I just finished reading two terrific articles. One was in the Democracy Journal.
https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/the-death-of-deliverism/. The other in the New Republic. https://newrepublic.com/article/167607/economics-democracy-freedom-democrats-argument . Both address the ineffectiveness of Democratic/progressive messaging, and suggest alternative ways of approaching voter persuasion. I found them quite persuasive. I hope you will take a look and consider how they fit into your framing strategies. I think together they are quite powerful. If Democrats change the paradigm and focus their strategies on meeting the underlying emotional needs that motivate voters with a coherent approach that is also supported by sound policy the odds should be much better.
Great analysis, thanks. I still wonder about the slogan "Regulate Guns, Not Women". Isn't there a risk it may alienate people who support reproductive rights who are also gun owners?
Let's look at "Regulate Guns, Not Women." What does it actually say? Who is it speaking to? Does it communicate anything about why guns should be regulated? No. Does it say anything about why women should not be regulated? No. It doesn't communicate anything about the values behind our positions on either issue. It isn't written to influence the observer.
The meta-message is, "you guys are hypocrites because you want the state to interfere in women's medical decisions, but you don't want the state to interfere in gun ownership." The downside of "You're a hypocrite" statements is that they work both ways. They would say that we are the hypocrites, because we want the state to stay out of women's medical decisions and to interfere in gun owners' decisions. So not much value there.
This slogan is ineffective and a tad snarky. Snark always pisses off the people we're trying to persuade!
I just finished reading two terrific articles. One was in the Democracy Journal.
https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/the-death-of-deliverism/. The other in the New Republic. https://newrepublic.com/article/167607/economics-democracy-freedom-democrats-argument . Both address the ineffectiveness of Democratic/progressive messaging, and suggest alternative ways of approaching voter persuasion. I found them quite persuasive. I hope you will take a look and consider how they fit into your framing strategies. I think together they are quite powerful. If Democrats change the paradigm and focus their strategies on meeting the underlying emotional needs that motivate voters with a coherent approach that is also supported by sound policy the odds should be much better.
Great analysis, thanks. I still wonder about the slogan "Regulate Guns, Not Women". Isn't there a risk it may alienate people who support reproductive rights who are also gun owners?
Let's look at "Regulate Guns, Not Women." What does it actually say? Who is it speaking to? Does it communicate anything about why guns should be regulated? No. Does it say anything about why women should not be regulated? No. It doesn't communicate anything about the values behind our positions on either issue. It isn't written to influence the observer.
The meta-message is, "you guys are hypocrites because you want the state to interfere in women's medical decisions, but you don't want the state to interfere in gun ownership." The downside of "You're a hypocrite" statements is that they work both ways. They would say that we are the hypocrites, because we want the state to stay out of women's medical decisions and to interfere in gun owners' decisions. So not much value there.
This slogan is ineffective and a tad snarky. Snark always pisses off the people we're trying to persuade!