Progressives: Simplify. Simplify. Simplify.
Read Time:3 Minute, 36 Second
Progressives in this country have a problem communicating with people – or, more specifically, they have a problem communicating with people who don’t already consider themselves Progressives.
There are those who blame the media for this – noting that the often complex ideas that make up what can be called the typical Progressive opinion are difficult to squeeze into the kind of pre-packaged sound-bites that our 24-hour news cycle demands. And while I think that this is sometimes a valid criticism, I also believe that such a position is rather missing the point. The media hasn’t created a populace with a decidedly microscopic attention span. Instead it has conformed to a people for whom news and information are little more than distractions on the way to the next Super Bowl.
Unlike Progressives, Conservatives have taken full advantage of this culture of “drive-thru” information gathering that has long been establishing itself. Of course, this isn’t to suggest that the Glenn Becks and Sarah Palins of the world are rhetorical geniuses. The messages that they espouse are simple and easy to latch onto mainly because big ideas aren’t the currency of the uninformed. However, the fact remains that they dominate much of the top level media conversation because they dish out morsels of information that people can easily digest. “They hate us for our freedom” is a nonsensical phrase, but it’s catchy; and whether you agree with them or not, you tend to remember the catchy phrases.
So what’s a progressive to do? It’s tempting to take the position that, in the end, the good ideas by themselves will eventually be enough to convince moderate, thoughtful people to stop listening to the foolish, sound-bite laden “messages” of those on the fringes. However, this is itself a pretty foolish position. Even the most thoughtful people can be taken in and swayed by pointed “messages” on occasion. It’s impossible for a person to always think critically about everything. We literally don’t have the time to do so. Sometimes we need the shortcuts provided by these easy to remember messages to help us reach decisions and move on with our lives. Advertisers know this, which is why commercials are more effective than we like to admit. But importantly, good teachers know this as well; and it’s through their example that the greatest hope lies.
There was a math teacher in my high school who taught us that the best thing to do when faced with a difficult equation is to first reorganize it in the simplest possible way. Making large, complicated problems into small, simple problems gives you a much better chance to properly solve them. “Simplify, simplify, simplify” is what Mr. Maguire always used to say (I later learned that he stole this from Thoreau, but you get the point), and to this day those are the words that I hear in my head when I’m faced with a complex problem. Mr. Maguire thus took an idea – simplifying larger problems into smaller ones will increase your chances of getting the solution correct – and he turned it into a catchy phrase that was easy for us all to remember. So catchy, in fact, that I’ve never forgotten it. But the real beauty of it was that this small message has also turned out to be very useful.
Sound-bites, it turns out, can affect positive change. They just have to be carefully worded. There’s no denying that the Progressive message is slightly more nuanced that the Conservative one. Progress, after all, is about looking toward the future and using one’s imagination to envision how it could be better. This is an abstract notion, and abstractions don’t come easily to most people. Conservatives however, for all their talk about the future, are more firmly rooted in the past. They speak in the language of days gone by, and thus are less abstract in their vision about what direction the country should be headed.
Abstract messages are difficult to break down and simplify into memorable and meaningful phrases, but not impossible. Progressives just have to try a little harder if they want to be able to effectively communicate with a population that’s isn’t interested in stopping everything to critically analyze every word that they hear. It won’t be easy, but it really is that simple.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
“Simplify, simplify, simplify.”
The immortal words of the great, unquestionable, master of truth, Henry David Thoreau.
Those were his ‘three word to humanity.’
140 characters to victory! While I realize no one is saying we should trivialize the Democratic process by making it a war of tweets; it’s important to consider the ramifications of trying to squeeze out a serious message between the musings of Snooky and Ashton Kutcher. However, I think the point you are making is vital to the success of Progressives moving forward. It is difficult to argue with the message Tea Partiers tend to push, it’s like coming to the defense of someone who is accused of racism. How do you try and change the minds of people whose sole argument is something along the line of “Freedom isn’t free!” or “America!”? These are points that can’t be criticized in a short sentiment; who doesn’t support our troops sacrifice? Who doesn’t love our awesome country? But this seems to present some logical thinking to this question; we need a Progressive version of “Freedom isn’t free!” Something we can use as an almost “go-to-retort” to this tactic.
How many check marks would Beck get from Mr. Maguire? My guess is Beck would be writing in Maguire’s class after school on a regular basis.
So, we meet again, Matthew. I agree with you. There does seem to be a need for a “go-to” message.
I’d also considered a second part to this post which I would have called (and still might) Complicate. Complicate. Complicate. Basically what it would call for is to actually question the conservative message on it’s face. Something like, “how can the President be expanding government but not creating jobs? Wouldn’t an expanding government produce more government jobs?” The answer might correctly be “no,” but I don’t think that matters as much as actually getting an answer and forcing conservatives to refine and thus “complicate” their message.
And Mr. Maguire would have DESTROYED Glenn Beck. No doubt.
The Republicans have had control of the political language, therefore the argument, for years. And it is dished out in sound bites with doses of fear. It’s been almost impossible for the left to counter, what can you say to people who are being force fed fear and loathing “everything is not so bad” just doesn’t cut it. Liberal was turned into a dirty word and same is being done to progressive. We have to wrest back control of the language, and you are right, it has to be simple, in this age of texting and twitter, the simpler the better.
Funny that you mention Twitter, Holte. As I had considered offering up a rule that was basically “if you can’t tweet your message, it’s too long.”
I would like someone to tell me exactly what a “progressive” actually stands for. When I hear them on TV, particularly the Ed Shultz types, all I hear is bellowing and barking like Glenn Beck except on the other side of the fence.
Secondly, they seem to be dead set against everything the president does. They are never happy. They are always whining. Are they really a good thing for the Democrats or do they do more harm than good? Inquiring minds what to know these things 🙂
P.S. Maureen: Go Berkeley 🙂
See – that’s why messaging is important! We don’t even understand what “progressive” means! :-> I agree that labels are not useful. I use “progressive” as a counter to “right-wing”, or even “Democrat” since not all Dems are progressive. But what’s a good definition? Here’s what the Democratic Progressive Caucus says about themselves; that’s a good start:
Our Caucus members promote a strong, progressive agenda, what we call “The Progressive Promise–Fairness for All”. The Progressive Promise is rooted in four core principles that embody national priorities and are consistent with the values, needs and aspirations of all the American people, not just the powerful and the privileged. They reflect a fundamental belief in government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
~ The four, core principles of the Progressive Promise:
1. Fighting for economic justice and security for all;
2. Protecting and preserving our civil rights and civil liberties;
3. Promoting global peace and security; and
4. Advancing environmental protection and energy independence
P.S. Mike, a Bears fan? Or Berkeley campus in general? I spent 28 years at UC…
I think you’re right. The problem with the fundamental “progressive” message is that is gets lost in a sea of competing “progressive” ideas. Republicans, if nothing else, share a common goal – the destruction of Democrats. Some are more serious than others, but they all talk in terms of taking control or beating back the tide of “liberalism.” Even when speaking of bipartisanship there is a sense that compromise means bending to their will.
Progressives, on the other hand, haven’t really defined for themselves a common purpose in the minds of most Americans – or even other Progressives. If you were to ask people what they thought of those four core principles I think you’d get a positive response from the majority. However, I consider myself to be pretty progressive and I’d never even seen them before – so you can only imagine how much exposure others may have had to them. That’s not a very good job at getting out a “message.”
Yep, I agree, Michael.
Oh wow! Not a Bears fan. I will have to send you an email.
“Progressive Messaging” is an interesting topic and right up my alley. One of my biggest disappointments with the progressive Dems is that they did not take advantage of guidance from George Lakoff, Linguistics & Cognitive Sci Professor at UC Berkeley. He is the master of messaging, and the Dems had the chance when he operated the Rockridge Institute. This is a news article from that time. Sadly, the Rockridge Institute closed about a year ago… http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml
[…] This post is part of a contribution of mine to MadMike’sAmerica. Read the full article here. […]