Last night Elizabeth Warren sitting in a car on her way to an event had a conference call with her supporters. The format was introductory remarks by the candidate followed by questions and answers. Although there were important questions asked it seemed they were too narrowly focused for a general campaign. Questions fielded were on inappropriate bank fees, the fishing industry, and defeating Scott Brown. Maybe others can remember the rest.
Elizabeth, her choice for addressing her, set a theme that her followers must tune into. She advocated for broader frames such as Wall Street and Banking Reform and a balanced conservation policy. As Democrats we sometimes wander off into the weeds that makes the general plebiscite’s eyes glaze over. To win this race in a political sense issues must be chosen carefully. They must be policies that have general appeal but still firmly in a progressive’s bailiwick. Winning the war is far more satisfactory than winning the battle.
In contrast Republicans are dead on with just a few things they will vote for and have no qualms about dressing it up or using outright deception to win over the public. If too many topics are emphasized on our part, it is my opinion, we may lose the attention of independent voters by essentially boring them instead of stimulating them to act on progressive causes. Even some pressing civil rights or international controversies may burn inside us but do not engage the public one bit in terms of electing someone. It may even backfire. The voter usually wants the following question answered: “What’s in it for me and my family?”
I am all for protest for social change and without a doubt it should definitely continue full force. I’ve been in few myself. However you need responsive elected leaders to make it happen. So circling around our choice of candidate seems necessary to bring about any further results. Ms. Warren listens to her constituency but she will willow down what she wants to promote. I think this is wise and we should stand firmly behind her choices. Adding on favorite topics could be self defeating.
Was anyone else in on this call last night and what were your thoughts? If we make a list of the big three or four, what should it be and what would be effective strategy with independents to make them pull the lever for Elizabeth? Some of them may even live in your household. People talk about thinking outside the box, well now is the time to do so. To win this Senate Race it will need some strong mental push-ups to get Elizabeth Warren over the top. Let’s do it.
Jobs
let’s broaden the conversation. Anyone who was not on the call, what are your thoughts on focusing Elizabeth’s campaign?
I’m looking forward to the comments, both from those people who were on the call but also anyone else who has some thoughts.
Disclosure: You may already know, but just to be sure, I work for the Warren campaign.
I’m already supporting and planning to work for Warren, so I didn’t stay on the phone for very long.
I voted for jobs and the economy as the top issue.
The general plebiscite can kiss my ass. Fuck em. That’s what they get for living in a democracy. If they don’t want to do the work then let their eyes glaze over and they can stay home and spit for all I care.
we’re trying to win an election. When the table is set before the un-enrolled their attention span is restricted, mainly because they are not political junkies like most of us on this blog. So gnash your teeth in private and let’s see how to present this to this important group of voters. Most are not doing it out of any malice but just don’t pay attention as much.
Democrats are good at appealing to reason; Republicans are good at appealing to emotion, especially such motivating emotions as resentment and anger.
To decide not to care about eyes glazing over is to decide to hand the Republicans an enormous advantage.
If I believed in a general immunity to reason, a notion implicit in the original post and in your reply, I might be in agreement. I do not, and I am not. ‘Eyes glazing over’ is an explicit choice. They can do the work. They choose not to. We can’t force them to do the work. They, not me nor you, are the ones to hand the Republicans an enormous advantage.
… I actually do believe in an ‘immunity to reason’. There is a certain mindset where the phrase ‘nothing anyone says will change my mind’ is virtue not a vice. In aggregate and over long periods of time, reason can make inroad in such communities – but it is certainly true that when trying to make headway by use of reason, your mileage varies from group to group. The very existence of this variation posits, entirely plausibly, that there might be groups for which reason doesn’t help much at all.
I think the point is to marshal emotion in the service of reason.
It is a persistent 18th century prejudice going back at least to Socrates that emotion and reason are completely separate phenomena that are often in competition. We’ve read plenty of fables about it.
Cognitive science, brain scans, and modern psychology generally have been unkind to that Enlightenment era prejudice.
… I lament that martialing emotion in service of reason implicitly admits the defeat of reason. That is, reason alone should be enough but isn’t and that state of affairs is disappointing. The prejudice isn’t that emotions and reason are separate phenomena, but that they are separate phenomena in the brain. Definitionally, they are orthogonal to each other. A truth state of a syllogistic assertion is constant regardless of how I feel about it. That fact is at the root of the prejudice. In our brains, the reasoning behind the assertion and how one feels about it are greatly interconnected. With regard to understanding through reason this is a bug, not a feature. This interconnectedness exists in our brains but does not map to reality.
The power to persuade is often beyond reason alone’s ability, and that I lament.
I am reminded of the state of college basketball before there was a shot clock. Many coaches complained bitterly that the stall tactics that were sometimes used were ruining the game and that it was absolutely necessary to implement a shot clock. Yet, these same coaches didn’t hesitate to run a four-corner stall offense when they felt it gave them an advantage – because the goal was winning the game at hand.
The goal at hand here is winning elections. We have to deal with the electorate as they are, whether they are choose to “do the work” or not. Furthermore, we’re dealing with human beings, not computers, and there is plenty of logical research out there about how the brain works and how the emotional is intertwined with the logical. If our side doesn’t have an effective emotional appeal, we run a high risk of losing to the team that does. It just is.
If we could count on them to responsibly abstain from voting that would be one thing. I do sympathize with your frustration. Personally I wish we required natural-born citizens to take the same test as we do for naturalized citizenship in order to vote, but that raises unpleasant illusions to nefarious literacy tests. It seems we have gone backwards. My read of the founding of this country is that it was firmly rooted in the Enlightment, the very basis of which was reason. The Founding Fathers knew that an educated citizenry was a sine qua non of a democratic system, but alas while the need for public education was universally obvious to the founders that is sadly not the case today.
We could all move to Plato’s Republic.
…but I’ve always prefered Aristotle’s Politics over Plato’s Republic. Point is if more people understood how Congress works as part of our system and that the President is not king they would realize that to the extent the economy is not recovering as quickly as we would like it is because of Congress gumming up the works rather than the President not having a plan, as an example.
Wow I didn’t think my post would essentially prove my point. I was looking for practicality and strategy. Instead mostly philosophical hand waving. This is how the opposition wins by demonstrating simply and with an attractive appeal to immediate needs. We need to offer a fairy tale equivalent like taking a chance on the lottery but with much better odds. So again I ask, any concrete strategies? Many buy the Republican trickle down economic theory along with insisting government intrudes too much in people’s lives and is the source of every problem known to man or woman. It sells even in the face of evidence to the contrary. FDR sold the New Deal and we have to devise something similar to bring to those independents to the Democratic side.
Such things don’t exist. The idea of unicorns farting rainbows and fairy princesses shitting candy for all to enjoy is a false idea. There is no substitute for hard work. There is no way, hollywood aside, that you can use the tactics and strategies of the bad guys, if you are the good guys.
The Republicans strategy is to piss on people, tell them it’s raining and try to sell them umbrellas. That’s the simple truth.
You come along and try to get us to sell people on the notion that we have a better umbrella.
The notion that Republicans have a more or less equal claim on the electorate, through simplistic lies, misdirection and venal fearmongering and that our claims would be more solid if we were more simplistic, lied more and generally pissed on people only slightly less than they do, and with better umbrellas, is an evil and absurd notion. The whole system is gamed and skewed and deeply deeply unfair. But the minute you try to game it and skew it and turn the unfairness to your advantage then you cease to deserve a win. Consider me scornful of you and the terms you offer.
this is a discussion among friends. My main point is that many voters take a tooth fairy kind of approach to their votes. If government hasn’t done anything for me lately or I got screwed by some bureaucrat is their story something has to counteract those incidents that turns people off. I am emphasizing the delivery not being untruthful at all. Further when you put forward your ideas there really is no guarantee it will bring about what you expect. However the chances of something positive happening is certainly higher than the opposition. Not exactly a “Harry and Louise” scenario but still ideas unfolded as a story that will create the impact. As a distant example the footage on the TV screen of dogs attacking peaceful marchers during the civil rights marches tipped the balance of opinion so civil rights legislation became possible. I overstated my case to be sure but public messaging as allegory seems to hold more interest. Jon Stewart’s approach and Stephen Colbert are far more effective in getting points across. If I could come up with winning episodes myself I wouldn’t have asked what others would do. In short we are on the same side and I am hoping this makes things a little clearer. Presently the Obama campaign is using the Bain Capital story. Will that engage the public or not?
These calls are for volunteers, to give them some contact with Elizabeth. I approve of the campaign doing them and wasn’t too bothered by the very specific, in-the-weeds questions that were asked. We probably all have our pet issues, like the guy who is paying the $6 check-cashing fee, that we’d like our candidates to address and that we’d like to raise if given the chance in a forum like the call the other night. But hopefully when we hit the streets canvassing, talking to undecided voters, we talk about Elizabeth being a champion for the middle class, while Scott Brown is voting against jobs bills, against extending unemployment benefits and to allow student loan interest rates to double.
One thing I did hear from another volunteer on the call was that it bothered her that 5 of the 6 questions taken were from men. Some screening to introduce more gender balance in who gets to ask questions would have been preferable to her.
I completely agree with your points. However as for gender balance the forum took questions by pressing a key on the phone pad so there was no intention of slighting women. This also again points out that there has to be a coalescing of issues to produce central themes that are fewer in number as you have outlined with widespread agreement within the Party. At a Dem Town Committee Meeting in Gloucester recently the Chair outlined this approach. She pictured Democrats as a tree with many outgoing roots feeding the trunk that ultimately supports the upper branches. While campaigning it was important to her to have these favorite causes(the roots) come together(the trunk) with a clearer simpler message so it would hold up the general population representation of the branches. It was very effective story for an audience that had very differing views what needed to be tackled foremost.