The Message Thing

The NY Times ^ | Jim Wallis

[rhombus]

SINCE the 2004 election, there has been much soul-searching and hand-wringing, especially among Democrats, about how to "frame" political messages. The loss to George W. Bush was painful enough, but the Republicans' post-election claims of mandate, and their triumphal promises to relegate the Democrats to permanent minority status, left political liberals in a state of panic.

So the minority party has been searching, some would say desperately, for the right "narrative": the best story line, metaphors, even magic words to bring back electoral success. The operative term among Democratic politicians and strategists has become "framing." How to tell the story has become more important than the story itself. And that could be a bigger mistake for the Democrats than the ones they made during the election.

[rhombus]

Another liberal op-ed with "new ideas" about spinning the old ideas.

[AmericanMade1776]

After reading this article...I am thoroughly convinced, that Democrats are without a message and do not know where to get one.

[CBart95]

Tragic in that they slavishly pursue "style" and unerringly eschew "truth" in their myopia...a self-fulfilling "Death-Spiral".

[tje]

One day the light may come on and they'll realize the populace just isn't all that into the democrats.

But this whole concept of 'framing' is important to them cause they know that what they're selling is a load of crap.. And they KNOW it!

[Fierce Allegiance]

After reading this article...I am thoroughly convinced, that Democrats are without a message and do not know where to get one.

I disagree. They have a message all right, it's just not one people want to hear. We are sick of the lies, spin & deception. Americans are becoming increasingly smart enough to outright reject the Democrats & their propaganda machine - the MSM.

[rhombus]

But this whole concept of 'framing' is important to them cause they know that what they're selling is a load of crap.. And they KNOW it!

Is this any surprise from the party of trial lawyers?

[OESY]

ANOTHER GEM:

Language is clearly important in politics, but the message remains more important than the messaging. In the interests of full disclosure, let me note that I have been talking to the Democrats about both. But I believe that first, you must get your message straight. What are your best ideas, and what are you for-as opposed to what you're against in the other party's message? Only when you answer those questions can you figure out how to present your message to the American people.

* * *

NOTE the emphasis on words, not beliefs or actions.

[Trust but Verify]

The democrats have a message, they just can't afford to send it since nobody outside the Emily's List wing of their party buys it.

[OESY]

To be specific, I [Wallis] offer five areas in which the Democrats should change their message and then their messaging.

1. Somebody must lead on the issue of poverty, and right now neither party is doing so. The Democrats assume the poverty issue belongs to them....

Prosperity helps alleviate poverty, but I wonder if Wallis understands the poverty-of-ideas irony.

2. Democrats... must insist that private interests should never obstruct our country's path to a cleaner and more efficient energy future....

Antibusiness (read, anti-jobs) Dems always elevate the appeasement of the environmentalist lobby over fueling a healthy economy. Further, their recent argument that clean air contributes to global warming seems to be splitting their ranks.

3. Democrats will win back "values voters" only with fresh ideas. Abortion is one such case. Democrats need to think past catchphrases, like "a woman's right to choose"....

Now there's a fresh idea.

4. As for "family values," the Democrats can become the truly pro-family party by supporting parents in doing the most important and difficult job in America: raising children.

Does this mean Dems are going to rush out to buy Sen. Santorum's book "It Takes a Family." I thought they believed it took a village (read, government) to raise a familiy, mainly by giving children the right to sue their parents over issues of education, discipline, etc. Are Dems about to throw Hillary overboard in an attempt to jettison their balast?

5. Finally, on national security, Democrats should argue that the safety of the United States depends on the credibility of its international leadership. We can secure that credibility in Iraq only when we renounce any claim to oil or future military bases...

Maybe Dems could gain credibility by supporting democratic efforts in Iraq and not trying to undercut America's policies at every opportunity?

* * *

[rogue yam]

After reading this article...I am thoroughly convinced, that Democrats are without a message and do not know where to get one.

The Democrats have exactly one idea: Those who earn good wages through private enterprise are invariably overpaid, and therefore must have much of their money taken from them and redistributed to those who are less productive, or who work for the government (I repeat myself). The Democrats' problem is in convincing a majority of Americans that they are losers and thus in need of charity that their own families can't provide.

[OESY]

The Democratic Party's Cycle Of Failure


"Democratic Party pollster Stan Greenberg said Wednesday that "one of the biggest doubts about Democrats is that they don't stand for anything." -- Newsmax

The Democratic Party's liberal base wants them to take unpopular positions that will alienate much of the rest of the country. So faced with a choice between angering their base and turning off the moderates they need to win, the Democrats have chosen to obscure what they believe in hopes of not offending anyone. But, many of the moderates have caught on to the game and are getting down on the Democratic Party because they refuse to take a stand on so many issues.

This is the feedback loop the Democratic Party is stuck in and the only true way to get out of it long-term is to disappoint either the base or the people in the middle the Dems need to win. Logically when you're in that situation, you have to stick it to your base and hope that they're loyal enough to stand by you even though they're unhappy with you.

But, in the case of the Democratic Party, the liberal ideologues have such a lock on the levers of power and influence in the Party, that thus far, the politically savvy crowd -- like the people who run the DLC -- have been unable to put them in check.

Until the Democratic Party gets their liberal base under control, they may make gains in certain elections, but they're doomed to continue a long-term slide into political oblivion.

-- John Hawkins, http://rightwingnews.com/

[RepublicMan4U]

I think this article is being mis-read.

"Language is clearly important in politics, but the message remains more important than the messaging."

I think what Jim Wallis is saying here is that more than just the words need to change. The message (ie, the content) needs to change. The article seems to be basically saying that the Democrats need to move right (in substance, not just rhetoric) if they want to get anywhere in a nation that has become more conservative.

The problem is that you need to read the whole article to get the context. I think by "messaging" he means spin, but by "message" he means content. He's saying that the Democrats need to change what they're about, not just how they phrase it.

[rhombus]

He's saying that the Democrats need to change what they're about, not just how they phrase it.Yes he says that but when you read his suggestions, he suggests a spin on the same old, same old. Specifically, increased taxes to allow Government to set up programs to solve problems. His message is the same but the words have changed to try to rationalize the same old soft socialism they've been peddaling to support their public employee unions for what? 30 years?

[Alas Babylon!]

That picture is just plain AWESOME!!! May I use it?

[ballplayer]

Ok so the new message is ,Tax the rich ,No tax cut and SOCIALISM,sounds like the same message to me.
I have an Idea for the democrats,since the republicans have become the party of big spenders, why dont the democrats become the American party and advocate smaller Government !
We all know they dont believe any of what they say anyway ,their problem is they cant say what they really believe, that message is a loser and they know it, that is why they are trying to figure out a way to repackage it. Problem is in the new information age they cant fool the majority anymore just the MORONS.

[OESY]

Be my guest!

[rhombus]

Problem is in the new information age they cant fool the majority anymore just the MORONS.

You are dead on correct there. Those who rely on the following sources are definitely the News Challenged: legacy newspapers, local television news, network television news, sound bytes between top 40 hits and the John Stewart show... sounds like the disloyal opposition party to me.

[IamConservative]

They have no principles from which to draw ideas and inspiration. It's all about "feelings" for them.

[goldstategop]

Keep on fooling the people and spinning defeats as victories... I'm happy to see liberals still in denial about last November - no, make that the past five years.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[goldstategop]

Jim Wallis wants to repackage New Deal ideas that are out of date. Put a lipstick on a pig - its still a pig. The Democrats have nothing inspiring to offer the country and they can't motivate people to vote FOR them. Nothing Wallis says changes the reality the Democrats have NO MESSAGE. And they still think if they lie about who they are, they can get in. They tried it in Ohio but even there it was pretty clear their candidate was running on an anti-Bush platform. The party of the future is pretty much the party of the past. Whether Wallis wants to admit it or not, the Democrats are on the road to obsolescence.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)