|
This past week the RNC approved a watered down version of an ill-advised resolution branding the Democrats as “socialists.” The adopted version called on Democrats to “stop pushing our country toward socialism.” While much improved from the original plan, the entire idea was flawed from the start.
While it may be accurate on some level, rhetoric like this does nothing to strengthen our base, grow our party or polish our tarnished image in the eyes of the electorate. It simply gives our opponents another opportunity to paint us as extremists out of touch with reality, and is akin to Democrats calling Republicans anarchists. Simply because something may have even a tinge of legitimacy does not mean it is smart strategy. Sometimes I worry that we play checkers while our opponents play chess.
Too often we ignore basic marketing principles in our messaging. What marketing professionals seek in any message is “stickiness,” which Malcolm Gladwell so elegantly described in his book “The Tipping Point” as something that is understood and remembered with a lasting impact. To obtain true stickiness, you must find the core of your message and articulate it convincingly and emotionally to your targeted audience. To achieve this, you cannot get lost on periphery issues. As James Carville stated in the Clinton years, “If you say three things, you don’t say anything.”
That is why words matter. Many make the mistake of thinking that President Obama is so dynamic because he is a “great orator” (with a teleprompter, of course). Ask William Jennings Bryan if that’s a recipe for success in a national election. The reason Obama is such an effective speaker is he knows what to say and when to say it. He tailors his message to the audience and makes each individual believe that he is talking to them personally. He accomplishes this by using rhetoric that is “poll tested and mother approved,” as a good friend of mine likes to say.
To illustrate this notion, look at examples in today’s political debate. “Global warming” has become a polarizing political concept, and as a result Democrats are being advised to use “climate change.” They are being told to talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere” and “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past” rather than using the phrase “cap and trade,” and substitute “saving money for a more prosperous future” for “energy efficiency” and “the air we breathe, the water our children drink” for “the environment.” The new phrases are emotional and progressive while the old phrases are professorial and grim--everyone agrees we need “clean energy jobs,” but no one wants to “cap” their energy use or be reminded of the volatile stock market by the word “trade.”
The Republican’s response, as advised by word-guru Frank Luntz, is to call the cap-and-trade efforts a regressive “light-switch tax” to give voters the visual that they will be taxed every time they turn on the lights due to the extreme costs of the plan. In another example, when discussing healthcare, Luntz has advised Republicans to accuse the Democrats of “rationing,” which induces the same negative response as “socialized medicine” and “Hillary-care.” For a classic Republican victory in the word-war, look no further than the “death tax.”
There is an even more basic battle being fought by Democrats and Republicans, one which Democrats are winning. While Republicans fight amongst themselves over the meaning of “conservative,” a label that has begun to take on negative connotations to the general public, Democrats have embraced the term “progressive,” a label that conjures up images of advancement, improvement and progress. There is certainly nothing wrong with conservative principles, but the defining term has been effectively painted as old-fashioned, outdated and out-of-touch with the present reality. Conservatives effectively accomplished the same thing with the term “liberal,” making it taboo with the electorate, but the Democrats were smart enough to rally under another label that is more agreeable to voters.
While those who are truly conservative loyally embrace the moniker, in the eyes of the electorate (our “audience”) we must utilize sticky terminology that furthers our principles, which is difficult to accomplish when the banner under which we rally is frayed. I do not seek a replacement for “conservative,” but rather a positive term which we can use to further our cause while remaining true to our core principles. Many have begun to use the word “liberty” constructively, but it is not an effective label as it cannot be used easily as an adjective. We need a label that screams “empowerment,” which along with freedom and liberty is the very essence of our Party. Sadly, I do not have the answer, but I hope to begin the discussion to work towards a solution.
I close with the key quote from the research by EcoAmerica referenced above: “Remember to speak in talking points: aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology.” Republicans would be prudent to take heed of this advice.
****
To join the discussion, compare synonyms for progressive (http://encarta.msn.com/thesaurus_/progressive.html) and conservative (http://encarta.msn.com/thesaurus_/conservative.html), then offer suggestions of an adjective for empowerment (http://encarta.msn.com/thesaurus_/empowerment.html). Do so in the comment section or you can email me at crc224@gmail.com.
|
