Monday, August 10, 2009

The name game

Sometimes picking a name can be the hardest part of creating a political organization.

You want a name that says who you are but which is also catchy and interesting.

And getting agreement or consent as to what constitutes a good name is nearly impossible. Usually you end up with a name which everybody hates the least.

That's why I have some sympathy for the socialists at the New Democratic Party, who are contemplating a name change.

And I can understand why some think a change is needed; I mean how long can you be considered "new."

Yet they should proceed with caution.

Years ago, when I worked at the National Citizens Coalition, we once considered changing our name.

We just believed "National Citizens Coalition" didn't properly convey our mission, that we were a group promoting free enterprise and less government. Plus, "citizens" and "coalition" were words commonly found in the names of left-wing groups.

What we wanted was a name that declared our dedication to freedom!

Anyway, an American political consultant talked us out of it.

His point was that over the years we had given "National Citizens Coalition" meaning; establishing a brand which people recognized.

It's probably the same for the NDP. Yes, it's bit of a dorky name, but over the years they have given it meaning.

So maybe they should keep the name, and just change their policies.


Patsplace said...

A true analysis of the Great Name Change fiasco.

But now that the PooBa's have come out in favour of it, there will be no going back.


Skinny Dipper said...

If the NDP wants to promote itself as a new party, then the New in NDP is old. If it wants to promote some kind of new democracy for Canada, then the New is still relevant.