Category: Messaging & Tactics

Posts on tactical thinking, effective message content, and effective message delivery in our 21st century media environment

Posted on

Norms

On December 2, Jonathan V. Last of The Bulwark wrote,

Like Biden, I’m a sucker for norms. You know that. But I think we need to be more realistic about them.

(1) They’re not “norms” anymore. They’re preferences. Unless a practice is recognized as normal and essential by the entire political system, it’s merely a stylistic preference. Like choosing pistachio over chocolate.

(2) Adhering to a stylistic practice does not increase the chance of restoring it as a “norm.” People often say that we need to uphold a broken norm now so that it will be re-adopted in the future. There is not a lot of evidence to suggest that these B follows A. Will Republican presidential candidates release their tax returns in 2024 because Joe Biden and Kamala Harris released their tax returns in 2024? I doubt it.

If you want to adhere to a norm, you should not do so under the misapprehension that you are reestablishing it. The immediate benefits—whatever they may be—must suffice.

(3) A “norm” is not a suicide pact. Pretend—just for a moment—that Kash Patel is confirmed as FBI director and he begins his 10-year term in February of 2025.

Now pretend that, in 2028 some Democrat is elected president. 

Should “norms” prevent that incoming Democrat from summarily firing Director Patel?⁶

But firing Patel without cause would make this Democratic POTUS just as bad as Trump! Wouldn’t Democrats be honor-bound to allow Patel to continue his tenure? 

All of which is to say that our thinking about norms should be more hard-headed. This is not to say that you must fight fire with fire, or an eye for an eye.

It is very much notto say that, “If Trump does Bad Thing X then the forces of liberalism must do Bad Thing X in return.” In general, you should strive to live your values.

But we shouldn’t cling to memories of an age which has already passed if doing so means perpetuating an illiberalism.

Posted on

Jennifer Rubin on Messaging to Low Information Voters

On November 29, the indispensable Jennifer Rubin wrote an outstanding op-ed—one that was even more indispensable than usual—headlined Democrats need ‘shortcuts’ to reach low-information voters. If you have access to the Washington Post, you really should take a look at the whole thing. But … to hit the high spots here:

In the first ten paragraphs or so, Ms. Rubin enlarges on the themes that there are vast numbers of low information voters, that voter ignorance seems to be on the rise, that Trump’s margin of victory was based on his appeal to low information voters, and that people who follow politics often show an astonishing failure to understand how low information voters think. 

OK. And how to low information voters think? Ms. Rubin writes,

There is a vast range of literature about how voters who know little about the issues develop “shortcuts” to identify candidates. They take clues such as the politicians’ profession (e.g., business mogul), party image (Democrats defend voting rights) and viral moments (Ronald Reagan, “I am paying for this microphone!”) to decide who they prefer.

Democrats might pine for a country of high-information voters fostered by civics education and responsible social media platforms that elevate truthful policy statements. However, they shouldn’t hold their breath. Even if those efforts might make a difference at the margins (more likely improving the acuity of already-informed voters), the mass of low-information voters will remain happily oblivious to policy and political details.

Still, Democrats can do a much better job of reaching less politically engaged voters. For starters, they need to reduce and simplify the values that define the party (e.g., protecting the little guy, letting you choose your own life) and pound away at them for years, using every medium available (podcasts, nonpolitical TV shows, social media, etc.).

Second, Democrats would be wise to frame Trump and Republicans in direct, clear terms, which they can emphasize daily (e.g., the culture of corruption, the party of fat cats, reckless with your health and security). Each time Trump and his Republican acolytes do something that fits into one of these categories, Democrats must highlight their behavior and amplify it (requiring more facility with online influencing and new media). …

And finally, Democrats must be scrupulous in tying Republicans to the consequences of their policies. Controlling the White House and both houses means Republicans will not have the luxury of blaming others (although they will try). If voters do not understand how bad policy choices are impacting their lives, they will have no reason to hold Republicans accountable.

In sum, Democrats certainly need to keep coming up with good policy ideas and selling them to voters who care about such things. But they also need spend more time and effort improving communication with everyone else. Shaping shortcuts to help voters understand the fundamental differences between candidates should be a priority.