To Michael’s insightful comments, I can only add a link to Nunberg’s home page, and the following comments:
Nunberg talks about an analysis he did of speeches at (I believe it was) the most recent national conventions, and found that the Republicans had a consistent, “one size fits all” message. The Dems, on the other hand, delivered a message that he described as “word salad.” A little of this, a little of that, in other words.
I think part of the reason for this has something to do with the dichotomy of the intellectual content of the two messages. Those of us on the left tend to be tolerant/inclusive and open to the possibility that we may be wrong. Those on the right, it seems to me, are more sure of themselves. It’s a marketing problem. We need to learn how to package our ideas better. This interview with Nunberg is a good step in that direction.
as detailed in the Daily Howler and books like Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert. Clinton won, but his speeches often seemed like laundry lists of proposals. Kerry and Gore narrowly lost, and one group of people who didn’t do their jobs during those elections were CNN and MSNBC, and the NYT and WaPo.
<
p>
We need to start fighting back HARD against the media when they parrot GOP talking points (like when Charlie Gibson “did the RNC’s work for them” against John Kerry).
I know you’re a Deval supporter, so that’s all I need to know to realize you’re a bright person. But, as if that weren’t enough, you posted a brilliant and succinct explanation of why the media are lazy in reporting poll results as “statistical deadheats” or other such bullcrap.
<
p>
I also figure you must be familiar with one of my favorite Deval-isms:
I believe that same can be said of the media. The media is us!
<
p>
The right has spent the past 30+ years taking control of the media. Sure, there are a few outposts where they haven’t taken over completely, and the indy media and blogs like this are keeping the flame of free-thinking alive, but let’s face it, the right OWNS the MSM in this country (often literally, but in any case spiritually).
<
p>
I remember, for example, an indy media study that was done 3 years or so ago to analyze TV coverage of the invasion of Iraq. At a time when nearly 50% (I think the number was somewhere around 45%) of the American public was against the invasion, the major TV news outlets (including PBS) had something like 90% or 95% (I’ve forgotten the exact number) of their guests (i.e. non-employees) speaking in favor of the invasion. I remember my friends mocking NPR as “National Pentagon Radio” for its tendency to parrot military press releases as if they were the only way to look at things.
<
p>
You get my drift, I’m sure. The right-wing way of thinking has so permeated our MSM that we don’t even recognize it as such anymore.
<
p>
The whole furor in this state about taxes is a media invention, imho. Sure people grouse about taxes, but they also know that you get what you pay for, and they gripe about their broken bridges and lack of staffing at government agencies, too.
<
p>
Okay, not to get off the subject too much…
<
p>
My point is that we on the left need to work hard to take back the media, or at least to make sure it is truly fair and balanced.
<
p>
In other words, it’s not “the media” that’s at fault — it’s us!
<
p>
Thanks for listening.
MFW, with all do respect: I disagree with this statement:
<
p>
<
p>
Perhaps, they “tend to be,” but that much more than the right? I’m not so sure.
<
p>
For a classic example, look no further than BMG. How often are moderates told that they are not “progressive enough.” (As if anybody has any idea what that actually means. Ask 100 self-described progressives and you’ll get 100 different answers.) Just as often, their Democratic credentials come under attack (Republican-lite, DINO, etc., etc.).
<
p>
Here is a classic and not-uncommon example: David posted a legitimate and, in my opinion, well-deserved critique of the Boston Phoenix’s editorial on the SSM amendment. So what is the response on the left? How about pure vitriole mixed in with all of the aforementioned classic attacks.
<
p>
One of the reasons why the left is losing is because they can be just as elitist and arrogant as the right. They look down their noses at the middle.
<
p>
Just take a look at Massachusetts voter registration over the past 25 years and you’ll see that people are voting with their feet.
<
p>
If people aren’t listened to they will simply find a new home.
MD, the number of registered Democrats in Massachusetts has never been higher, based on the latest statistics available from the SoS website.
<
p>
The Dems are only decreasing as a percentage of the entire registered population because the number of unenrolleds is increasing even faster.
<
p>
In terms of actual number of voters, however, Democratic enrollment is not shrinking.
The numbers have increased due to poplation growth, while the percentages have declined during the period that I cited.
<
p>
My bad if I said “numbers” when I meant percentages.
I thought we were shrinking.
You’re killing me, sco! 🙂
<
p>
Yes, we have lost population over the last two years, but I’m talking about the last 2-plus decades.
A. 4 million registered voters in MA.
<
p>
2 million independent (50%). 1.5 million dems (37%). 0.5 million republicans (13%).
<
p>
B. of these 4 million….850,000 have registered since 1990.
<
p>
of that group: republicans = 11%, dems = 22%, independents = 67%.
<
p>
C. bottom line: newer voters are less likely to register as dems, more likely to register as independents, republicans about the same.
I knew I read this somewhere:
Voter registration as a whole has increased more than population growth can explain since at least 1990. Now, it’s true that most of the new registrations are unenrolled. Still the Dems lost numbers in the early ninties under Weld, but that trend reversed itself and the party continued to grow until 2004, which is the latest year numbers are available for.
<
p>
The percentage of Democrats, by the way, has stayed relatively constant over the past 10 years — between 36% and 38% of the registered population.
figures from the Secretary of State’s office.
<
p>
1986 – 46%
1996 – 38%
2004 – 37%
<
p>
Granted, the biggest losses were between 1986-1996, but those people have no come back. In fact, we are still shrinking relative to the overall number of enrolled voters.
Trying to boost you argument by using real numbers and dismissing the percentages.
<
p>
PLEASE. When John Kerry says he received the second largest amount of votes anyone running for President–are we supposed to be impressed?
<
p>
It’s the PERCENTAGES! It’s all about market share and we Dems are losing market share.
Next time I’ll check with you before I use any numbers to make sure that you approve.
<
p>
The point I’m trying to make is that this mass exodus from the Democratic party is made up. Not only are there more Democrats than there were before, but the percentage of Democrats has stayed largely the same for the past ten years.
<
p>
If there’s anything that’s happening is that party growth is not keeping pace with the increased rate of new voter registration. That’s different than saying people are leaving the party. Once this year’s numbers come out, they might tell another story, but for now, this is how I read them.
As a center-left Dem, I get aggravated when my arguments, or the arguments of those anywhere to the right of Ralph Nader or Russ Feingold, are attacked with name-calling and self-righteousness, rather than a debate on the merits of the ideas. To many mainstream Democrats and Independents, it seems that the many vocal “progressives”‘ idea of tolerance is that they tolerate only those ideas that are similar to their own, and that all others are downright wrong or worse.
For an even stronger example, in my opinion, look at DailyKos, which is not a place to discuss ideas, but a large group of angry people who agree with each other — and are very intolerant toward anyone who disagrees with them. I don’t see much practical difference in the tone of discourse there and on freerepublic. Only the content is different.
I agree with this position, and think that if we would start talking like real people about our core values, the simplifying/essentializing of our political rhetoric would follow. Take, say Fluff for example — you could phrase it as “this is bad because it causes tooth decay and deterioration of enamel and this is my program to protect enamel in kids” — or you could say: “I believe that we as a society need to protect our kids from unhealthy influences.” (Ducks). No, but really, we need to do more thinking about why we’re Democrats — what’s the worldview at our core — and speak from there. Republicans believe that you’re on your own, we believe we’re in this together. Republicans believe if you get sick and don’t have health insurance, it’s your fault, Democrats believe that we as a community have to take care of our sick. It just doesn’t seem that complicated to me, or that hard to do. It just means taking a step back from the welter of policy options out there and getting in touch with the why, not the how. Then we can explain the policy stuff by appealing to common values, which is a language everybody understands.
<
p>
And, to respond, partially, to the debate upthread, I agree that we need to do a lot less critical examination of eachother for moral and ideological purity. We can disagree on programs and policies without calling eachother names and impugning eachother’s character. But in the relatively brief time I’ve been reading and commenting on this blog, I haven’t noticed that the vitriol flows in only one direction, from left to right. It seems to flow in the other direction just as readily.
<
p>
And, finally, I don’t agree that Democrats are losing elections or failing to recruit new members because they’re too intolerant of centrists. I think unenrolleds are increasing because the people we keep putting up as gubernatorial candidates come across as insider hacks, as do a large number of the rest of the elected establishment, none of whom seem to stand for anything you can put a finger on. Unless and until we start appealing to people’s hopes, aspirations and desire to belong to something bigger than themselves, until we start appealing in simple language to the core values we share, unless and until we put up people who feel new, authentic and different, we’ll continue to lose numbers.
<
p>
I love to hear the diarist’s ideas about what we have to do differently.
Know why Mass. is now an unenrolled state instead of a party state?
<
p>
We are one of the few states that allow unenrolleds to vote in primary elections. If you think that doesn’t matter, look at the huge number of unenrolleds voting for McCain – and then, four years later, for Kerry.
<
p>
We are allowing these people to constantly play both sides against their middle. Why not tell them if they want to be involved in the selection of candidates, then they have to be a part of the party they want to vote in? After all, it’s the party that has to live with and promote their choices. Heck, I know unenrolleds who DELIBERATELY take ballots in the ‘other’ party when their real party of choice is uncontested in order to vote for the weakest candidate (last time out, it was Kucinich).
<
p>
We might see a truly frightful election cycle (think Al Sharpton vs. Pat Buchanan) once only registered members could vote – but it owuld be the fastest way to increase party membership.
I agree with your sentiment Peter. I think this business of letting unenrolleds vote in the primaries is nonsense. If this is going to be the case why do we even have party registration? Personally, I prefer no registration whatsoever. I think registering your party affiliation is a throwback to the bad old days of graff that Boston and Massachusetts politics was known for. But if we are going to have registration then it should mean something.
<
p>
However, I disagree Peter that enough people scheme as you suggest in the end of your comment. There will never be enough people engaging in this sort of deception as to lead us to the sort of battle you mention.
The change in the caucus party ID rule just from 2002 to 2004 made a huge difference.
<
p>
I was told that Republicans turned out in droves in my town’s dem caucus in 2002 because one woman in particular wanted to go to the nominating convention as a delegate for Grossman- turns out the woman, while a Dem,has a circle of friends which is 95% Republican.
<
p>
Frankly, I’m glad that rule change was instituted:caucus goers had to be Reg. as a Dem by Dec 31st 2005 this time.
<
p>
As far as primaries go – I believe they should be closed primaries because I agree – party registration should mean something.All the way across the political spectrum.
I’ll take a slightly different approach and say that progressive ideas are not currently supported by a majority of voters nationally, hence, liberals/progressives avoid anything too defining and thematic least they scare away centrist voters.
<
p>
As a result, the Republican message seems more “one size fits all,” more confident, and more direct. Their message is also more narrow.
<
p>
Contrast that to the Dem message — it’s a policy wonk’s laundry list without much of a unifying theme, the lack of which isn’t unintentional, either. Individual policy planks are custom designed to hold onto various core constituencies, and a robust progressive or liberal theme is avoided so as not to sour the independent middle.
<
p>
To me, all this indicates that the epicenter of national political sentiment is somewhat right of center.
<
p>
So, unfortunately, it’s not the media, or the marketing, it’s the message. The Dems have a 45% message, the Republicans, 55% (perhaps that’s too generous…49/51.)
I don’t think I agree with the ideas being non-mainstream. I think that Republicans are much more likely to offer false choices and cleverly framed issues that are more likely to appeal to people’s basic instincts. I think that Democrats have fallen down by appealing to intelligence over instinct.
<
p>
When a Republican asks “are you in favor of lower taxes?” most people say “hell, yes, more money in my pocket”.
<
p>
Democrats respond by saying “wait a minute, you can’t have lower taxes without cutting services.”.
<
p>
Republicans respond with half-truths in one of several ways, depending on the audience:
<
p>
“Yes you can — when you lower taxes the total amount you collect goes up because of economic expansion”.
<
p>
OR
<
p>
“We’re going to find the money by cutting the waste and fraud in government”.
<
p>
OR
<
p>
“Your taxes go to support lazy people who are on welfare. Why should your hard-earned dollars go to people who refuse to work”?
<
p>
The Democratic counter to any of those responses has always been nuanced or complex. To combat the first, you have to pull out numbers showing exactly WHY the simple numbers the Republicans trot out are incorrect. People don’t generally understand complex numbers, or things like GDP.
<
p>
To combat the second you have to say “there isn’t enough waste and fraud to make up for that”. That makes you appear to be AGAINST waste and fraud.
<
p>
To combat the third you have to argue that supporting the poor isn’t the majority of our budget, and that our economy is actually creating more poor people. That makes you appear to be AGAINST hard work and siding AGAINST the middle class.
<
p>
Democrats have to frame better. They have to use recent history to show that we are on the wrong path, that the Republican way isn’t working, and that even though we have a Democratic state house (some of who are better Democrats than others), Republicans have been setting the agenda for a long, long time.
<
p>
When Kerry Healey trots out the needle bill and uses the old “how would you like to be in line in CVS…” line, then show how over the past string of Republican governors, you are MORE LIKELY to be standing next to a drug user with HIV than four years ago because both drug use and HIV have gone up due to failed policy and cuts in treatment plans.
<
p>
When Kerry Healey starts talking about cutting the income tax, point out all the local services that have been eliminated or changed to “fee-based” because cities and towns haven’t been getting support from the state, and show how the average person is still shelling out more money now than they had before.
<
p>
When Kerry Healey starts talking about gay marriage try and find anyone whose life is worse off in any way because two men down the street decided to tie the knot. And then launch into an economic diatribe because Romney/Healey have spent their time on gay marriage over bringing jobs to this state.
I wish each person using this word would have to pay a $.05 fine to support the website every time they use this consultant-babble word.
<
p>
It is the very definition of old wine in new bottles.
<
p>
What it really boils down to is:
<
p>
We think that all of you, the voters, are stupid. Otherwise, why wouldn’t you vote for us? When you hear about your tax money being used to build a new movie theater in melrose, or to build a gazebo in Braintree, or to pay a king’s ransom to Senator Bulger, you might be so mentally insensate as to forget that we’re from the government, and we’re here to help you.
<
p>
So we’re not going to say “tax burden,” we’re going to call it “an investment in our future” and hope you don’t notice, you being so stupid as to be barely capable of speech. There now, please don’t forget to vote.
<
p>
The problem with Lakoff’s sudden popularity is now people think “framing” means just changing your talking points, and then you will WIN! Now everyone is searching for the magic phrase that will cause the public to finally open their eyes.
<
p>
That is a load of crap.
<
p>
The takeaway from Lakoff should be, in part, that the language you use to describe things does matter. If it didn’t there would be no “death tax” or “partial birth abortion” and Frank Luntz would be out of a job. Democrats should be careful to make sure that they’re debating on their own terms, but they shouldn’t think that just phrasing things differently will win elections.
The problem Democrats have nationally is that they are not trusted on national security issues.
<
p>
Oh, no, its a talking point! Sure it is, and sure it has been demagogued, but the demagoguery was effective because it has a kernel of truth.
<
p>
I don’t see how “framing” will fix this.
I’m with you on the overuse of the word framing, but….
<
p>
While many armchair politicos like myself like to pontificate about framing (reading Moral Politics and Donât Think of an Elephant doesnât make me or anyone else an expert) its affect on elections is very real.
<
p>
Framing doesn’t presuppose voters are stupid; one of the reasons it is used because voters have limited time to spend tracking where candidates stand on issues. I believe campaigning is at some level like marketing/advertising; you have 20 seconds or less to get your point across so you need to a have a clear, compact message.
<
p>
Everything from the 1-800-54-Giant jingle to âTim for treasurerâ to âDeath Taxâ to âWorking Poorâ has been very effective in communicating messages to voters or consumers. Framing does take time though, so the thought of reframing issues for this election may have been lost.
Now the Giant Glass song will be stuck in my head for the rest of the day.
You know, with all that “framing” and “nuance”, you just aren’t going to hook average Joe voter. Elections aren’t nuanced debates as much as they’re thematic contests of broad political ideas (see Ronald Reagan,) not a set of white papers.
<
p>
When you run with campaign themes like John Kerry did — I cannot remember anything except “Not Bush” — it’s much harder to attract the base of voters looking for an understandable, plain speaking leader. (Deval Patrick is pretty good at this.)
<
p>
As much as you hate to admit it, “more money in my pocket” trumps a “nuanced” yes-but regardless of the merits of the arguement. All day. Every day. That’s just the way it is.
<
p>
Maybe voters already understand lower taxes = fewer services. Maybe they get it, and actually prefer lower taxes = fewer services, thus rejecting your political premise that more services are preferred. Have you considered that possibility?
<
p>
In elections tactics, Dem’s need to quit serving salad, and put some steak on the table.
<
p>
2. I just visited the website of each, didn’t see a “unifying theme” on either main page. I’d wondered if I’d see a very simple “We stand for these 3 values” sort of thing. Instead:
<
p>
RNC’s lead message is “Bush hails booming economy.” I suppose that connects with their meta-message of “rising tide lifts all boats.” Given his approval ratings, not sure how much folks believe it’s booming…
<
p>
DNC’s lead message is “Bush met with Abramoff.” Red meat for true believers, but yawn for centrists. Not sure that’s the most powerful positive message.
<
p>
Hmm. I like this one! Positive vision of safety and prosperity that seems better argued than the R vision.
<
p>
Too bad the leftist netroots hate moderate Dems even more than they hate the R’s.
Goldstein’s got a grip on it.
<
p>
Let’s have a contest. Can anyone formulate the 3-point Democratic campaign theme? (Ok, 5-points.)
we will INVEST IN AMERICA
(i.e. renewable energy, stem cell research, corporate abandonment of the 9 to 5 class)
<
p>
we will STAND BEHIND THE PRINCIPLES THIS NATION WAS FOUNDED UPON
(i.e. widespread democracy, freedom of religious expression, separation of powers, ideals over expediency)
<
p>
we will FIGHT FOR TAX VALUE FOR ALL AMERICANS
(i.e. are your taxes going back to improve your community and your situation, or are we throwing it away into boondoggles like iraq and bogus farm subsidies?)
(“tax value” – you heard it here first)
<
p>
I don’t even know what “corporate abandonment of 9 to 5 class” means.
<
p>
If your view is “Let’s somehow stop evil companies from operating in world economy,” it’s a loser.
<
p>
If it’s “We now live in a world economy, we can’t blame companies…instead, we need plans (education, savings, job creation) so that each American expects to move through a few career transitions in his lifetime,” then it’s a winner. The D variation on Opportunity Society. That would be a stand-up double.
<
p>
2. What happens when the newfound democracy elects gov’t that suppresses freedom of religion (among others)? Seems like Rs and Ds have same problem here.
<
p>
3. I like tax value. However, even as the R leadership gorges on pork, the only folks challenging them are not Ds (who want their own pork), but a handful of Rs like Coburn. For every fighter jet the Navy doesn’t want but gets built anyway, there’s a Big Dig and corrupt Katrina rebuilding.
<
p>
And knocking off bogus farm subsidies? That would be great. Neither party will touch that, however – particularly Ds trying to pick up red states. Long live ADM, supermarket to the world.
<
p>
When people say “Both parties are the same” – which infuriates politically involved D’s and R’s (“of course we’re different!”) – this is what they mean.
you see ggd, i think that you’re falling into the classic trap of the left. you’re parsing and equivocating points.
<
p>
the whole idea is that the r’s can make 4 themes, (less government, strong defense, personal freedom/responsibility, family values)and roll every particular issue into one of those catagories. which they then define on their own terms.
<
p>
my point is that the dem’s need to do the same. keep it simple. keep it digestible. and repeat it and repeat it and stand by it through hell and high water.
<
p>
and i think that most of the issues of the day can be framed into one of the three statements i listed. how much water would it hold at a harvard symposium, i can’t say. but how much would ‘family values’ hold? and we’re getting our asses kicked back and forth on that one.
<
p>
2. You posit “Tax Value” to compete with “Small Gov’t.” I’m game. As an independent, I prefer Tax Value to arbitrarily Small Gov’t.
<
p>
However, I don’t think the average person would find D’s credible on Tax Value…it doesn’t square with longtime public perception.
<
p>
A more plausible view of D’s is that “They spend to help the little guy when he’s down….generous and caring but maybe too much so…not so concerned about waste.”
<
p>
3. Bill Clinton offered: “Work hard and play by the rules.” I buy that theme.
<
p>
Minimum wage? Helps hard workers. In-state tuition for 18-year-olds whose parents brought them here illegally? Yes, because kids themselves didn’t break the rules (parents did), and they’re hard workers (demonstrated by academic success in high school) who want to work even harder to educate themselves in college.
<
p>
Gay marriage? They work hard and contribute to society, they are committed to each other, which is the main rule of relationships. (That is, to sway people who are mixed on gay marriage – those we’re trying to persuade – a better message is “they work hard and play by the rules, thus they are like us” than the “civil rights” theme).
<
p>
End estate tax? No way, that rewards rich people’s kids who didn’t work hard. Health care for working poor? Obviously. Nail white collar fraud and super-rich tax cheats? Yes, not playing by the rules. Predatory lenders? Hurt hard workers. Ambulance chasers? We’re against them. Healey’s husband? Took a tax credit that broke spirit of the rules.
<
p>
Bush? Breaks rules and promises, doesn’t work hard, makes excuses. Supreme Court found he violated Constitution on Gitmo. Promised smaller deficit, delivered bigger one, blames 9/11. Not enough armor for the enlisted guys, the hardest workers. Didn’t work hard to deal with Katrina (resonates better than “he’s an evil, callous racist”). Saudis aren’t playing by the rules, they’re still teaching hatred of USA, yet we still turn blind eye. Doesn’t work hard to understand details, hence lots of miscalculations on Iraq, lots of one-size fits all solutions, like tax cuts or the color-coded “Warning Level” terror thing. Doesn’t like nuance because it makes you work hard and think hard, hence pressuring intel to make Iraq case on weapons seem clear-cut. Takes lots of vacations.
<
p>
Get rid of academic standards and the tests which measure them? No, work harder to hit the standards – kids, parents, teachers, principals. Merit pay for teachers? Yes, reward hard-working teachers. Creationism in schools? No, the rules (Constitution) say no church and state. Public school choice for inner-city parents who can’t easily move? Yes, can’t say to hard-working kid (like Deval) that you have to remain stuck in failed big system. Losing the math/science race to India/China? Let’s spend to find ways to inspire kids to work hard in those subjects.
<
p>
Layoffs? Need to help those who worked hard, but can’t do it thru protectionism, because that’s not playing by rules of competition; instead, need to promote free market and be ready when it inevitably spits out problems, the “pro-growth progressive” to use Gene Sperling’s phrase.
<
p>
It occurs to me I’m blathering on about “hard work” when I’m sitting on my ass at a Starbucks and writing a blog comment.