CHAPTER 3
The Winning Message

“‘Poll-driven politics’ is the road to hell,” writes one blogger.

This is true. Polls must not determine progressive policy goals—we’ve got to pursue social justice whether or not it is popular. Polls must not determine what we believe as progressives—we’ve got to follow what’s inside our own souls. But good message framing does depend on good polling. We have to understand what our target audience is thinking in order to decide how to move them in our direction.

What are voters thinking when we say freedom, opportunity, and security? Pollster Celinda Lake tested this philosophy against others in two ways, as a slogan and in a longer description.

This first of these compared the statement, “Government should promote freedom, opportunity, and security for all Americans” to Al Gore’s “We need government to stand up for the people not the powerful,” the recently fashionable “Our government should promote the common good,” and John Edwards’ “Today there are two Americas. There is a working America whose needs are forgotten by the government and an America of wealthy special interests whose every wish is fulfilled by the government.” (Figure 3.1 summarizes the question and the key survey results. For more detailed results for this and many of the following figures, please see the Resource section in the back of the book.)

Figure 3.1

Comparison of Agreement with Progressive Slogans (percentages)

Question: I want you to tell me if you agree or disagree with each statement. Is that strongly or not so strongly?

Lake Research Partners

In its short form, “freedom, opportunity, and security” was preferred above all others. The “people not the powerful” is nearly as compelling. “Common good” is popular, but it carries substantially less intensity. “Two Americas” is the only progressive slogan that’s a serious disappointment—it’s too polarizing.

Then poll respondents were given more information—these descriptions:

 

●Government should offer freedom, opportunity, and security to all. That means guaranteeing everyone’s constitutional rights. It means all Americans having equal access to the American dream. Security is essential to the American dream, economic security as well as physical safety. [Freedom, opportunity and security for all]

●Americans who work hard and play by the rules should be rewarded, but in recent years, the rules have favored big corporations at the expense of millions of Americans. We need to fight for the middle class against the forces of greed. We need government to stand up for the people, not the powerful. [The people, not the powerful, adapted from a speech given by Al Gore]

●We need to limit government and create space where private institutions, individual responsibility, and religious faith can flourish. That means less economic regulation and lower taxes, but it also means a return to traditional moral values, support for families, and protecting the sanctity of human life. [Generic conservative message, adapted from a speech given by Newt Gingrich]

●We are not going to fix our economy until the people and their government agree to provide opportunity for everybody. We can do better if we have a unified vision for the common good. It does not mean we all receive the same material benefits or the same outcome. It means we work to achieve social and economic conditions that benefit everyone and that the government makes sure the rules are fair. [A common good message that leans heavily on equal opportunity, adapted from a text by former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta.]

●We need to commit ourselves to the common good. That means government policies should benefit all individuals and balance self-interest with the needs of the entire society. The common good approach would put an end to the kind of politics that leaves people to rise and fall on their own. [A purer common good message, adapted from a speech given by Bill Clinton.]

 

Figure 3.2

Comparison of Agreement with Philosophy Descriptions

Question: Now I am going to read you some statements about the economy and the proper role of government. For each one, please tell me how convincing each statement is, using a 10-point scale: 10 means extremely convincing, 0 means it is not convincing at all, and 5 is neutral.

Lake Research Partners

Figure 3.2 displays the results. The number with a decimal point is the average score on a 10-point scale, and the other number is the percentage of respondents who gave that answer a 10, indicating intense support.

Again, the philosophy of freedom, opportunity, and security was the winner among all voters. It is both the one most favored and the one favored with the most intensity. It’s the only philosophy that clearly tops the generic conservative message. Particularly important, this is also true among the subset of persuadable voters. As Celinda Lake put it, this language “turned out to be a home run.” Before I comment further, let me add that our message won these match-ups despite a serious handicap. The phrase “freedom, opportunity, and security” was entirely new to every survey respondent, while the conservative message was quite familiar; “the people, not the powerful”—essentially populism—was somewhat familiar; and the “common good” might have been familiar to some. People naturally prefer the recognizable. If “freedom, opportunity, and security” became a familiar phrase to voters, it would enjoy an even greater advantage over all other messages. That said, Al Gore was not wrong to say “the people, not the powerful.” It was the best slogan and best overall philosophy available to his pollsters. It is almost as popular among persuadables as the generic conservative message and actually garners substantially more intensity of support. Besides, it’s true. Progressives are not wrong to see strength in the equal opportunity–tinged version of the common good, either. But neither of these messages is up to the task of defeating conservatism.

Progressives can’t settle for a message that—at best—is almost as persuasive as the generic conservative mantra. When messages are equally compelling in theory, in practice the one shouted from the bigger soapbox wins. And the conservatives always have the bigger soapbox. They have more money. They have more message discipline. They have the right-wing media to amplify their voices.

No, our ideas have to be more persuasive than theirs, or we lose.

The Generic Conservative Message Works!

Do you wonder why the conservative message is so popular? There’s nothing wrong with their ideas! Who wants a bigger government than we need? Who favors unlimited government? Who can oppose a strong national defense? Who is against morality?

Even the Democratic base likes the generic conservative message—40 percent of them ranked it a 10 in our poll, and only 9 percent of Democrats gave it a negative score. As you’ll see in Chapter 4, Democrats also strongly favor the ideas of individual responsibility, personal responsibility, morality, small government, and limited government.

It is not so surprising that these ideas are popular. What’s astonishing is that progressives refuse to admit it. Let’s understand that government should be limited—in fact, we have principles that lay out government’s proper role. Let’s agree on moral government—we have a few ideas on how to accomplish that. And for heaven’s sake, let’s agree that we’re for a strong national defense. Getting into a debate over whether we need a strong defense is like answering the question “When did you stop beating your wife?” The question is not whether we favor security, it is how to pursue security.

Accept that the generic conservative philosophy is attractive, and from a certain over-generalized viewpoint, the philosophy is right. Let’s not argue against conservative principles, let’s reframe problems so that persuadable voters want to apply progressive principles instead.

Why Populism and Communitarianism Don’t Quite Work

Our poll shows that the people, not the powerful, and the common good don’t quite work. But why?

“The people, not the powerful” is populism. American populism has been around for more than a century. Most of its history is honorable, although sometimes populism has been used as an excuse to support fascism and racism. The problem is, populism is a narrative about ordinary people standing up against some enemy. The enemy could be wealthy corporations, or it could be, well, immigrants. When the debate turns to us against them, the wrong folks can too easily become the “them.” Also, populism doesn’t give much support to our arguments for fundamental rights—freedoms that individuals need to counter the power of the majority. It’s not much help when we engage the right wing on non-economic security issues, like crime. Even on economic issues, populism works better in times of economic hardship—it didn’t have much traction in the mid- to late 1990s, for example. Finally, for an argument to be effective, the speaker must have credibility. Al Gore—vice president, former U.S. senator, and offspring of a senator—was not a very credible messenger for populism. The same could be said of many other progressive candidates.

So populism is not much of a governing philosophy, and it’s not practical in many campaigns. It can be an effective rallying cry. And understood that way, there may be nothing wrong with it. One might argue that freedom, opportunity, and security contains a hint of populism—we’re calling on Americans to stand up against interests that would deny American rights to all.

Speaking of the common good is a way of expressing the philosophy of communitarianism. Celinda Lake concluded from our poll results that “common good works well as a framework plank, but as a message in the context of equal opportunity, it does not capture voters.” These results are consistent with focus-group research conducted by Peter Hart Research Associates. Hart tested six messages in some depth. “Invest in the future” was the top-scoring message in that research, followed by populism, and an “opportunity society.” Of the six, “the common good” came in last.

Again, why? According to our poll, the common good is a popular phrase. Even 84 percent of Republicans agree that “Our government should promote the common good.” Well, let me ask you this—what do persuadables think it means? Probably something like the description offered by John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira, proponents of the common good concept: “Securing the common good means putting public interest above narrow self-interest and group demands.”

Everybody sort of favors that—until we apply it to a practical situation. Pollster Stan Greenberg asked voters which of these two statements was closer to their own view:

America is most successful when our government helps create conditions so that many can prosper, not just a few.
OR
America is most successful when we have limited government that keeps taxes low so that businesses and individuals can prosper.

Figure 3.3 shows how voters answered. Naturally, the Democratic base is on one side and the Republican base is on the other. But a practical common good argument leaves persuadables in the middle. It doesn’t grab them. It’s not their frame.

Figure 3.3

Many Prosper Versus Businesses and Individuals Prosper (percentages)

Question: Tell me whether the first statement or the second statement comes closer to your own view, even if neither is exactly right.

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research

When we say “common good” or words to that effect, we’re talking to ourselves. Progressives favor collectivism, communalism, compassion, and all that soft and gooey stuff. We heartily agree with economist Jared Bernstein that “we’re in this together” (WITT) while conservatives think “you’re on your own” (YOYO). We’re communitarians in the best sense of the word. But we’re not the persuadable voters; that’s not the way they feel.

Why Freedom, Opportunity, and Security for All Wins

Our philosophy succeeds for three basic reasons.

First, it is a quintessentially American philosophy. It’s a direct descendant of the basic principles that inspired the founding of our nation. It’s constructed of fundamental American political values. Like the American people, it’s both idealistic and practical. In fact, can you think of any reason why Americans would oppose it?

Second, it is expressed in the language of persuadable voters. It contains no insider jargon and carries no leftist baggage. When presented with this structure, some progressives note that the words freedom, opportunity, and security sound awfully moderate to them. Exactly!

Third, it promotes progressive candidates and causes without invoking the conservative message. The most important point that George Lakoff has successfully conveyed to progressives is that we must not repeat or otherwise reinforce the conservative message frames. Every time we remind a persuadable voter of a frame, it strengthens the power of that frame inside her head. So even when we try to attack a conservative frame, we’re reinforcing the conservative message. As Lakoff says, “When we negate a frame, we evoke the frame.” Currently, most progressive messages activate a conservative frame. When we say “the people, not the powerful,” voters are reminded of the conservative class warfare and free markets frames. When we say “the common good,” they are reminded of the liberals-are-socialists and undeserving beneficiaries frames.

When we say “freedom, opportunity, and security,” voters aren’t reminded of any anti-liberal stereotypes. That’s crucial. If we want to keep fighting the same fight, sometimes narrowly winning and sometimes narrowly losing, then let’s keep using the same old messages. But if we want to break out of this near-stalemate—if we want a political realignment—then we’ve got to fundamentally reframe the debate between progressives and conservatives. This philosophy has the potential to do just that because:

 

●It can be useful right now. It would be nice if progressive funders matched right-wing investments in linguistic research so we would know exactly what to say to various audiences on various issues in various circumstances. But we can’t wait for that to happen. Progressives need answers right now—the next election is an emergency. Fortunately, in this Internet age, with tens of thousands of activists reading a relatively small number of magazines and blogs, it is possible for progressives to adopt an effective political lexicon in a fairly short time. In fact, this kind of grassroots-up reframing movement is the only way we’ll get the job done.

●It is easy to remember. If we are to have any chance of success, a lot of us are going to have to use the same words in the same way. We can’t get thousands of progressives to follow the same linguistic playbook unless it’s pretty easy for them to understand what they ought to be saying and when they ought to say it.

●It supports progressive, not moderate or conservative, policy. In order to connect with persuadable voters, we have to use some words that have until now been held hostage by the right wing. But that doesn’t mean we shift our policies to the right. Voters want a choice, not an echo.

●It uses language with staying power. Much of the time, political slogans and “gotcha” lines closely reflect popular culture—“Where’s the beef?” was great in 1984, but it’s meaningless today. This progressive philosophy uses rock-solid words—language that will retain its meaning for years to come.

 

Freedom, Opportunity, and Security Negates the Negatives

Liberals, lefties, Democrats, environmentalists, unionists, consumer advocates—all progressive types—suffer from negative stereotypes. Some of these stereotypes were invented by the right-wing messaging machine, and others are self-inflicted. Using the values of freedom, opportunity, and security can help us to reverse these negative stereotypes. For example, when we uphold these values:

 

●We’re patriots. The right wing has been engaged in a concerted campaign to persuade voters that progressives “hate America.” We’re the “blame America first” crowd, they say. Frankly, we often lean into that punch. We do hate injustice in America. We are eager to make our country better, and fast. But we have to make it clear that we love America—we are just as patriotic as conservatives. In fact, by wanting to fix our nation’s problems, we show that we care about America more than they do. There’s nothing more patriotic than standing up for our democracy. There’s nothing more patriotic than defending our Constitution. When we talk about freedom, opportunity, and security, it demonstrates that we love America and what it stands for.

●We’re for smart government. At the beginning of his famous essay On Liberty, John Stuart Mill wrote that he sought to explore “the nature and limits of power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.” Surely we can agree with Mill that government’s legitimate role is not limitless. That’s what voters want to hear from us, that although we believe government has an important role to play, there are limits to that role and we know where those limits are. We’re not for big government, we’re for smart government—the government Americans need to protect freedom, promote opportunity, and provide security—and not one bit more. When we talk about freedom, opportunity, and security, it demonstrates that we know where government belongs, and where it doesn’t.

●We’re for fair markets that benefit everyone. Progressives are widely considered to be anti-business. But that’s absurd. There are well over five million businesses in America. We’re against them all? We’re against the ones we work for? We’re against restaurants, bookstores, and bowling alleys? No, progressives are perceived as anti-business because we often focus on injustices between large corporations and their employees or the public at large. We need to make it much clearer that we also care about injustices between big and small businesses and between corporations and their stockholders. In other words, we favor a fair market system that promotes opportunity for all—and honest, hard-working businesspeople will benefit more than anyone from a fair system. When we talk about freedom, opportunity, and security, it demonstrates that we’re actually pro-business.

●We’re practical. Voters tend to believe the stereotype that progressives are unrealistically kindhearted—to the point that we coddle the undeserving poor. And the values of freedom, opportunity, and security are certainly compassionate because we favor them for everyone. But voters can also support those values for selfish reasons, because they want freedom, opportunity, and security for themselves, their families, and friends. When we talk about freedom, opportunity, and security, we’re framing our solutions in a way that enables persuadable voters to see themselves in the picture, helping them to recognize our policies as sensible, not softhearted.

●We’re optimistic about America’s future. Right now, I’m afraid progressives sound pretty pessimistic about our nation. Of course, we have a lot of legitimate complaints about Bush administration policies, but voters have a limited tolerance for bellyaching about what’s wrong. They want to hear that we know how to fix public policy, and we’re confident we can do the job. As Celinda Lake says, “In American politics, the optimist has always won.” When we talk about freedom, opportunity, and security, it makes us sound optimistic—as we should be.

●We’re confident about what we stand for. John Kerry is not the only progressive who can be attacked as a waffler. Anyone who has cast a lot of votes can be painted as a flip-flopper, even when that isn’t the case. The antidote for this affliction is a clear political philosophy. There’s a related advantage. Have you ever noticed how conservatives tend to speak with a lot of confidence? They tend to know their talking points. Conservatives are like the people at a party who know the lyrics to all the songs—and we’re the ones who can only hum. That’s because they have a fairly simple philosophy, one that’s easy to memorize. When we talk about freedom, opportunity, and security, we sound confident that we know what we stand for—and confidence is persuasive.

 

Let’s say that after three chapters you’re intrigued. You’re thinking, “Maybe this can work.” But like any long-suffering progressive, you’re a bit cynical. “Hummmph, I need to hear about the political realities, not just high-sounding words,” you think. “Politics has become a nasty, negative, superficial, soundbite-driven business.”

And so it has. Yet beneath all the special interest spending and television ads, behind all the posturing, photo ops, and spin, politics is a competition of ideas. Let’s talk next about practical politics—how to play and win that competition.