(Cross-posted from ePluribus Media) So obviously I'm not the only one talking about message discipline. What set me thinking again was the point AaronBa raised in
More On Focusing the Left over on ePluribus Media. We can't turn Cindy Sheehan into a circus of crusades including anti-corruption, globalisation, and imperialism. We must look at raising single, powerful points that hit people across the political spectrum the right
Lakoff has already brought up the example of taxes. But I want to just compare the talking point of both sides on taxes and Iraq. On taxes, four words simplify the Republicans' message into ka-ching for listeners. Their message on Iraq is as straightforward. Lakoff has talked about frames, but he has not so much focused on the value of shaving down the Democratic message to a simple sentence.
More details in extended.
Let us look at the right's version of the tax debate. All they say is "we'll lower your taxes" and "it is your money." Both are four word phrases, and both are immensely powerful at conveying what needs to be conveyed. "We'll lower your taxes" is a phrase that even a Neanderthal could understand: it sounds like money in your wallet. It immediately signals a simple message, and is quite powerful for that.
On the other hand, liberals stumble through whole paragraphs explaining their side. Lakoff thought this could be all solved by framing the issue. Certainly the issue needs to be framed. But one problem Democrats have is that they cannot agree how to frame an issue. They'll advance 10 different frames, instead of one coherent one. "We need taxes because it's morally good" or "we need taxes because the deficit is too big" or "we need taxes to have make our government effective" or "we need taxes because it's our responsibility to pay them." All true, but let's consolidate and pick one. Though I'm partial to the last one, I think the second-to-last one. On taxes, we need to advocate a "strong government," and stick to that phrase. This, linguistically speaking, puts Republicans on the defensive against strong government.
Now to the more important application of this idea: Iraq
As Aaron pointed out, progressives are splitting their opposition of Iraq. The right from the beginning has simply said: "We support the Iraq War because we are patriotic and we believe in protecting America." Again, very simple. Patriotism and protection.
Here, liberals have a great answer, especially with Cindy Sheehan. "We're for pulling out because we support human life" Another bone to throw more moderate people is saying "we believe we are tied up in Iraq when we should be protecting America by going after Osama (who is clearly not in Iraq) and other terrorists." Again, as has been pointed out, the "save-our-soldiers" argument is the most effective. It's simple obvious, and automatically leads to a positive response from others. Let's not detract from its effectiveness. Talking point need to be straight-forward; otherwise, they are useless.