How do you herd cats? With a can opener. Or Catboys. Message received! How do we translate that into a message that resonates to those we wish to reach? Are we simply living in Mouseland?
What message can serve as a beacon that appeals to the "heart" of our aspirations and goals? Keeping in mind that simple is better, what is the simplest, clearest way that we can put forth our beliefs? This messaging should serve as a clarion call for the non-regressive masses as well as a mandate to those elected to serve.
After reading a recent diary by jillwklausen, I've been thinking about how we can reappropriate messaging that we shouldn't have lost to begin with. One answer would be to challenge the oppositions assertions by co-opting them, by confronting "truthiness" with truth.
Let's discuss this below the fold...
As with jillwklausen's example, we need to take back control of the "job creator" title. As a truer truth, the Middle-Class are the job creators. If we can challenge or overtake the concept of "job creator" as a term synonomous with the wealthy, we do a great deal more than nullification. We effectively change the narrative and identify which segment of our society is best served and best serves the rest of our society by being more unburdened financially. Therefore, we should only say "Middle-Class Job Creators" whenever we refer to "job creators".
I've previously posited that we should take back "Freedom" as well. As a way to solidify our stance as regards Women's rights, I believe it would be the best way to distill the heart of the Progressive message. We believe in the Freedom of Women, with their respective doctors, to decide how to handle their medical conditions. If they say that they are for life and we say we are for freedom, who makes the better argument? Better yet, who can defend their argument most succintly and accurately? Since our argument is a truth and not a half-truth(as pro-life often tends to be) we aren't on the defensive, they are. When we shift the burden of defense and need of understanding of nuance to the other side, we win the messaging battle.
Being "Pro-Freedom" can encompass LGBT rights, as in someone who is Pro-Freedom is for marriage equality.
Civil rights would dictate that someone who is Pro-Freedom is for the good of the person(human) over that of establishment. Thereby, when someone says that they want to push whichever discriminatory legislation because of "religious freedom", we can show the fallacy of their argument as one that values establishment over people.
In which other ways can we take Regressive talking points and make them work for us? How can we assert a truer truth? What all of this does is keep us from playing defense, which is Messaging Maxim #1.
Questions? Comments? Concerns?
All feedback is welcome...
(If the conversation regarding messaging is one that interests you, please feel free to join our group: Political Language and Messaging Both Spectators and Participants are welcome)