The best PR trick the right has pulled since Reagan has been to reframe "economic insecurity" into "debt crisis". Even 9/11 din't shift opinion this quickly.
It's very hard for the GOP to appease its donors if it adresses the real, personal causes of economic insecurity: job/insurance/home/benefit losses (or fear of them). Helping the electorate out on any of these issues would cost corporate America money, and Republicans can't have that.
Ah, but debt: big scary debt. We're all afraid of going into debt aren't we? And if it's bad on a personal level, Good God, what a threat is is to Mom, Apple Pie and Country?
We just might have to pimp out Mom to get more Apple Pie.
Unless, of course, we solve the "debt crisis". And by "we" I mean every single person who had nothing to do with creating it.
If Homer had been a bullshit artist, he would have come up with this.
Because the red herring of a "debt crisis" allows the right to tell the public they are fighting for them while simultaneously screwing them even more by increasing their personal economic crises.
How to fight this:
First: get personal and specific. When making your case on this issue to any audience, point out the direct consequences of proposed cuts:
1. Health Care defunding: your kids will be kicked off your insurance.
2. EPA cuts: more cancer all around
3. Social Security cuts: your retirement
4. Medicare cuts: your ass.
The concrete beats the abstract.
Second, remove "taxes" from your vocabulary and add "dues" (thank you George Lakoff). Everybody hates taxes, but everyone understands dues.
"So hey GE, I'm paying my dues, what aren't you? Bet your CEO pays 'em to hes country club."
"Say Congressman, how come I'm paying does and your donors aren't. They had cash to fund your campaign." (Love to see that one at a town hall)
"Our soldiers are sure as hell paying their dies, why isn't the defense industry?"
Grab the terms and go for the emotional gutpunch.
Recommended Reading:
Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives, by George Lakoff. Lakoff specializes in debate framing for progressives. The most important lesson you can pick up from this book is that the winning frame wins the debate. Republicans know this: that’s why they have their own language specialist, Frank Luntz , turn “oil drilling” into “energy exploration”. Lakoff is just as good, turning “higher taxes” into “paying your dues” examples abound. See also: Cognitive Policy Wonks and The Progressive Strategy Handbook Project .<
Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. by Robert Cialdini. This is the single most valuable book I have read on how to persuade and how to avoid being persuaded. Many of the most valuable keys to building effective messages are in this book. See also:
Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive, by Noah J. Goldstein; Steve J. Martin; Robert B. Cialdini and subscribe to the free Inside Influence Report.
Working Psychology. The site of another great influence researcher,
Kelton Rhoads. Worth visiting if only for the free and detailed online "
Introduction to Social Influence."
Frank Luntz: everything he’s written. He's a conservative message master, and you have to know the enemy. Remember the great scene in Patton, when the victorious general shouted: “Rommel! You magnificent bastard! I READ YOUR BOOK!”
Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts, by Tavris and Aronson Key takeaway: Never attack a movement's members, always attack its leaders.
Cognitive dissonance (the academic theory, not the common usage) suggests that attacking the supporters may actually increase their level of commitment.
It works like this: Say someone has two contradictory ideas: "I smoke" and "Smoking is bad for me". This causes discomfort, which must be resolved. Unfortunately, it is usually resolved in an ego- protecting way, so you wind up with something like: "Smoking isn't bad for me" instead of "I'm stupid to be smoking and should quit".
If we make fun of a Tea Party supporters, they hold the following ideas": I like my candidate's ideas" and "All these people say the ideas are crazy". Well, no matter what the evidence for the lunacy, that's likely to resolve into "the ideas are right" instead of "I made a mistake". This is particularly true if they see criticisms as hostile
On the other hand, if a supporter holds the following ideas "I like this candidate" and "this candidate just said that s/he is going to screw me personally ", the supporter is more likely to question the candidate.
The Social Animal, by
Elliot Aronson.
The introduction to social psychology, necessary for any real understanding of how groups of people (e.g. voters) act under different circumstances. Essential for any real understanding of the human nature that propels politics.