While there has been an undeniable shift to the right politically in the last 20 years of American history it is imperative to keep in mind that almost all polling continues to demonstrate that the American voting public at large remains progressive and liberal on nearly every domestic policy position.
The question then is how to best frame domestic policy positions in political terms best able to connect to the voting public and demonstrate that they fall on the progressive side of the fence despite their repeated labeling of themselves as “conservative”. There is no use in lamenting the successful branding of the term liberal any longer. The Republicans, the right and especially the impressive and effective political machine created since just before the dawn of the Reagan era has rendered the old language of liberalism useless and counterproductive.
Therefore before even discussing the policy initiatives of a future progressivism liberal’s must begin to redefine the language we use to explain these positions. LANGUAGE MATTERS. As a society inundated with constant policy ideas and positions delivered in solemn tones by a media apparatus beholden to special interests and cravenly seeking favor and access with whichever group is most likely to continue the status quo, language is important. The average voter goes to a few different media sources and gets conflicting information and recommendations, all of these positions are explained by people with impressive credentials and so the media insists on reporting about domestic policy as if there were no right or wrong positions. It is precisely this “balanced” (I would say lazy at best, obstructionist at worst) style of reporting that brought us The New York Times and Judith Miller breathlessly quoting unnamed administration source after unnamed administration source to make a convincing case to the American public that there was no dissent about he fact that Saddam Hussein held an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
Since the current media climate (exempting excellent centrist outlets like PBS’s Frontline and similar programming) is no longer concerned with settling policy disagreements it is important to take a page from those masters of issue framing Newt Gingrich and more recently and damagingly Karl Rove. Newt Gingrich was an early conservative who understood the importance of using targeted language as a means of discrediting his policy opponents. Just before ushering in his conservative ”revolution” in the midterm elections of 1994 he flew around the country getting congressional candidates to sign his Contract With America. The CWA was a fantastic and revolutionary idea in modern American politics and should be studied, respected and treated as such. By laying out an already well established platform in easily digestible sound bite bullet points and getting a show of unity (though actual unity was tested very early in the that Congress and was eventually shattered) Gingrich and his conservative revolutionaries seized on a general state of dis-ease in the nation and offered a simple platform that they said would solve America’s problems. That the document it self offered nothing new or even remotely helpful is a topic for another forum, this examination is simply about LANGUAGE and PROCESS.
With his show of unity he was able to go to voters with a document signed by candidates, and more than just a political document A CONTRACT, which claimed to be commons sense answers for nuanced American problems. This was the process for coalescing around a platform that America understood. Shortly after election began the language form. Mr. Gingrich, a wonky language obsessed former professor began circulating memo’s from his speakers office that urged the conservative congressional movement to speak with one voice. He also asked that voice to be shrill, untruthful and vile. His widely read GOPAC handbook called “Language, a Key Mechanism of Control” included an index of words to use in speeches, policy debates and campaign materials. The list emphasized referring to Democrats with terms such as “sick, corrupt, anti-flag, liberal, traitors, pro-gay, pro-abortion” etc.
While no one should stoop to this level it is important to realize something. THIS WORKED. No progressive needs to do this because we do, after all, have actual facts and actual truth to rely on. But of course in 2000 and 2004 the truth and facts were no less on our sides and that didn’t go well for progressivism. There fore it is important for anyone who will be attempting to advance a progressive agenda to take a page from Gingrich and make sure to frame our arguments concisely and speak with one voice. Using the GOPAC formula liberals and progressives should immediately begin, truthfully mind, you describing conservatives as “pro-corporate welfare, anti-health, anti-family, pro-war, anti-fairness, corrupt, uninformed, clearly mistaken” etc. The difference is that we can back up our rhetoric. All canvassing should be done with charts showing the health of the economy and the environment during republican and democratic administrations. The fact remains that liberals have presided over economic growth and environmental stewardship far more often and consistently than their conservative counterparts. The fact remains that for the average American if there has been any change in his/her income over the last 12 years it has been a change for the worse.
It is easy to be very aggressive in attacking unfair and misguided policies without resorting to the kind of personal slime attacks that Karl Rove and the modern Republican machine have perfected. With the facts and numbers on our side we can use language to frame our issues. For instance; instead of being for “Gun Control” progressives should be “disturbed by the exponential rise in shooting deaths and injuries in our nations workplaces and campuses”. Who isn’t? The statement lends itself to an obvious answer without playing into the old “they’re gonna bust down your door and take away your guns.”
Also progressives hold the higher ground on libertarian issues of personal privacy and civil liberties. This is a crucial strategic issue. It is very likely that progressive’s can begin to effectively peel away libertarian conservative support for the Republican Party by stressing that while average government growth has perhaps slowed slightly under the last three Republican administrations’ (though not in the latest Bush term) the government is now able and willing to hold citizens incommunicado, arrest under suspicion of guilt without evidence, and punish for association. This is a targeted message best used in the west and rural south. The average voter seems content to give up these protections to be safe from the terror boogey man, but in rural communities they will be rightly worried about an extreme government intrusion in to personal rights that has occurred over the last 20 years. Canvassers and activists in these communities should take the “Big Brother is growing” message to every rural door they can reach. They should bring properly framed materials describing the TIPS program, Poindexter’s Total Information Awareness program etc. And they should use clear language. Example, “ Are you aware that Big Government is now able to eavesdrop on your phone calls, your shopping patterns and your associations without a warrant?” “Are you aware that Washington is attempting to create a computer database of personal health and financial information on every American?” These questions are sure to intrigue or outrage and lead into a very effective discussion of civil liberties and privacy on which progressives, again, have a far superior platform and record. Framed properly we can ask the rural conservative and/or libertarian what scares him/her more; Big government being used to help the poor and disadvantaged or big government being used to spy on and create massive databases on the average innocent American who can now be held without trial, charge or access to counsel on the flimsiest of warrantless, secret evidence?
The point is TARGETED MESSAGE. Not everyone is a wonk who can discuss all issues. The average voter is concerned by two or three issues they deem crucial. Canvassers’ and activists must demonstrate a flexibility and preparedness to win these arguments and talk WITH the opposition not at them. Each door to door stop should begin with the question, “What concerns you most.” “What issues seem to you the most important?” It can be assumed that most will say one of three things, health, security, economy. However by asking them you have already gained an advantage. The key is that any voter who does not answer “Gays getting married” or”Abolition of abortion” can be won. On economic and policy issues we can always split the difference while accurately framing the opposition as out of touch with America, in bed with special interests, and concerned only with their own wealth and power.
On social issues there can be no surrender. The progressive is rightly committed to a woman’s right to choose (though they are perfectly able and should NOT be condescend to for holding very different ideas about the MORALITY of that choice) and is absolutely committed to full and equal rights for ALL minorities, gays, lesbians, trans-gendered etc. There is absolutely nothing to be gained in discussing these issues. In fact we can save much time and energy by opening with questions. If someone answers our query with the above answers politely tip your cap, say thank you very much and move on to the next door.
We are not going to out argue someone’s God and we do a disservice to our core beliefs and electoral and policy ambitions by mocking a voters faith (no matter how misguided it may appear). Which brings us to another stand we make: Progressives are ABSOLUTELY committed to the freedom of religion and the free exercise there of. We are happy that people have found solace and comfort in religion and do not doubt that in the past religion has been an important aspect of both public and private life. However, as America is a pluralistic society that embraces equal and full rights for all, as a mater of principal progressive’s MUST stand against any official government sanction or preference for one religion. It is important to distance progressivism from “nannyism”. The battle to fight is NOT whether a Menorah is prominently displayed next to a Christmas tree in Wal-mart or at a town sponsored Christmas carol. We can leave these issues to the ACLU (who incidentally does an admirable job fighting these battles and taking the heat for the rest of us). As a matter of practical application, progressives take absolutely NO stand on the free exercise of religion. As long as government and government agencies refrain from ANY endorsement of a particular faith progressives happily encourage Americans to continue to worship as they see fit and hope that charitable giving continues unabated. People of faith do not need progressive’s protection in the religious marketplace. This issue only hurts us and should be avoided like the plague. In fact progressives can make common ground with devout religious voters by focusing on the good charitable works of local and national congregations and joining cause against human rights atrocities on the African continent and in Eastern and southern Asia.
Finally, while some liberal minded individuals will mourn the loss, the time has come to abandon the term “Liberal with a capital L”. It has been effectively stigmatized. Likewise the term to describe conservatives should henceforth be “radical” or “fundamentalist”. As the political right has run perhaps the most effective framing job in modern American politics it is time to move on. Language is becoming, if this is possible, even more important in American public life. All one needs do is see the inevitable flaps and stories that are “created” every time a candidate, official, or staff member says anything remotely controversial. In this new media environment the first side that is able to define a tight, consistent and attractively worded and framed agenda on each new issue will have an important advantage in the immensely important policy decisions that loom going into the 2010’s.
