hard to remind people that "Whig" stands for Classical Liberalism. The bigger problem is going to be overcoming the negatives created by the TEA Party co-opting almost any reference to the founders.

Also, there is nothing inherent in the names "Democrat" or "Republican" that would indicate their philosophy other than what is there by tradition now.

Personally, I would either like to see the word "Modern" removed and just be the Whig Party. Perhaps more marketable would be Populist Party, Citizens Party, American Citizens Party, American Moderate Party, or Independent Voters of America.

A few comments, first directed at Jim - dude you're not allowed to vent unless its with a scotch, a cigar, and another MWP officer like me! So unass that shit! :)

Fidge, a few things that I can rehash from prior discussions, 1.) so many terms have been bastardized by the current dysfunctional paradigm. Are we progessive? In terms of instigating a methodologically-based non violent revolution to "wright" the Republic - HELL YES! MWP might be the most progessive MAIN STREAM bunch there is, BUT NOT LIKE the current "progessives" out there, who tend to lean to socialism.

We're not socialist at all. We're Constitutionalists that believe in free spirit.

So the problem we have is indeed proper branding. If we use a term like progessive, moderate, centrist, while they all tend to describe us, they also have prcedents of usage that do not.

We called ourselves Whigs in 2007 because we felt the historical Whig ethos is exactly what we want to reintroduce into the American political system. From as far back as the Scottish Whiggamores ( who rejected the King's authority, those freedom loving glorious SOBs!) , to Edmund Burke ( who was a conservative , which isnt really "Whiggy" in the modern context ), to Gen. Washington ( who defines much of our strategy through his spoken addresses) , Senator Clay ( who rejected the Masonic cabal of the day for the good of the Nation) to President Lincoln, and to Myron Clarke, the last Whig governor here in NY.

BTW, as an aside, MWP has come to the conclusion that the two party system is the last remaining vestige of the civil war and must be unassed, but quick. Back to the future.

All those Whigs, albeit in different contexts, exhibited an intellectual and "moral" independence, i.e. THEY LED! And they led with anti-authoritarian, scientifically-based, and inward looking public policy. And yes, they were deemed uber progessive, almost radical. And I do personally dig the term RADICAL CENTRIST, as that is what I am. A MODERN WHIG! Radical in that MWP wants to effect a sea change in the nature of political participation, tearing down old institutions (e.g., the two party system and the electoral college are on the "hit list"), and replacing them with very different structures of participation. More on this in point 2.

Can anyone argue we dont need a truck load of that to help wright the Republic?

So while Whig may be undefined, yet, at least WE CAN DEFINE WHIG IN OUR OWN TERMS. Does this make branding more difficult, yes. Yet, does it also make it potentially more accurate and authentic - yes yes! So we chose the more difficult, yet more correct avenue to authenticity - as we ARE MODERN WHIGS.

With every interview, they try and put us in some predefined box, a closet labeled "centrist third party", and to me, part of that label, third party, is self defeating. MWP is FULLY OUT OF THE CLOSET and you cant put us back in! We dont seek a three party system, we seek a multiple party system OR eventually a NO PARTY SYSTEM. Yes, that is correct. With modern commo tech empowered by a new form of citizen participation, parties should become useless entities, as evidenced by their desperate attempts to maintain control of the system and the burgeoning independent minded voter who cannot be pigenholed. Give us 100 million independents who can feel at ease with a centrist, balanced, and radical approach to governing the Republic, and we'll annihilate the SuperPacs and their benefactors post haste. No doubt in my military mind. ( and no doubt we'll create our own SuperPac to arm ourselves with similar weaponry during the battle).

Two: The old paradigm tells voters to "find the party that shares your ideals". This, I beleive, is the hardest "sell" MWP has. MWP IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF TELLING FOLKS HOW TO THINK. Paradigm shift 101. MWP is focused on empowering citizens with new institutions of participation that attempt to use the search for truth by acknowledging persepctive, a collaborative, Delphic process of learing and researchig issues, and then employing modern problem solving skill sets and management metrics to create CITIZEN PROMOTED PUBLIC POLICY.

Is that crazy? May be, but it IS the neccessary ingredient to take control of the Republic back to its rightful heirs.

Our Will McKay is spearheading the Whig Roundtables, which we hope will morph into a component of this new public policy awareness and citizen reengagment in the political process.

That is our branding or marketing "problem". The Whig name is one thing, what we are really bringing to the table, is quite another.

Hey, no one ever said being a "disruptive innovator" was an easy row to hoe. But in my, and other MWP ExComm members' opinions at the time, we felt, and still feel, it is the only proper path for us to take. Independently minded, focused on consensus building and collaborative empowerment at every possible juncture. MWP is truly unique in this way. By design, as we feel it is the ONLY way to wright the Republic, thru citizen participation,a re-learning of what our role is, and a rebuilding of institutions of political particiaption that omit party.

Even our campaigns, when we actually run one strictly by the MWP playbook, will look RADICALLY different. More like a public serivce campaign. Way different.

Anyway, some of the background logic and decision nodes we crossed, for your review.

With your experience Fidge ( I have ZERO pol experience - only mil and biz), I would really dig you sharing your observations from that perspective.

How do we get this message out, in a concise understandable format, to 100 million indpendently minded voters, or "the silent center" of the American body politic? At the same time, we have to be perceived as potential winners, and not third party turds. Which is what ALL third parties are perceived as, which is why I LOATHE the term on any MWP docs, or even on these pages. Use "middle party" if you must.

And lastly, I must add the most deeply apolitical comment about who we are, at least those of us who are founding members ( half were Vets, one CIA, and the other successful biz folks), is that the founding members of the MWP do NOT care whether MWP eventually survives or not, AS LONG AS OUR MISSION TO REVOLUTIONIZE POLITICAL PARTICIPATION IN AMERICA IS ACCOMPLISHED. So, maybe we Whigs will disappear again, but not until there has been permanent change, and the People hold the reins to the Republic again. This is our charge, our mission. No more, and no less.

THNX!

Just received a copy of "The American Whig Party" in the mail. I am going to thoroughly enjoy it. Have to tell you, I like the term American Whig Party.

There is a Citizens party, which I suggested we merge with.

Also, Whigs is not moderate. When they have solutions, they act on it, there is no "kind of" solution.

I actually like Justice Party (I also suggested we merge with) name since it fits in with the meritocracy and social tolerance education reform and environmentalism.

I think the name Modern Whig Party has good marketing value. It refrences the hitorical Whig party, while making the distinction that it is an active party and not just a historical refrence. I think the name Modern Whig Party will probably stay in the long term, as will the initials MWP, but I think we will just refrence it as the Whig Party.