Without the hysteria: The "Voice of the mind" must become the slogan of the opposition in the Duma elections
16 May , 01:53
An election campaign with such a slogan should be based solely on positive emotions - good-natured humor and a bold look into the future.

A curious suggestion on how to win the vote in the autumn parliamentary elections was made by political scientist Abbas Gallyamov on his blog:

"The ideal slogan for the upcoming Duma campaign of some non-parliamentary party would be the self-determination" Voice of the Mind. " Or even "The only voice of reason."

The fact is that the next election will be very conflicting and emotional. Power and opposition will converge in the next decisive battle between Good and Evil. The negative, obviously, will dominate the positive and, of course, not everyone will like it. These are tired of hysteria and you can try to convince to give their votes to the "only voice of reason." Already 5 percent will be typed.

Of course, there is a risk of falling off the agenda. Everyone around is fighting, and you, like, stand aside. It is precisely to minimize this danger that such an “indiscreet” slogan is directed. It is impossible not to notice him, he is too pretentious. At first glance, voters will certainly not like it. Nothing wrong. In the course of the campaign, this hostility will disappear, but the essence remains.

Of course, stylistically the Voice of the Mind campaign should be sustained accordingly. No shocking, restrained, graphics and tables. Without emotions, of course, it is impossible, but these must be exclusively positive emotions - good-natured humor and a bold look into the future.

The best example from history is the 1980 Reagan. In terms of content, most of what he said during the campaign was senator Barry Goldwater said 16 years before him. This was the Republican Party presidential candidate in the 1964 election. Goldotrer spoke about all this, unlike Reagan, however, with such a gloomy face and hatred in his eyes, he accompanied such apocalyptic predictions that he suffered one of the most crushing defeats in the history of the country. Reagan, on the other hand, led his own - protest - campaign positively, with a smile and jokes. So I won.

Presenting the concept of the “only voice of reason”, one should not fall into rage and seriously take up the search for a development option for the country that is intermediate between the power and the opposition. It is exclusively a stylistic difference.

The only problem here is that the “voice of reason” campaign should be quite intense, and therefore expensive. The fact is that people vote for the third force only when it seems to them to be quite influential. The fact that people are tired of some players does not mean that they are ready to automatically switch to any other. No, that other one must look convincing - so that people believe in his ability to impose a new agenda instead of the old one. To do this, you need to sound from each iron.

Theoretically, the Kremlin could be the sponsor of such a campaign. All the same, collecting the majority on party lists under the flag of "United Russia" will not work anyway, so the "voice of reason" may turn out to be quite a logical and acceptable addition.

In principle, one cannot exclude the possibility that some of the oligarchs of the old - the Doputin still - call would also want to remember the dashing 90s and move their satellites into politics. The Kremlin’s control over the political clearing is weakening, but since nature does not tolerate a vacuum, the emergence of new (very old) players who decide to fill this vacuum cannot be ruled out. Interest is obvious. It is now possible to save and increase money only due to proximity to the budget, and the Duma is a structure without which you cannot accept a budget ... ”

However, one of the readers of Gallyamov, Alibek Alibekov pessimistically noted:

“The idea is good, but ... If, let's say, Roizman goes with such an agenda, then he will shoot. But they will not let him in. And those who are allowed in will not shoot. They let in mainly those who have insurmountable image problems. The voters disbelief in the seriousness of intentions like Titov’s, inconsistency like Prokhorov’s, a glamorous and scandalous anti-image like Sobchak’s..."