okay, so, as a followupâŠ. basically, i joined this âchristians against trumpâ fb group for a work research project in 2017 and just ended up never leaving, bc it turned out to be such a great experiment in just⊠observing and listening and talking to people and figuring out the language that works! so like, as a basic glossary for talking to the well-meaning anti-trump moderate dems in your life about progressive policies:
instead of âdefund the police,â say âinvest in community safetyâ and emphasize things like participatory budgeting giving you power over where YOUR taxes go and reallocating funds to after-school programs, social services, and food pantries
instead of âabolish ice,â say âimmigration reformâ and âcreate a new agency for immigration and citizenship servicesâÂ
instead of âmedicare for all,â say âuniversal health careâ or even just really harp on making healthcare affordable and accessible to everyone
instead of âthe green new dealâ (which was a great piece of messaging in the first place before it became inextricably tied up with aocâs theatrics), talk about what an effective piece of climate legislation will create, not what it will destroy. when you say âban frackingâ or âban fossil fuelsâ or âreduce methane emissions in agricultureâ people go âYOU WONâT TAKE MY JOB OR MY FARTING COWS.â climate is really an area where being able to reframe it through the language of capitalism helps. say âletâs give tax breaks to farmers, especially small family farms who are already being squeezed out by the big guys, so they can invest in the future of their businessâ and other noise-shaped air stuff like that. instead of âban frackingâ talk about the jobs that renewable energy will create in communities that have been left behind by our reliance on foreign oil. i mean, fuck, the phrase âclimate changeâ can be a real problem when youâre talking to the whole country because of how effective the âclimate and weather are the same thingsâ and âclimate change is a hoaxâ disinfo campaigns have been over the past 20 years or so - but when you talk about âconserving our natural resourcesâ and all that teddy roosevelt, ranger rick shit, it just comes across different.Â
instead of âabortion rightsââŠ. listen, you know i hate equivocating about abortion but at the end of the day, when youâre talking to people who are probably anti-abortion for religious reasons but will still vote democrat because theyâre not a single-issue anti-abortion voter, donât say âabortion (on demand without apology etc),â say âthe constitutional right to privacyâ or âthe right to make personal medical decisions without the government intervening.â fearmonger about attacks on abortion the way sarah palin fearmongered about how obamacare would lead to âdeath panelsâ deciding whether your grandma would live or die! and if youâre talking to someone who just doesnât feel that strongly about abortion because yada yada roe is settled who cares, talk about how âempowering women to decide when they start a family fuels economic growth and leads to more wanted children growing up in stable, happy two-parent homesâ and so on.Â
inversely, instead of âabolish the death penalty,â talk about âsaving the lives of the innocentâ and âan eye for an eye makes the whole world blindâ if youâre talking to a christian and honestly just look at the libertarian arguments against the death penalty and ape some of those - cost to the taxpayer, high wrongful conviction rates as a reflection of government incompetence. honestly, the libertarian right is frequently aligned with the left on criminal justice issues and i know we all love to dunk on libertarians but the language they use is pretty appealing to moderates who might be coming from a more conservative background or region where itâs just normal
instead of âdemocratic socialism,â just talk about, like, values - ending poverty and hunger, living wages and better educational opportunities, creating jobs and protecting ordinary working people and families and putting money back in their pockets and creating a stable economy. people really do vote based on kitchen table issues and you can really make a moral appeal on the rest.
instead of âtax the rich,â say âcut taxes.â period. never talk about raising taxes. not on the rich, not on the middle class, not for any reason whatsoever, even if youâre saying âif we raise taxes on billionaires we can give everyone a pony.â i donât care how much you want to tax billionaires, donât fucking bring it up. i hate bezos as much as everyone but we live in america, where everyone is simply a temporarily embarrassed billionaire and convinced that taxing the ultra-rich will somehow hurt them too. donât expect middle-of-the-road normies to get on board with the âiâll pay more taxes if it means other people have health careâ thing you see from avowed liberals and lefties, because they will not, iâm sorry. frankly *****i***** have no interest in paying more taxes because nyc already taxes you out the nose regardless of where you are on the socioeconomic scale and if someone suggested i should pay more, even if it meant paying less on private services in the long run, i would simply be like, ânope!â so like, yeah, obviously the goal is to eliminate corporate tax loopholes and tax the ultra-rich at a higher rate while cutting tax burdens on everyone else, but what you want to say is stuff like âsmall business owners shouldnât pay more in taxes than the companies like apple and amazon that are already squeezing them outâ and âweâll cut taxes and frivolous government spending,â period, no embellishment. âmaking american companies pay american taxesâ is a succinct catchphrase i like to use.Â
instead of âdefund/spend less on the military,â say âwhy is the government spending so much on building outdated outdated tanks and submarines from 50 years ago and so little on services for veterans? we need to revitalize our military spending so that we can spend less on safer, more modern equipment, preserve those manufacturing jobs, and make sure that veterans get the health care and job opportunities they deserve.â get it? like, republicans have been selling the âcut waste, cut taxes, cut spendingâ line for decades because it sounds good and people really respond to it. unfortunately, one of the many cursed legacies of ronald reagan is that most people still think that balancing a government budget is like balancing a checkbook, and obviously thatâs not true but it lends a lot of familiar comparisons and metaphors, so like⊠use them.
donât equivocate on âblack lives matterâ - itâs too important and too urgent - instead, give the non-activist liberals you already know the accessible language they can use to help normalize the phrase âblack lives matterâ in their own lives and encourage them to do so. they wonât convert the full-on blue lives matter cult members and other assorted balls-to-the-wall racists, but there are people in the middle who just need to hear a targeted explanation of why that isnât a combative or controversial statement, and that totally depends on the individual⊠thereâs the very basic 101-logicky âif saying âsave the whalesâ doesnât mean you think dolphins can kick rocks, or if saying âspinach is a vegetableâ doesnât mean that you think lettuce isnât, why does âblack lives matterâ imply that other lives donât?â and i saw someone in the christians against trump group cite a brene brown quote they said (âIn order for slavery to work, in order for us to buy, sell, beat, and trade people like animals, Americans had to completely dehumanize slaves. And whether we directly participated in that or were simply a member of a culture that at one time normalized that behavior, it shaped us. We canât undo that level of dehumanizing in one or two generations. I believe Black Lives Matter is a movement to rehumanize black citizens. All lives matter, but not all lives need to be pulled back into moral inclusion. Not all people were subjected to the psychological process of demonizing and being made less than human so we could justify the inhumane practice of slavery.â) that made it click for them and they like to use to make it click for others, and thereâs also this example that i think is probably pretty resonant for christians:
the point is, as with all the rest of this, that there are a lot of people out there who are alienated by the language (because there has been a billion-dollar media propaganda machine working overtime to make the language as alienating as possible) but not by the content of the argument. the right is SO good at messaging to its base by speaking their language, dog whistles and all. but because the democratic party is a coalition of moderates and liberals and leftists, you really have to be strategic about your messaging in a way that the right doesnât. frankly, thatâs why joe biden won - he made those same broad appeals to morality and civility and unity and prosperity that people want to hear.Â
i realize that everyone feels that if you have the moral high ground, you shouldnât have to put in work to persuade people because they should automatically grasp that youâre right, but like i said above, this is america, and it doesnât work like that. we need to talk to people, not in buzzwords or in highly stigmatized language that risks turning them off immediately, but in language that already means something to them. if you want to persuade people you have to actually make things sound appealing to them, whether that means evoking warm and fuzzy mental images or appealing to their principles and moral convictions and religious beliefs or just doing your best to sound like the adults in the room. you gotta do this stuff to build a majority instead of just a plurality within this party, because thatâs just what we need to win.
