New Democratic Party Logo

[oddball]

I still have yet to meet anyone with conservative leanings who has the slightest clue of what socialism actually is. The fact that it's considered a dirty word on its own regardless of context shows how embarrassingly ignorant we've become as a nation.

</soapbox>

You mean like how "conservative" has come to mean intolerant redneck NASCAR watcher who despises progress and blacks? Ignorance plays both sides of the fence...

</soapbox>

Actually we don't despise progress and blacks, we despise one thing: 1.5 mile cookie-cutter racetracks.

[Shmee]

Can you stupid bastards not even let a legitimate story about new logos go untouched by political douchebaggery? Jesus.

[lightning25]

what he meant to post was this:

I still have yet to meet anyone with conservative leanings who has the slightest clue of what socialism actually is. The fact that it's considered a dirty word on its own regardless of context shows how embarrassingly ignorant we've become as a nation.

</soapbox>

Socialism is an economic and political format that advocates community ownership. (i.e. commiunism)

I'm conservative. Do I win?

[Lights Out]

And the reason why socialism is a dirty word is because in its most radical form, socialism quickly spirals into communism, which inevitably fails and becomes outright dictatorship - and I don't mean by the proletariat. I too am conservative. What do I win?

[Dexter Morgan]

And the reason why socialism is a dirty word is because in its most radical form, socialism quickly spirals into communism, which inevitably fails and becomes outright dictatorship - and I don't mean by the proletariat. I too am conservative. What do I win?

[NJTank]

what he meant to post was this:

I still have yet to meet anyone with conservative leanings who has the slightest clue of what socialism actually is. The fact that it's considered a dirty word on its own regardless of context shows how embarrassingly ignorant we've become as a nation.

</soapbox>

Socialism is an economic and political format that advocates community ownership. (i.e. commiunism)

I'm conservative. Do I win?

That logo describes socialism perfectly, your hands are bound by the government, and everyone is a prisoner of the system.

[Drew22]

Can you stupid bastards not even let a legitimate story about new logos go untouched by political douchebaggery? Jesus.

Are you honestly surprised?

[Shmee]

Mental incontinence is a terrible trait to have. I try not to be a backseat mod, but could you guys really stop polluting threads with your awful back and forth bickering about political issues?

I know for some it's hard for some of you to see the opposition party's logo (it doesn't matter which side) and NOT spout off everything that's terrible about them. The Obama Nation thread is supposed to be the catch-all for this kind of terrible posting, so why can't you guys just leave it in there?

[Drew22]

Double postin' off the chain.

[rams80]

what he meant to post was this:

I still have yet to meet anyone with conservative leanings who has the slightest clue of what socialism actually is. The fact that it's considered a dirty word on its own regardless of context shows how embarrassingly ignorant we've become as a nation.

</soapbox>

Socialism is an economic and political format that advocates community ownership. (i.e. commiunism)

I'm conservative. Do I win?

That logo describes socialism perfectly, your hands are bound by the government, and everyone is a prisoner of the system.

This (post chain) is why we can't have nice things.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also dislike the new logo for removing the donkey. A D in a circle doesn't say much and doesn't exactly remind me of what you are.

[IceCap]

The Democratic Party without the donkey just seems odd, and the new bland D logo doesn't make the transition any better. I guess someone at the DNC's been bitten by the Web 2.0 bug.

[Jigga]

It's almost like a "social network" logo. If they had done a Denver Broncos inspired melding of the D and the donkey (but a silhoutte) with a star for the eye maybe, that could have really been fresh. I would have much rather have seen a serif font used, too. Plus, Gotham Bold belongs to the Obama campaign, it should be taken totally out of political circulation.

[IceCap]

It's almost like a "social network" logo. If they had done a Denver Broncos inspired melding of the D and the donkey (but a silhoutte) with a star for the eye maybe, that could have really been fresh. I would have much rather have seen a serif font used, too. Plus, Gotham Bold belongs to the Obama campaign, it should be taken totally out of political circulation.

It does look like something Facebook or Twitter would come up with, doesn't it?

Now I'm imagining a Broncos Dem logo. The fact that it's not a reality has me slightly down at the moment

[Shmee]

I agree with the thought that the new DNC logo looks like a social network's favicon more than a political party's identity, at least as far as US parties go. It's not bad artwork, though it is curious branding. There's not much to it, it's not easily distinguishable from any other simple letter-in-a-circle logo, and it lacks any kind of character. The last attempt to update the classic donkey logo was just plain awful though (decapitated donkey much?), so I guess they felt like trying something different.

I don't think the RNC logo is any better, with the blocky old elephant logo in the rounded type logo. Of particular confusion to me is the decision to make "GOP" the main focus of the logo. The acronym stands for Grand Old Party, a name I'm surprised to see the RNC embracing after they lost the the under-30 vote by a 2-to-1 margin in 2008. The GOP name and the youthful typeface don't have any kind of synergy in my mind.

Interesting trends to note about both:

• Each new logo is clearly an attempt to make the respective parties' look and feel younger.
  
• For both parties, the previous brand had both red and blue in the design. Each now eliminates the other party's color, so to speak.
  

[burgundy]

And the reason why socialism is a dirty word is because in its most radical form, socialism quickly spirals into communism, which inevitably fails and becomes outright dictatorship - and I don't mean by the proletariat. I too am conservative. What do I win?

And in capitalism's most radical form, you can have a plutocracy. Take the economic policy too far either way and your political situation will go to crap.

As for the new logo, it stinks.

[omnivore]

Yeah, the new Democratic brand symbol is a step up over the donkey. But too minimalist. At least political branding is stepping up it's game though from the doldrums they used to be in.

[IceCap]

I still have yet to meet anyone with conservative leanings who has the slightest clue of what socialism actually is. The fact that it's considered a dirty word on its own regardless of context shows how embarrassingly ignorant we've become as a nation.

</soapbox>

I'm not a conservative, but I like Edmund Burke, so I guess we'll have to make due.

The reason why so many people tie socialism and communism together is because, well, they're supposed to be tied together. When Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto he claimed that a society, after a proletariat revolution, would need to go through a period of socialism before true communism could be achieved. So not only is socialism the ideological lead-in to communism, but all of the states we reefer/referred to as communist (USSR, PRoC, Cuba, Vietnam, East Germany, etc...) can more accurately be described as socialist. So it's not ignorance that leads many to associated socialism with communism. It's actually an understanding, even if it's a simplistic understanding, of Marxist political theory. To call someone ignorant because they tie socialism in with communism is, well, ignorant on your part. To pretend the ideologies are not tied at the hip is to ignore one of the basic tenants of socialist and communist theory.

Now what I've seen you advocate and describe as "socialism" is better understood as "democratic socialism" or "social democracy." This ideology was an offshoot of Marx's communist/socialist movement that rejected the notion of violent revolution and complete state ownership of the economy. Instead it advocated reforming society within the existing social and political systems rather then tearing them down, injecting a healthy level of socialist theory into the democratic/capitalist system.

So not all socialists believe in communism, but all communists do believe in socialism. Which brings me back to my first point; that you're simply in the wrong to call someone ignorant for considering socialism synonymous with communism. Rather it's the contrary as Marx himself described socialism as a pivotal step on the way to communism.

[Shmee]

Wall of text that has nothing to do with the topic.

Why this? We were doing well there for a while. People were actually discussing, you know, the logos.

[IceCap]

Wall of text that has nothing to do with the topic.

Why this? We were doing well there for a while. People were actually discussing, you know, the logos.

Oh please. Stop acting like I ran over a puppy. Talk to Coast2CoastAM2006 who felt the need to associate the Democratic Party with socialism, or illwauk who felt the need to call people who disagree with his own world view ignorant. I'm hardly the first in this topic to go off-topic and this is hardly the first thread here to ever go off-topic, political or otherwise. It's not the end of the world, and it certainly isn't worth you getting all wound up about it.

In fact I would say of all the off-topic posts in this thread mine would be one of the better ones, as it's actually explaining something of the political nature rather then just contributing to a blatant political pissing contest. Also, "wall of text"? Please. That's used for posts that are 1) very long and 2) don't contain paragraph spacing. My post isn't all that long, and it's broken up to avoid the wall of text effect. Finally I've shared my opinions on the new Democratic Party logo, so it's not like I haven't contributed anything to the on-topic discussion.

So in short don't get your panties in a bunch because a topic went off-topic and stop acting like a backseat mod.

Now to show you that I'm not that bad of a guy....

I agree with the thought that the new DNC logo looks like a social network's favicon more than a political party's identity, at least as far as US parties go.

It's an odd choice for a political party's logo for most other countries as well. The only other change that makes about as least sense was the relatively recent change from the Conservative Party of the UK. They went from this to this. In both that case and the current case with the Democratic Party traditionally oriented logos were thrown out for something to appeal to the younger crowds. Which I suppose was/is the point.

It's not bad artwork, though it is curious branding. There's not much to it, it's not easily distinguishable from any other simple letter-in-a-circle logo, and it lacks any kind of character. The last attempt to update the classic donkey logo was just plain awful though (decapitated donkey much?), so I guess they felt like trying something different.

My favourite Democratic Party logo was actually the older donkey logo. It was simple, straightforward, and strong. Both donkey revisions (seen in the first post) seemed like a step in the wrong direction and this new logo just leaves me feeling "ok, it's a D."

I don't think the RNC logo is any better, with the blocky old elephant logo in the rounded type logo. Of particular confusion to me is the decision to make "GOP" the main focus of the logo. The acronym stands for Grand Old Party, a name I'm surprised to see the RNC embracing after they lost the the under-30 vote by a 2-to-1 margin in 2008. The GOP name and the youthful typeface don't have any kind of synergy in my mind.

The thing that really sinks the new Republican logo is, in my opinion, the attempt to shoehorn the elephant into the O. It's suppose to represent the opening in the O via a sort of negative space, but it just doesn't work in that capacity, at least not with the font they've chosen.

I wouldn't say the use of the GOP is bad, it's just become shorthand for naming the party. The actual meaning of "Grand Old Party" isn't something a lot of people think of these days when they use it. They just use GOP when they don't feel like writing out "Republicans" or "the Republican Party." In that sense I get the feeling the Republicans were going for a "text friendly" feel with their new logo, emphasizing a party nickname that's friendly for short-hand text talk.

It just feels odd because the Republicans have kept the elephant around, if in a limited capacity, but the Democrats have lost the donkey all together (Jackson's rolling in his grave, and his is a ghost you don't want made at you ). It's weird having the elephant without the donkey.

Interesting trends to note about both:

• Each new logo is clearly an attempt to make the respective parties' look and feel younger.

I would say so, though I think both logos lose something valuable with the new youthful redesigns. They lose a sense of meaning. When I look at the Democrat's new D I really don't see the logo of a party that champions social causes*. I see something Facebook or the iPhone would use for one of their aps. Which I suppose is the point, but it's devoid of any sort of meaning, which I think is important for a political party's logo.
The Republican logo doesn't feel like the logo of a party that represents traditional American values*, it looks like two different logos mashed together to target "what those darn kids like today." It's empty and poorly executed. Like the Democratic logo I don't feel anything with the new Republican logo. It's just there.
*Giving both parties the benefit of the doubt you see

For both parties, the previous brand had both red and blue in the design. Each now eliminates the other party's color, so to speak.

I don't mind this, actually. Most parties avoid this if they can elsewhere. The Conservatives in Canada don't use red at all save for the maple leaf, and the Liberals don't use blue. You won't find a spec of blue anywhere on the UK Labour Party logo, while blue is still the primary colour of the UK Conservative Party's branding (even if green is the primary colour in the new logo). My beef is that Americans decided to assign red to their conservative party and blue to their liberal party. It's Metric vs Standard all over again!

[Lights Out]

And in capitalism's most radical form, you can have a plutocracy.

However, we don't really see plutocracies in this day and age. We do, however, still see a few communist dictatorships. So capitalism, therefore, is the safer option.

About the new GOP logo: I hate the font used, but at least they still kept their traditional elephant symbol in some form. Both the elephant and the donkey have off-the-charts brand equity and the Dems are foolish to ditch their symbol, especially for such a generic and boring logo.