I watched the Delaware Senate debate last night and gave Chris Coons high marks for the most part. His answers were crisp: lots of short direct sentences, using words that all educational levels find easy to understand, and delivered in a tone that was both firm and friendly.
But over and over again he said two words that greatly damage our Democratic candidates in interviews, in debates, in campaign ads, and at other public appearances. If I could wave a magic wand and eliminate these two words from the public speaking vocabulary of every member of the blue team, I would.
What are these two words?
I think...
Every time I hear one of our candidates begin a sentence with those two words, I tear out what is left of my hair and scream at the TV, no, no, no, no, NO!
Don't tell people what you think!
No one cares what you think!
I realize this is counterintuitive to a lot of people on this blog. But if all our candidates stopped saying just those two words (and the related sentence "I believe") it would go a very long way towards making all our political communication more effective, more powerful, and more persuasive.
As I said at the NYC meetup/booksigning, a lot of us are thinkers. Even if we do not think of ourselves as intellectuals, we enjoy thinking, enjoy analysis, enjoy wrestling with puzzles. Thinking is a positive virtue for us. When you or I hear someone say: "I think..." we hear it someone expressing the strongest possible support for something. To think something is true or to state a belief in something means a lot to us.
To intellectuals and other "thinkers", "I think" is a powerful statement with the whole force of your brain and being behind it. It means you have evaluated and analyzed all the possible options and alternatives and are ready to announce a decision: this is what I think!
Low-information voters, and the previously named Lo-Info Joe or L.I. Joe does not hear it the same way. These voters don't see themselves as intellectual and have a negative reaction to the concept of intellectuals and "thinkers". So they have two reactions to the phrase "I think", both of which hurt our candidates.
Either they hear the term "I think", and receive it as a statement of uncertainty: "I think" means "I'm not sure."
Or they hear "I think", and react to the statement that follows as simply an opinion, not a fact.
Read that again and take it in, please.
When L.I. Joe hears "I think", s/he is going to do one of two things: (1) assume you are not sure of what you are saying, because you only think you are sure, or (2) completely discount the statement that follows as simply your opinion, unless s/he already likes you, identifies with you and trusts you.
Either way, s/he does not care what you think.
Then there is a subset of conservative evangelicals who regard "thinking" in a negative way. They actually teach their people: Don't think, don't "lean on your own understanding", just do what God (or the nearest God-appointed authority figure) tells you to do, without question, and you'll be better off for it. You get nowhere with those folks by talking about what you think, in fact you hurt yourself with them. Big time.
There is only one exception to this, and it is a subject I am desperate desperate desperate to get across to the Blue Team before 2012: the exception of personal identification.
If the voter already likes you, respects you, identifies with you and trusts you, then s/he will care what you think and will even want to think like you do!
That explains how dittoheads and tbaggers swallow whole all kinds of ridiculous things from authority figures that you and I do not respect: Rush said it, they want to be like Rush, they want to think like Rush, so they accept it as true. Or Bush said it, they respect Bush, they want to be like Bush, they want to think like Bush, so they accept what "he thinks" as true.
Listen to the way Republicons have been taught how to talk to voters. Listen to how infrequently they use the phrase "I think". Almost never.
They have been trained, and trained well, to just make simple straightforward statements of what they want to be true, whether it is true or not.
It is a sad mis-use of "speak things that are not as though they were" -- a timeless truth about human psychology: if you keep repeating something that you want to be true, even if it is not true, eventually the mind accepts it as true.
Relentless repetition is why advertising works, why peer pressure works, and why propaganda works.
If you remember nothing else from this diary, please remember this:
Republicons create their own reality in campaigns by phrasing their opinions as statements of fact.
Democrats water down the power of reality-based campaigning with "I think" statements that make facts sound like opinions.
Consider the difference between these statements:
I think tax cuts for the middle class are better for the economy than tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.
I think job growth has grown for nine straight months and I believe economic conditions in this country are improving.
I think Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and I believe I have seen his birth certificate.
and these statements:
Tax cuts for the middle class are better for the economy than tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.
Job growth has grown for nine straight months and economic conditions in this country are improving.
Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and I have seen his birth certificate.
Now look at these statements, all made by Chris Coons in the Delaware Senatorial debate--statements which compelled me to write this diary:
Delaware voters face a choice between a candidate who I believe has extreme positions that threaten vital education programs...
I also think we need to change the crazy tax policy in Washington that gives an incentive to American companies to shut down operations here and ship jobs overseas.
I think the Citizens United decision was an unfortunate and ill-decided decision...
I would move swiftly as a Senator to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. I think it is discrimination, plain and simple.
I think you have heard a real and clear difference between my opponent and me... I think what Delaware needs, what Delaware deserves, is someone as their next U.S. Senator who has real hands on experience... I believe I offer you real ideas based on that experience.
The sad thing about our party being less strictly hierarchical is that there is no one enforcing message discipline to make our candidates say this:
Delaware voters face a choice between a candidate who has extreme positions that threaten vital education programs...
We need to change the crazy tax policy in Washington that gives an incentive to American companies to shut down operations here and ship jobs overseas.
The Citizens United decision was an unfortunate and ill-decided decision...
I would move swiftly as a Senator to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. It is discrimination, plain and simple.
You have heard a real and clear difference between my opponent and me... What Delaware needs, what Delaware deserves, is someone as their next U.S. Senator who has real hands on experience... I offer you real ideas based on that experience.
Coons' repeated use of the conditional tense is a subject for a whole separate diary: "I would move to repeal DADT" may sound prudent and polite to many of us; to L.I. Joe the conditional tense just sounds weak.
Don't talk about what you would do. That is one step removed from where people are. You are making them speculate about conditions that don't exist yet. Don't make non-thinkers work that hard!
Talk about what you are doing. The present tense is always the strongest verb tense.
How about: "I support the repeal of DADT", or "I plan to fight for the repeal of DADT" or "I want to work hard for the repeal of DADT" or "I urge the repeal of DADT", or "I propose the repeal of DADT" etc.
Listen to how often O'Donnell said "I propose to...". Sad to say, she comes across with more leadership presence because she is using much stronger language. Our guy said the right things, but said them less forcefully. Where have we seen this before (Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, stop me when it gets too painful...)?
It's not like Republicons are instinctively aware of what kinds of language sound like leadership language! They actively train their pundits, candidates, officeholders, and other talking heads to use certain words and avoid others. And they have a mechanism of enforcing message discipline—if their people are inconsistent in using leadership language, they face negative consequences. Meanwhile Dems are all off on their own, operating as independent satellites, with apparently no one keeping an eye on messaging at the national level. If only this were a job the DNC and DSCC and DCCC would take seriously!
"I think" is an automatic statement for so many of us. We are not aware of how often we say it. Many of us do not realize how often we sprinkle our conversation with it. "I think" seems like a positive or neutral statement to us.
But when you want to sound like a leader, do not waste time telling people what you think.
State facts as facts. Do not talk about what you only "think" you know.
Make factual statements directly. Do not use language many people will interpret as an expression of opinion.
And always avoid saying "I think", "I believe", or any similar preface that makes you the subject of the sentence and shifts the primary focus onto you the speaker and away from the facts you are presenting.
The voters you most need to persuade actually don't care what you think.