Donald Trump’s re-election against the backdrop of a record marred by criminal allegations and accusations of immorality can speak volumes for the powerful strategies and the messaging capacity to resonate with certain segments of the electorate.
Reflecting elements of the Philippine political landscape, Rodrigo Duterte and Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. both emerged victorious in previous elections despite controversial backgrounds and strong opposition. By examining the messaging, public relations tactics and socio-political contexts in each case, the power of great PR shines through in influencing voter perception and behavior.
The power of a strong persona and identity politics
Trump’s re-election, like the political successes of Duterte and Marcos in the Philippines, was dependent on a strong, unconventional persona that gained the support of a particular audience. The PR campaign that supported Trump, Duterte and Marcos all focused on themes of “toughness” and the ability to incite radical change. Even though each politician has tainted reputations, the person in question tended to get a certain “champion of the people” image across, one who would “stand up” to the elites, the status quo and the mainstream media.
In Trump’s case, his PR strategy set the story that he was victimized and unfairly targeted by political foes. The campaign “swept under the rug” claims of criminal conduct and portrayed it as an effort to silence a populist leader.
Duterte, in the same vein, postured himself as an “outsider” who could take some fight against the “clash” system, more so with his populist anti-drug war advocacies. Similarly, Marcos Jr. deployed PR tactics to restore the reputation of the Marcos family by repositioning them as victims of politics and HIMSELF as a victor in a struggle for a reputation of “strong” leadership. In each of these three examples, each leader successfully positioned himself as an underdog fighting for the “little guy,” which increased his appeal and eclipsed his negatives.
Control of narrative
The dominance over the media narrative is a critical factor that explains the electoral success of Trump, Duterte and Marcos. These leaders utilized a direct-to-audience approach on social media to circumvent traditional media channels. This style enabled them to communicate directly with their supporters, create or push counter-narratives, and discredit mainstream media as biased or out-of-touch. Trump’s use of X, formerly Twitter, Duterte’s reliance on social media platforms and Marcos’s broad network of influencers on the internet all contributed to what had become an echo chamber for their message, amplifying their messages and shutting them off from public criticism.
Duterte and Marcos used PR tactics that blurred lines between truth and propaganda very effectively. Duterte’s infamous Facebook-centric campaign created a deluge of pro-administration content not only in promoting him as a “man of action” but also casting suspicion over mainstream media’s credibility. Marcos’ campaign utilized the social space to “rewrite” the Marcos regime narrative to frame his father’s rule as positive. This is similar to Trump’s re-election campaign, which exploited his “fake news” narrative to discredit negative coverage. From a public relations perspective, controlling the narrative enabled these leaders to create an “alternative reality” for their followers, in which criticism and allegations did not apply to them.
Appeal to emotions and national identity
A classic PR strategy that Trump, Duterte and Marcos utilized was the appeal to emotions, especially in terms of nationalism and identity.
Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan cleverly tapped into the disillusionment of globalization and demographic shifts with the promise of a nostalgic ideal of America that appealed to a great many voters.
Duterte presented his campaign as promising to “restore peace and order” by tapping into the fears associated with crime and drugs as embracing a strongman who would defend at all costs the people he serves. Marcos, by nostalgia for his father’s regime, framed the Marcos era as a “golden age” for the Philippines – a narrative that PR campaigns pushed in hopes to attract voters who are disillusioned by current political elites.
This appeal to national identity is particularly powerful because it extends beyond scandals and controversies the candidate might be involved in. A leader who is perceived as fighting for the “soul” of the nation or an idealized version of that country will have people blinded to personal failures. The PR tactic here is to elevate the candidate above personal qualities and place them within a bigger nationalistic narrative so criticisms can seem irrelevant or unpatriotic.
Strategic deployment of scapegoating and anti-system sentiment
A common denominator between the three – rump, Duterte and Marcos – is their exploitation of scapegoating for PR purposes. Trump blamed “the radical left,” the “deep state” and undocumented immigrants for America’s ailments, playing to fears and locking in his voting base.
Duterte pointed to drug addicts and criminals. Marcos tapped into a deep-seated list of grievances against liberal democratic elites. By identifying enemies that were already unpopular or viewed with suspicion, they tapped into pre-existing prejudices and redirected voter anger.
This tactic creates a strong sense of “us vs them” among supporters, who see their candidate as the last defense against these perceived threats.
Distrust in the system has, in particular, become a potent PR strategy in recent years: the assertions of election fraud by Donald Trump and of media bias by Rodrigo Duterte echo classic campaign rhetoric of Ferdinand Marcos, which portrayed him as a victim of an unjust political order. The narratives were constantly hammered home by the PR teams to whip up support, cultivating a sense of collective victimhood among their followers and garbing their leaders with trappings of resistance.
Lessons in PR: Harnessing controversial but effective strategies
The reelection of leaders like Trump, Duterte and Marcos illustrates that PR campaigns, particularly when accompanied by social media, can be effective in shaping popular perception. A lesson for political PR practitioners is that winning is not tantamount to a perfect reputation. It is winning and holding onto a strong, memorable brand. Both of these leaders employed controversial strategies that polarized voters, but their populist, nationalist and anti-institutional narratives proved more compelling than the voices warning about moral or legal issues.
Furthermore, it has changed the concept of “truth” from the public’s point of view by deploying counter-narratives and information flow control.
Here, the power of PR in influencing political discourse is palpable, also showing how a leader can use controversy as an instrument rather than an obstacle.