Author Archives:

How to Beat the Republicans on the “Government” Issue

Republicans have been running against “government” at least since Ronald Reagan‘s 1980 presidential campaign. Willard Romney fired the latest salvo in the Republican War On Government last Friday when he stated that we should not have “more firemen, more policemen, more teachers,” as President Obama wants, but rather, we should “get the message of Wisconsin” (referring to Governor Scott Walker‘s victory in his recent recall election) and “cut back” on these essential public servants. Some pundits called Romney’s statement a “gaffe”, and even Governor Walker, who targeted public employee unions in Wisconsin after taking office, disagreed with Romney.

Apparently, Romney’s gaffe was in going from the general Republican talking point (attacking “government” or “unions”) to the specific (targeting teachers, cops and firefighters, many of whom are beloved in their communities, for firing). California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger learned a similar lesson in his first year of office, and the rest of his time as Governor was doomed. The lesson is that a good talking point, which can be made in the most general terms, does not always translate to a successful specific policy. This indicates that, when Republicans spew the usual talking points attacking “government” and “government workers”, we should put Republicans on the spot by asking them which specific programs and which specific workers they would cut.

We should:

Politicians Dumbing it Down for Us

A recent study found that members of Congress are talking to us at an average 10th grade level, down a whole grade from 11th in just seven years. According to some accounts, that’s a sad or even alarming trend. However, the picture is different when one learns that Americans, on average, only read at an 8th or 9th grade level. In that respect, the politicians are doing what they are supposed to do — talk to us in a way that we can clearly understand.

It seems that the recent study says more about Americans’ education values and intellectual curiosity than it does about the politicians who, understandably, chase our votes they best way they can.

John Fugelsang Exposes the Fallacy of “Pro-Life”

One of the magic terms in the Republican language arsenal is “pro-life”. As we know, “pro-life” doesn’t really mean that someone favors “life” in general, it narrowly means “pro-fetus”, “anti-choice”, or “anti-abortion rights.” It is, however, a deliberately positive-sounding term, like “pro-motherhood”, “pro-children”, and “pro-America.” Who could be against these things? That’s exactly what the Republicans are betting on. But political comedian and author John Fugelsang, on a recent Current TV appearance (included here from the Crooks and Liars website), took the term “pro-life” apart.

According to Fugelsang, 77 percent of Americans in a recent Gallup poll favored a woman’s right to have an abortion in some or all cases, but only 41 percent of respondents identified themselves with the “pro-choice” terminology that applies to such views. Fugelsang said that a subsequent Washington Post op-ed (by a writer from a Catholic religious publication) then falsely labeled the remaining plurality of respondents “pro-life” when many of them had the pro-abortion rights views that clearly excluded them from the “pro-life” category. According to Fugelsang, we need to look at the positions rather than the labels. We also need to bring attention to conservatives’ statistical lies like these when we see them.

Fugelsang further called out the Right’s hypocrisy in calling themselves “pro-life” at all, saying many of them are “pro-death penalty, pro-torture, pro-euthanasia, pro-drone bombs, pro-land mines, pro-preemptive war, and still call yourself ‘pro-life.'” That also brings to mind George W. Bush‘s description of himself and fellow Republicans as promoting a “culture of life” as they were destroying millions of innocent lives in Iraq and elsewhere.

This should be a lesson to voters not to fall for Republican catchphrases and code words that are designed to give you a subconscious emotional response — nothing less than brainwashing — rather than letting you think for yourselves, which is their biggest fear.

Romney’s Republican Bullying Pulpit

It was a remarkable week as North Carolinians voted on Tuesday to ban same-sex marriages and domestic partnerships, President Obama on Wednesday historically stated that he supports gay marriage, and then, less than 24 hours later, Willard Romney’s campaign was rocked by the story that, during high school, Romney led an assault on a fellow student who had longer hair and was thought to be gay. Obama’s use of the presidential “bully pulpit” only made it that much clearer that Romney and the Republicans have a “bullying pulpit” problem.

The Romney bullying story, and Romney’s incredulous answers about it (saying he doesn’t recall the incident but somehow recalls that he didn’t know the sexuality of the victim at the time), are bad enough by themselves. But they are much worse when viewed as part of the larger narrative against Romney and the Republican Party as mean-spirited bullies in virtually all areas.

How About Saying “Elected Representatives” Instead of “Government”?

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
President Ronald Reagan, inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1981

For over 30 years, Republicans and conservatives have tried to turn “government” into a dirty word. But maybe the term “government” is a bit of a straw man created by Republicans in the first place.

In common usage, to be “governed” generally means to be controlled or ordered around. That’s often a negative connotation. A “governor” on a car or motorbike engine limits the top speed. And how about that staple of literature and Masterpiece Theater episodes, the strict, bossy English “governess”? It hardly seems a coincidence that Republicans, from Reagan on down, have so frequently referred to “government” (especially the federal government, especially when Democrats control the Executive Branch) in a negative way.

But perhaps progressives are mistaken if they embrace or get hung up on the word “government” rather than its concept. The word “government” only appears in the U.S. Constitution a few times, so there’s no natural requirement to use it when referring to the protection and security that Democrats and progressives want as a check on individual, group, and corporate excess. Instead, the Constitution largely talks about our elected representatives, i.e., our U.S. House members, Senators, and President (and the various state constitutions likewise cover elected representatives at the state level) as the agents through which we get things done.

Joe Biden Comes Up with the Bumper Sticker of the Year

Vice President Joe Biden, at a speech in New York City today, came up with the political bumper sticker of the year. He even told us that it could be used as a bumper sticker. Said the Veep:

“If you are looking for a bumper sticker to sum up how President Obama has handled what we inherited, it’s pretty simple: Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.

In fact, The Daily Kos liked Biden’s idea so much that they immediately created the very bumper sticker that Biden had suggested.

Biden’s bumper sticker becomes doubly effective when one recalls that Willard M. Romney both said “[i]t’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch” bin Laden AND suggested that Americans “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”. That’s why Biden twisted the knife by adding: “You have to ask yourself … if Governor Romney were president, would he have used the same slogan in reverse?” Ouch!

Biden’s speech today serves as a reminder that good policy decisions or merely reciting facts and reasonable arguments likely will not be enough to win the Obama-Biden team reelection against a Republican candidate backed by a corporate army that will wage an air war of false tv ads. Messaging matters, and that Democratic messaging must include catchy, hard-hitting phrases that fit on bumper stickers. Vice President Biden proved today that, so far, his team is up to the task.

 

No Need to Say the Republican War On Women “is Real”

Why do Democrats always seem to snatch weakness from the jaws of strength? The Republican War On Women is an important issue for Democrats. It’s another vivid example of how Republicans favor big corporations and wealthy individuals instead of middle class Americans. Republicans keep providing ammo in their War On Women, from trying to redefine rape to attempting state-sponsored rape in Virginia to Ted Nugent‘s latest vile attacks on Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. In other words, we know the Republican War on Women is real. So there’s no need to say it’s real.

Saying the Republican War On Women “is real” sounds defensive, as if the assertion is in doubt. It isn’t. Like gravity and the curvature of the Earth, the War On Women is now so obvious that it no longer needs to be proven. When Democrats play defense, they lose. When the Republicans say President Obama‘s Affordable Care Act is “socialist”, do they then explain that “socialism in the Democratic Party is real”? No. When the Republicans say the Democratic-sponsored Buffet Rule is “class warfare”, do you hear them say “and class warfare is real”? Nope. The Republicans have learned Messaging Maxim #1: Go on Offense.

Democrats also need to go on offense and have the confidence to talk about the Republican War On Women without backpedaling to say it’s “real”. We need to point to the almost daily salvos fired by Republicans in this war, and  say that the Republican War On Women is hurting families, and hurting America.

Republican Politics of Projection

As a younger voter in 1988, I remember when then-Vice President and presidential candidate George H.W. Bush stood in front of Boston Harbor and slammed his opponent, Massachusetts Governor Mike Dukakis, for the pollution in Boston Harbor. I was shocked because the U.S. had just gone through eight years of a Reagan-Bush administration that had attacked and dismantled every environmental protection that it possibly could, including fighting the very cleanup of Boston Harbor.  This was perhaps the beginning of the modern Republican Politics of Projection — accusing your opponent of doing the very thing that you have been doing — as practiced by Bush’s campaign manager, Lee Atwater.

Atwater had a young protégé, Karl Rove, who perfected the Republican Politics of Projection during George W. Bush’s presidency. Thus, for example, we had Bush administration officials approving and abetting the kidnapping and torture of suspects and the illegal warrantless wiretapping of Americans at home, then turning around and accusing those who criticized such actions of “hypocrisy” and being “out of bounds”.

Today, the Republican Politics of Projection continues in full force. Republicans in Congress vote for Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget that would end Medicare as we know it, then raise phony objections about Democrats “cutting Medicare” when the Affordable Care Act cut funds from a private program called Medicare Advantage that is not part of the actual Medicare benefit. Likewise, Republicans raise the spurious charge of “voter fraud” in order to commit the true voter fraud of vote suppression via unreasonable and unfair voter i.d. laws. Or how about when Republicans carp about Democratic-appointed or “activist” judges who “legislate from the bench”, when it is the Republican-appointed, so-called “conservative” judges who do this, such as in the infamous Bush v. Gore and Citizens United cases, with Republican approval. If New Jersey Governor Chris Christie were running for president today, Republicans would probably call President Obama “fat”.

The Republican Politics of Projection can be stated with the Republicans’ own simple term: hypocrisy. It is a very popular and effective tactic in the Republican playbook, and Democrats and progressives need to identify it and speak out whenever they see it, in order to lessen its power.

President Obama Takes it to the Republicans

Mark the beginning of April as the time President Obama amped up his campaign rhetoric against the Republicans to a new level. First, on April 2, President Obama, as shown in the above video, turned the tables on the Republicans’ long-running charges of “judicial activism” against judges appointed by or aligned with Democrats, and said that if the conservative-controlled U.S. Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act or its health insurance mandate provision, that would be “judicial activism”.

Then, on April 3, President Obama came out swinging against Republican Congressman Paul Ryan‘s budget plan, and, by extension, the entire Republican philosophy of “trickle-down economics.” According to President Obama, the Republican plan, containing more tax cuts for the wealthy and drastic spending cuts for lower income Americans, “is thinly veiled social Darwinism.”

In both of these cases, President Obama followed Messaging Maxim #1: Go On Offense. It was a page taken from the Republican playbook, and it may well be extremely effective.

 

Political Phrases Used by Democrats

A year ago, we posted the list of Political Phrases Used by Republicans. These are words and phrases the Republicans use and repeat in order to tilt the political playing field in their favor. We expressed the desire to create a similar list of Democratic and progressive phrases, but feared there were too few even to make a list.

Now, a year later, we dare to begin creating the list of phrases that Democrats use, or should use, to help level the playing field against the Republicans. Thus far, however, the list is modest, which is precisely why we wrote A Messaging Manifesto For Democrats. Therefore, we ask for your suggestions in the comments (or via Twitter) as to additional phrases that the Democrats either (a) are using, or (b) should use, and we’ll add the appropriate ones to the list. Hopefully, this list will at some point begin to approach the Republican list in length and effectiveness.

Also, when you compare the Democratic and Republican lists, notice the differences. Democrats tend to focus on things like hope, family, and health, while Republicans focus a lot on life vs. death and good vs. evil. This precisely reflects the competing Democrats’ “nurturing parent” and Republican “strict father” models identified by linguistics professor and political language guru George Lakoff.

Here’s the list: