PART THREE
The Progressive Toolbox

CHAPTER 7
Freedom, Opportunity, Security

I was tempted to call this chapter “How to Talk Like Barack Obama,” because he really does have a knack for describing progressive policy in terms of mainstream values. Here are just a few of the things Obama said when he delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention:

About freedom: “John Kerry believes in the Constitutional freedoms that have made our country the envy of the world, and he will never sacrifice our basic liberties, nor use faith as a wedge to divide us.”

About opportunity: “People don’t expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all.”

About security: “And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure.”

I suspect that Obama speaks this way naturally. He’s a lawyer, not a linguist. But Barack Obama uses values the way an expert might. The question is, how do we—average public speakers, sometime advocates, and interested voters—talk like that?

The first rule is focus on the value not the public policy. Emphasize the value of freedom when government action would violate individual rights, opportunity when government should act as a referee, and security when government should be a protector.

Second, move from an invocation of the value to a quick explanation of the specific policy. No long lists of facts. No heavy use of statistics. Use facts to illustrate, not overshadow, your argument.

In an ideal situation, end by pointing out that the progressive position takes responsibility for solving the problem, while the conservative position abdicates that responsibility.

Let’s imagine that ideal world. You’re a major party candidate for a major office. You’re speaking to a crowd, arguing for an increased minimum wage. You might say:

 

I believe that America should truly be a land of opportunity. Every hard-working man and woman should have the chance to achieve the American dream. But today, parents working full-time for the minimum wage don’t earn enough to pull their families out of poverty. That’s why I want to increase the minimum wage. My opponent, by opposing the minimum wage, is saying it’s not his responsibility to fight for equal opportunity for all Americans. I promise you, I’ll make equal opportunity my responsibility.

 

If you know any progressives who already talk like that, please pat them on the back (or vote for them). To all the rest of you, what’s the difference between this example and the argument we normally hear from progressive candidates and advocates? First, this example leads with a progressive value and explains what the speaker means by that value. Second, it uses relatively few facts—specifically for illustration. Third, it ends with a distinction between the progressive and conservative sides of the debate, wrapped in responsibility.

But, you may think, that seems awfully confining. Progressives can’t repeat the same few words over and over. True. In the real world, we can’t rely on freedom, opportunity, and security in every circumstance. But we can substitute other words from the same family of values. When it sounds right, we can substitute terms like liberty or basic rights for freedom, fair share or level playing field for opportunity, safety or protection for security (see Figure 7.1).

Figure 7.1

Families of Progressive Values

For example, let’s say you’re advocating stricter auto emission standards. The progressive value is… what? (Come on, you can do it.) That’s right, it’s security. But that word doesn’t quite fit the conversation. Fortunately, it’s not essential to invoke the word security, it’s essential to invoke the concept. For example:

 

We’ve got to protect our community’s health and our quality of life. For decades, we’ve agreed that such protection must include clean air, and that part of the answer is to limit the pollution caused by cars and trucks. But auto emissions are still a major source of air pollution that contributes to global warming. We need stricter auto emission standards. The opponents of this measure don’t want to take responsibility for protecting our health. I do.

 

You’re just burning to list more facts and statistics, aren’t you? (Well, at least the policy wonks—like me.) Facts are important of course. But a persuasive message is not that “thousands are subjected to warrantless wiretapping”—it is that “an invasion of any American’s privacy diminishes freedom for us all.” It’s not that “millions live in poverty”—it is that “all hard-working Americans deserve the opportunity to live the American dream.” It’s not that “millions are uninsured”—it is that “all Americans need the security of health insurance.”

When you are trying to persuade, first explain why you and your audience are on the same side already. In the case of auto emission standards, everyone’s for security, health, and a better quality of life. Then explain that your specific solution delivers the security that they seek. Obviously, some audiences require more facts than others. If you’re speaking one-on-one or in a small group, let your listeners ask for more facts. When people do that, they’re helping you persuade them. But honestly—and you know this already—progressives almost always give too many facts and do too little framing. Focus on the frame.

What about responsibility? Won’t that concept sound stale after a while? Of course, we can’t invoke responsibility in every answer. So we have to use it enough to get the point across yet avoid overdoing it. On the flip side, there are situations when we can jump directly to responsibility, like this:

 

This is the moment when a true leader must take responsibility for fixing our schools. By opposing legislation that would bring experienced teachers to those schools most in need, my opponent is shirking that responsibility.

 

OK, you may say, that’s fine for candidates, but I don’t have an opponent. Well, actually you do. Lots of them. If you can’t say “my opponent,” you can always say “those who oppose this idea,” or words to that effect. Right now we are in a desperate struggle over our nation’s future; the outcome of this struggle will alter the future of the world. This is not the time to pitch softballs. The truth is that the right-wing philosophy abdicates responsibility for freedom, opportunity, and security for all. It’s time to speak that truth.

The best way for me to explain further is to tackle some real-life examples.

Freedom

First, let’s cry freedom:

Speaking Against Requiring Photo Identification to Vote

The right to vote is one of our nation’s most fundamental freedoms. Democracy means rule by all the people. Right now, about fifteen million voting-age citizens don’t have a driver’s license or other government-issued photo ID, and many of them are elderly and cannot easily get one. As a legislator, I believe it’s my responsibility to ensure that laws do not hinder our basic freedoms unless there’s an overwhelming need. This is a law we don’t need.

 

See, we began with a point of agreement—everyone is for freedom. That’s our frame. Then we show how our solution is consistent with what people already believe. We conclude by taking responsibility. No, we’re not all legislators, but we all can frame.

I know you want to quarrel with me: “When I’m arguing with my Aunt Lois, I can’t say five sentences in a row. I’ve got to cut to the chase—the facts.” Noooooooo. If you can only get one sentence in—edgewise—make it the frame. “Auntie, the right to vote is a fundamental freedom.” Keep the argument all about the frame until the frame is accepted as the basis for your discussion. If you can get the nice lady to concede that the freedom to vote is the very basis of democracy (which it is), you can point out the importance of protecting American freedoms. Just as free speech should never be curbed unless it risks an immediate, serious threat to public safety (shouting fire in a crowded theater), freedom to vote should never be curbed without an overriding reason—and none exists. Win the frame, and if your aunt is persuadable at all, you’ll ultimately win the argument.

There is one other thing to remember about one-on-one persuasion: listen carefully. You need a point of agreement in order to persuade, otherwise you’re just flapping your lips. If your companion isn’t buying the frame you’re selling, listen for some other way to agree, and turn that agreement into a bridge from the other person’s beliefs to your arguments. Remember, you can’t change minds, you can only show people that they agree with you already.

Here’s another example about freedom.

Speaking Against Teaching Intelligent Design in Schools

The founders of our nation strongly supported freedom of religion. After all, many of their families had come here to escape governments that imposed religion upon their citizens. So freedom of religion is the very heart of America. Intelligent design is not accepted science; it is accepted religion. That’s why children should learn about it in church, not in public school science classes.

 

Intelligent design is a tough issue because most Americans believe in some form of creationism, so you’ve got to lean heavily on their values—religious people value freedom of religion. (Isn’t it ironic that social Darwinists oppose Darwinism?)

Opportunity

Let’s move on to some examples of how you can use the concept of opportunity.

Speaking for Smaller Class Sizes

The promise of America is that every child will have the opportunity to grow up to live a successful life. That promise is only meaningful if we provide our children with high-quality public schools. Studies show that one of the most effective ways to improve student achievement is by lowering class sizes, which allows teachers to spend more one-on-one time with each student. Let’s step up and take responsibility; let’s keep America’s promise.

 

You think that sounds hokey? Don’t be so jaded! Americans want to hear you stand up for the basic principles of America. Here’s another way to trumpet opportunity.

Speaking Against Eliminating the Estate Tax

Whenever we talk about taxes, we should be asking one crucial question: Is the tax, or the tax break, fair to everyone? The answer is usually no; most of our tax code is designed to favor some over others. So if we eliminate the estate tax, who gets the benefit, and who’s hurt in the bargain? For every fifty people who die, only the estate of the one richest person pays any federal tax at all. Eliminating the tax means enriching the family of just that one wealthy person. But it also means hurting everyone else, because this tax currently raises billions of dollars. If we eliminate the estate tax—after it’s been around for more than ninety years—government will either have to raise some other tax on us or cut our services. That’s not justice. I think taxes are unfair and must be reformed, but eliminating the estate tax only makes things more unfair.

 

Voters are pretty cynical about taxes. They think that taxes are unfair, and they’re right. So don’t defend taxes, defend tax fairness.

Security

Now let’s talk about security.

Speaking for Raising the Tobacco Tax

As adults, and as American citizens, we have a responsibility to protect children from harm. Sadly, one-third of kids who smoke cigarettes will die prematurely from smoking-related illnesses. The most proven, effective way to protect those children is to raise the cigarette tax. Studies consistently show that when the tax goes up, teen smoking goes down. It’s a small price to pay to protect the health of our children.

 

As a consultant, I’ve produced radio ads for successful efforts to increase tobacco taxes, and the ads have always said something like this. Remember that legislators are interested in what they can do with the tax dollars but that’s not what the voters care about.

Speaking for Treatment Instead of Incarceration

It seems obvious that the purpose of our criminal justice system is to make law-abiding citizens safer. So why would we want sentencing policies that make us less secure? That’s the case when we put first-time, nonviolent drug offenders in prison with hardened, violent criminals. Studies prove that when these drug offenders are sentenced to treatment facilities instead of prisons, they are far less likely to commit future crimes. And that’s the whole point of the justice system—to reduce crime. So my opponent’s throw-them-all-in-prison policy is irresponsible; it’s false security.

 

Please, when you’re talking about crime, tell voters how our policies will make them safer, not how they benefit the unfortunate criminals.

Speaking for Collaboration with our Allies

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 showed us how hard it is to keep all Americans secure. In the coming years, security must be our priority. The problem is the Bush Administration has alienated many of our traditional allies. Our security depends on building strong ties to other countries—because we can’t defeat international terrorism without cooperation among nations.

 

As with crime, when talking about foreign policy tell voters how our strategies will make them more secure, not how our policies benefit foreigners—no matter how deserving they may be.

Multiple Frames

Sometimes an issue lends itself to more than one progressive frame. Then you get to choose which one is the most effective on your turf and in your circumstances. Here are some examples.

Speaking for Marriage Equality, Civil Unions, or Domestic Partnerships

From the point of view of security. All of society benefits when we have stable family relationships. The sick and injured have people who tend to them. The elderly are cared for. Children are safer. That’s just as true for same-sex relationships. Society benefits when people can make medical decisions for their incapacitated spouses, obtain family health insurance, or at the very least, visit their partners in the hospital. According to the 2000 census, there are more than one million children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. Society benefits when we provide stability for those children—and their families.

 

Security was the message that defeated an Arizona initiative to ban same-sex marriage in 2006.

 

From the point of view of opportunity. If America stands for anything, it’s equal opportunity for all. Discrimination is un-American. If you have two children or grandchildren, and one grows up straight and the other gay, you still love them equally. You know it is wrong for the government to discriminate between them. Marriage equality laws [or civil unions or domestic partnerships] simply prohibit discrimination between one American and another.

 

Equal opportunity is probably the easiest argument for persuadable voters to understand.

 

From the point of view of freedom. Let me quote Vice President Dick Cheney: “The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. We shouldn’t be able to choose and say you get to live free and you don’t. That means people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into.”

 

Just this once, Dick is right.

Framing allows you to take a hostile question—intended to get you to say something unpopular—and use it as an opportunity to reiterate your popular political philosophy. Get it? Don’t adopt your opponent’s language; don’t repeat the other side’s frame. Smile and be glad for the chance to talk about freedom, opportunity, and security.