The Right Has a Marketing Problem

2025 has been a year of plot twists, tragedies and the occasional hard-won victory. One bittersweet development has been the quiet convergence of the Left and Right around a single question: do you wish to live under an authoritarian state or a libertarian one? Since the authoritarian extremes sit at both ends of the spectrum – political ‘upside down’ territories that mirror our world in its darkest form – this shift is hardly surprising. More and more people have found themselves asking a very old question in very modern terms: do you want the state to run your life, or do you want the freedom to decide what is best for yourself and your family?

And here’s where marketing comes in. Politics is, at its core, a sales and marketing challenge. Whose message resonates? Whose story feels compelling? Whose promises are easiest to grasp? Election manifestos are essentially glossy brochures for competing fantasies.

For decades, the Left has mastered this art. It helps that most creative industries lean Left, giving Left-wing parties endless storytellers, image-makers and emotional engineers to make use of. That’s harmless enough when they’re designing theatre sets or billboards, but far darker when they’re shaping the future of a strained and fragile nation, especially one with millions of young voters who haven’t yet developed the experience to detect political manipulation. 

Picture it: a young, vulnerable woman falling for an overconfident covert narcissist. They tell you they understand your struggles – and then they tell you exactly who to blame (spoiler: it’s not them).

Their sales pitch is seductive: resentment without responsibility. Not where you hoped to be in life? Feeling the world is unfair? Don’t worry – it’s not about your choices, your effort or your sacrifices. It’s the fault of ‘the rich’, ‘the corporations’, ‘the landlords’ or whatever convenient oppressor is in season. Give us your vote, they whisper, and we’ll rebalance the world in your favour. We’ve seen how this logic plays out historically – the kulaks of Ukraine learned its brutality first-hand during Lenin’s ‘dekulakisation’.

And if resentment isn’t enough, the Left has a second product: a handcrafted utopia. Vote for us and everyone will be equal. There will be abundance. Work will be optional. Rent will dissolve. You’ll glide into a green and pleasant future in which all hardship evaporates and life unfolds effortlessly. Do you want flying cars? A life free of bills? World peace with a side of universal harmony? Absolutely – it’s all included. To the naïve, the resentful and the unambitious it sounds like paradise. Utopia, here we come.

That none of this aligns with reality or human nature is, apparently, irrelevant. Ask any of the online ‘economists’ confidently insisting that we can print money indefinitely with no consequences. Terrifyingly, this thinking is landing – the Greens’ polling has surged in recent months.

Contrast this with the more conservative – or libertarian – message. Life is tough. There are no perfect solutions, only trade-offs. Hierarchies are inevitable; they’re part of our nature. You must sacrifice, and even then you won’t always get what you want. It is a message grounded in truth – and therefore a far harder sell than the Left’s shimmering fantasies. So the question becomes: how do you sell reality to a population raised on deflection?

You root the message in something deeper, older and profoundly human: the call to adventure. The recognition that meaning, responsibility and agency are not burdens but sources of strength. As an Englishman, the tradition is clear: you are responsible for your own life. No one is coming to rescue you. A healthy government should give you the space and autonomy to build a life for yourself and your family – and then step out of the way.

Not everything will go your way. But in freedom, responsibility becomes meaningful. And meaning makes life worth living.

Lee Taylor is CEO and Founder of marketing agency Uncommon Sense.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

20 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
FerdIII
4 months ago

No it doesn’t.

The ‘Right’ whatever that means has a conviction and courage problem.

The ‘Left’, including the Communist-Jihadist alliance, is mentally ill, dystopian, anti-reality, anti-science, anti-Western culture and anti-human. A child with the proper convictions and knowledge destroys them.

JXB
JXB
4 months ago
Reply to  FerdIII

You are correct. The “Right” is the broader mass of the population and therefore dispersed, not organised, not trying to destroy but build, whereas the “Left” is a smaller cohort, organised, vandals and focussed on destroying free society and free market capitalism just for the joy and spite of it.

DickieA
DickieA
4 months ago
Reply to  FerdIII

Very true. It was very noticeable to me when Blair and “New Labour” won the 1997 election. Instead of robustly arguing against the Labour government’s policies and the damage that socialism ultimately inflicts on the population, the Conservatives seemed to retreat to a world of focus groups and polling data – frightened to take up any “robust” positions that their special advisors thought might frighten the horses.

The result has been over 25 years of wishy-washy policies from the Conservatives and a continual reluctance to confront and attack the socialist grip that has now embedded itself across the Public Sector, legal system and Civil Service. If they had challenged the left and argued their case, they would have had far more support from the electorate.

EppingBlogger
4 months ago
Reply to  DickieA

That was because the Tories agreed with almost all he did.

DickieA
DickieA
4 months ago
Reply to  EppingBlogger

Very true. The wets outnumbering proper conservatives has been a complete disaster.

stewart
4 months ago
Reply to  FerdIII

Agree. If people who claim to be conservatives behave like socialists, then they’re not conservatives, they’re socialists.

JXB
JXB
4 months ago

Since the authoritarian extremes sit at both ends of the spectrum…”

Aren’t the opposite ends of the spectrum diametric, antipodal, antithetical opposites?

Whilst there may be overlaps of the variables of the spectrum, no spectrum can be the same at both ends or it isn’t spectrum.

If authoritarianism is Far Left – it is – then libertarianism must be Far Right.

Sensible commentators really must do better and stop being lazy and perpetuating the lie that Fascism and National Socialism are Far Right when they emerged from Socialism and share it roots on the Far Left.

RW
RW
4 months ago
Reply to  JXB

As Hitler himself wrote, the NSDAP, which was adamantly opposed to Marxism (the political system the erstwhile Geman socialists of the 19th century ultimately turned to) adopted red as colour of their posters (in Munich) specifically “to provoke the left.” [Wir haben die rote Farbe unserer Plakate […] gewählt, um dadurch die linke Seite zu reizen […], Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 542] The party grew out of small outlet for “working class nationalism and nationalists” formed after WWI. It has no roots in historic German socialism, which started as a working class self-improvement through education movement towards the end of the first third of the 19th century. Libertarianism, fancy neologism for anarchism, is part of the far left political spectrum and the anarchists used to be (in Russia) allies of the Marxists. You’re presentin a false dichotomy: The distinction between the political left and the political right is not authorianism – a right-wing ideology, by the way, the Russian Marxists only adopted as temporary emergency measure under Lenin but then found difficult to get rid of becaue Lenin’s successor Stalin had a fancy for prosecuting and killing those who desired to strip him of his supposedly temporary emergency powers –… Read more »

JXB
JXB
4 months ago
Reply to  RW

Hitler also wrote: “Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists… We are enemies of today’s capitalist economic system… but we are all the same against Marxism.” Circumlocution I would say. So Hitler was a Socialist but the Communists and Marxists weren’t “real” Socialists… a common theme of all Socialists who say it will work this time, it just wasn’t done correctly last few times, but we’ll do it right because we are the real thing. He and NASDAP were Socialists… yes but no but yes but no but yes but no… Authoritarianism cannot be a right-wing ideology, because the Right stands for sovereignty of the individual over the State and has no ideology. The Left which defines “right-wing” in its own terms in order to vilify it. The Left which is ideological can only think in terms of the Right being a different ideology. Communism/Socialism/Fascism/National Socialism share the same roots: elevation of the State over the individual; central economic planning and control. Arguing about names doesn’t alter the fact that they… Read more »

RW
RW
4 months ago
Reply to  JXB

Needless to say, your alleged quote has been invented. Or at least, it’s certainly not in Mein Kampf and also certainly something Hitler wouldn’t ever have said, him being what he was and not what your (almost certainly American) brothers-in-lack-of-spirit absolutely want to make of him. Authoritarianism is the classic right-wing ideology becaused the confused, communist slut – who actually wrote novels about the working class unionizing itself and taking over society by strikes (Atlas Shrugged) – wasn’t ever. This is all just a big lie and it’s only purpose that US domestic politics warriors can all call each other Nazis.

The left/ right distinction in politics still goes back to revolutionary France it it’s still monarchists sitting on the right, democrats on the left side of the assembly (earlier, aristocrats sitting on the right and commoners on the left).

CrisBCTnew
4 months ago
Reply to  RW

Hitler saying Nazis are socialists

USE-THIS-IMAGE-11-Hitler-We-are-Socialists-a-nazi
stewart
4 months ago
Reply to  JXB

I was going to write a similar comment.

If opposite ends of a spectrum are the same thing, then the spectrum is incorrectly defined.

And despite what RW insists on, the National Socialists in Germany were exactly that, nationalists and socialists.

It was a socialism very much like the one we have now in which the state imposes collectivism not through direct ownership of the economy but through imposed regulation that instructs company’s what to produce, how to produce it, how to sell it, at what price. That’s what the Nationalist Socialists believed in and implemented. And it’s very much the economic model we have now. And the level of state intervention in the economy through highly prescriptive regulation is ever increasing.

In many ways, one could say the Nazis ended up getting their way. Not on the nationalist part but definitely with their model of socialism.

RW
RW
4 months ago
Reply to  stewart

Socialism was a social movement in Germany in the 19th century and it started with forming societies (Sozietäten) for working class self-improvement by education (that’s were the term comes from). Originally, it was unpolitcal and came from a broad background (eg, there were Christian socialists) but this eventually culminated in the German socialist party (SPD) which eventually adopted Marxism as political ideology. The NSDAP has no organizational or any other ties to this movement save that they also wanted to address the so-called “social question” in order to win the working class back from the Marxists. The socialism in the name of the party is essentially a PR-trick which was common at that time.

Collectivism is still some Russian emigrant and US immigrant woman’s term for “I have really no clue about human history!” As I wrote last time: The Roman dulce et decorum est pro patria mori is already “collectivist” because all of human history outside of Rand’s total lack of understanding about it was. As Aristoteles put it (I think that was him): Man is a zoon politikon, a political animal, and it’s natural for him to build social organizations transcending individuals.

transmissionofflame
4 months ago
Reply to  RW

Yes of course we are social, political cooperating animals. The interesting part is to what extent that collective and cooperative activity is voluntary or coerced, and the weight given to the individual versus the collective, and what the proper limits are on the use of “the common good” as a justification for coercion. Views on all of that differ enormously.

transmissionofflame
4 months ago

The other interesting thing is who decides what the best compromise is between the individual and the collective.

It seems to me that compared to say 200 years ago in my country we are subject to many more laws, restrictions, taxes and general state interference and intrusion into our lives. The state knows a lot more about us (to be fair so do private businesses).

Mikael
Mikael
4 months ago

There has to be a reset to reality. Usually needs a war.

JXB
JXB
4 months ago
Reply to  Mikael

Yes.

War is the default to settle conflict. War is costly so institutions – politics, representative democracy – evolved to avoid cost and settle conflict peacefully.

Once those institutions no longer function, reversion to default occurs.

EUbrainwashing
4 months ago

It is comforting to believe that the warm, benevolent state looks after people simply out of paternal concern. Many adults are seduced into retaining a childlike desire to be nurtured, and the state actively cultivates this dependence as a normal mode of adulthood. The result is a population kept in prolonged immaturity—submissive, deferential, and largely unquestioning. This is not accidental. It is a structural outcome of state mechanisms: state-controlled schooling, intrusive management of every important dimension of life—from healthcare to media culture—alongside the erosion of family, tribe, and independent community. Add to this a climate of politically sanitised thinking, and the result is an infantilised citizenry easily governed. The nurturing façade is essential. Without the illusion that the state “gives back,” people would not tolerate a system that ultimately extracts wealth through compulsory taxation backed by force. The state is not a democratic guardian; it is a self-perpetuating entity. No state willingly shrinks itself. And behind the theatrical rotation of elected governments lies a deeper apparatus: a mechanism designed for control, revenue extraction, and the enrichment of an embedded oligarchy. Much of the wealth gathered through taxation is funnelled upward—most significantly through interest payments to privately controlled central banking systems… Read more »

unnamed
Heretic
Heretic
4 months ago

A very thought-provoking article by Lee Taylor.

May I just add this comment by one “Wolf” (mentioned on Dan Wootton’s Outspoken channel), about reports that Farage plans to let the Tories slowly absorb Reform, like a Giant Amoeba. Dan also played clips of Nigel lauding the Nigerian Birth Tourist in the past.

Wolf wrote:

“Nigel Farage has been an establishment puppet since at least 2009. His entire career ever since has been based on eliminating any political party to the right of the Tories, and then handing the Tories power by stepping aside. He will go down in history as The Great Betrayer.”

“The real reason Nigel Farage hasn’t bothered to build the infrastructure a real party needs is because he knew all along that the plan was to strike another deal with the Tories, just like he did in 2019.”

“I’ve said for 18 months he’s controlled opposition – now it’s been proven.”

Purpleone
4 months ago
Reply to  Heretic

Interesting take – could explain why he’s had so many issues with certain individuals he’s fell out with… they are too ‘conservative’ with a small c, and sensible