What the Political Styles of Donald Trump and Muhammad Ali Have in Common

Political strategists focus a great deal of effort on branding the candidate they represent. Each detail is labored over: answers regarding the candidate’s past, perceived indiscretions and potential for exposure in any given area. Down to their daily outfit, haircut and choice in spectacles, no detail goes unlabored. For politicians, every answer must be preciously scripted to fit into their brand guidelines agreed upon by their team.

But too often politicians don’t focus on branding their opponents, which can prove to be more important than how a politician chooses to brand their individual campaign. In the political arena, never let your opponent’s Achilles heel go unsung- especially if it’s catchy.

Donald Trump’s political nicknames for his adversaries are as myopic, vague, and simple as his campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.” “Lying Ted Cruz,” “Lightweight Megyn Kelly,” and “Crooked Hillary Clinton,” have stuck in people’s minds, and probably will for decades. The brilliance of his nicknames is in their simplicity.

Donald Trump illuminates the importance of branding one’s political opponents. Trump’s campaign has put more effort into branding all of his adversaries than branding his own political campaign.  He’s still running on the flypaper thin notion of making America great again and yet his critique of anyone else is headline news. He effectively out-branded all Republican opponents.

Spending energy branding one’s political opponents could foreseeably take away from a candidate’s own strategy. But the ability to control the momentum and message of one’s opponent far outweighs the energy spent. In contemporary politics voters are looking for immediate tweets, not tomes. Additionally, if Donald Trump’s campaign has proved anything thus far, it’s that a candidate can be successful by taking the offensive position while imparting little about the meat of their strategy.

Jeb Bush is a fantastic recent example of a politician who was continually on the defensive and trying to catch-up to the last accusation against his campaign. Bush was continually put on the defensive by being called, “Weak,” “Ineffective,” “A loser,” “A sad case,” by Donald Trump. These phrases counter-branded Jeb Bush so effectively that voters began to agree with Donald Trump’s assertions of him.

Branding an opponent confuses the message the opponent is trying to put forward about their campaign. The power is taken away from the opponent to state and discuss their preferred points. Their momentum and their direction are shifted, and the opponent may not have an immediate answer, or rebuttal, to things that are thrust upon them. Branding one’s opponent also puts focus on the speaker and what they are saying about their opponent, rather than what one’s opponent is saying about their campaign or talking points. Being seen as the aggressor, rather than the one constantly defending oneself, is to speak from a position of authority.

Branding an opponent doesn’t have to have an elaborate overall meaning, but it should leave the viewing and listening public with a clear visceral image in their minds. The catchiest slogans in history, not even political slogans necessarily, are all simple, brief, and to the point. For these purposes, slogans don’t ask a question; their goal is to make a statement or an accusation.

Colorful language can help deliver punch to political statements. Rhyme is probably the most useful of these devices, making a statement catchy and fun to say. Slogans such as, “I Like Ike,” “Think Mink,”  “Tricky Dick Nixon,” have some great internal rhyme within the words. “Slick Willie,” was a nickname for President Bill Clinton that pulled the double duty of referencing his evasive manner when questioned under oath, while serving as a euphemism for his marital indiscretions.

Another useful device is alliteration. Although a little long, The Guinness Brewery struck the double whammy of rhyme and alliteration with, “My Goodness, My Guinness!” “Floyd ‘Money’ Mayweather,” and “Marvelous Marvin Hagler,” are great examples of branded alliteration.

We’ve seen useful counter-branding throughout the history of sports as well. The best boxers effectively brand their opponents in public, psyching them out prior to fights. Muhammad Ali continually tore into Joe Frazier, whom he fought three times. Ali called Frazier ugly, dumb, a bum, a chump. Ali played to White America’s fears and ignorance about Frazier’s quiet demeanor and darker complexion. Muhammad Ali repeated these mantras so often that Joe Frazier’s legacy, decades later, is still what Ali called him.

Like Joe Frazier, the legacy of many of Donald Trump’s political opponents will not be the culmination of their deeds, but rather what Trump name-called them. Trump’s legacy will be that he was greatest name-caller of them all.