Down memory lane
”The D Brand” — A diary by kos, April 26, 2005
Ask any person on the street what a Republican stands for, and you'll get a single answer -- smaller government and lower taxes, family values, and a strong national defense. …
Ask 10 people what the Democrats stand for, and you'll get 10 different answers. ...
Except that in a stroke of inspiration, I was able to distill the Democratic brand into a single short sentence:
Democrats are the party for people who work for a living
This includes our core labor constituency, obviously… It includes anyone who depends on their paycheck to make ends meet.
Tell me why I'm wrong.
The other day, I stumbled on this 2005 diary and comment thread, and being someone who’s passionate about the potential of messaging to increase the Democratic vote, this relic from Daily Kos’s early years piqued my curiosity.
One commenter suggests the phrase “stronger together” (!) Some commenters laud the “my brother’s keeper” messaging in the blockbuster keynote speech delivered by that intriguing freshman senator, Barack Obama. Some Kossacks react warmly to Markos’s slogan, other Kossacks find it hollow, and still others are compelled to point out examples of Democratic politicians not living up to that slogan’s worker-friendly sentiment (it’s been just a month since the Senate passed the infamous bankruptcy bill and just days since Bush signed it into law)...and as the comment thread grows longer and longer, a Kossack inevitably jokes:
498 comments and counting…
I guess we have proved the point in Kos's second paragraph!
There are some familiar user names (e.g., Bill in Portland Maine, Georgia Logothetis) and some familiar themes in that old comment thread. There is, too, an absence of some themes that are prominent in today’s discussions. This exchange shows just how dated the conversation seems from today’s perspective:
Because it ignores "social issues"
I know that this is purposeful, but I think that you are being naive to expect that "working people" will buy it.
Too many of them think that "liberals" are promoting social issues that are against their interests.
It doesn't ignore it
It takes the emphasis off them.
That may be a subtle distinction, but an important one, especially if we can marginalize GOP efforts to distract voters with bullshit social issues pushed by fringe elements of their coalition.
Markos gets no pushback for suggesting Democrats de-emphasize social justice issues. No one blinks an eye at “social issues” being nested in scare quotes or minimized as bullshit issues.
The here and now
Times change and this website community is fortunately more diverse today. Markos’s own views have of course dramatically evolved. He’s developed, I think it’s fair to say, a quite jaded view regarding the very notion of working on Democratic messaging. (In a recent “Ask Me Anything” thread, he commented “We’re like herding cats. No one will ever agree on a fucking message.”) And he’s clearly no longer de-emphasizing social justice issues:
Because yes, while everyone wants to see an economically equitable world, that’s a secondary consideration when your children are being murdered, your places of worship are being vandalized, your families are being torn asunder, and your own bodies are being violated.
Markos rightly and forcefully advocates “standing with our most marginalized allies, and making sure their immediate safety is protected and guaranteed.”
I do hope the takeaway from Markos’s advocacy isn’t that we should declare a calculus that defines one life-and-death matter as having primacy over another. For example, a landmark 2011 study led by epidemiologist Sandro Galea attributed 291,000 U.S. deaths in the year 2000 to poverty and income inequality, 245,000 deaths to low education, 176,000 deaths to racial segregation, and 162,000 deaths to low social support (New York Times; Science Daily). When people are dying from raw economics at the same time as people are dying from racist policing, I surely don’t want Democratic politicians to stand in a room with Fight for 15 activists and Black Lives Matter activists and declare that one life-and-death issue is secondary to another. Democratic politicians should have their constituents’ backs on all these issues.
One of the very strengths of progressives is that we recognize there are myriad issues that need to be addressed and we are determined and able to work on multiple problems at the same time. Progressives can achieve the most when we’re being supportive toward all folks who are focusing on critical concerns, from racist policing to income inequality to transgender rights to global warming and a multitude of other areas I haven’t listed.
It makes sense that people will choose to focus on different issues or approach the same issue from different angles. For example, as I illustrated in a recent diary, people have been working in a united way to resist the GOP’s assault on the Affordable Care Act, even while individually some are emphasizing economic justice aspects and others emphasizing social justice aspects.
Getting back on message
By googling Markos’s proposed Democratic slogan, I found that Ezra Klein (another well-known progressive blogger of the day) had, like many of the Kossacks, found it lacking in specifics; Klein wanted an agenda:
[I]t isn't a definition, it's a platitude. And so we won't be defined, we'll be exactly where we are now.
What Republicans have, and what we envy, are a set of agreed-upon policies that comprise the spine of their legislative agenda. If Democrats want to match them, we have to be the party of "guaranteed health care, regulated corporations, a livable wage, universal day care, and a crackdown on nuclear materials", or some such combo. Then, if we want, we can append "in service of the proletariat" onto the end. The important thing is the handful of words that let voters know what we'll make happen.
Well, I think today’s Markos is probably right to be skeptical of the notion of coming up with a pithy message that consists of a “combo” of policies. Markos chortles about “herding cats.” But again, let’s remember it’s a feature not a bug that progressives care about so many issues.
What do Democrats stand for? Generally a lot more than Republicans do. That doesn’t mean working on Democratic messaging is futile. It just means we shouldn’t expect our message to be an ideologue’s wishlist (like the GOP’s) or a wonk’s wishlist (like Ezra Klein’s) that you can tick off on the fingers of one hand.
Fortunately, that’s not the only type of messaging there is!
A common and effective form of messaging is to tout your organization’s aspirations, achievements, competence. As I’ve written before, Americans are quick to associate I-Phone with Apple and Mickey Mouse with Disney, but do folks immediately associate popular programs like Social Security and Medicare with Democrats? They should, and messaging can help make it so.
I’ve designed several pro-Democratic bumper stickers and similar T-shirts, available online at no mark-up (no profit for me) at cafepress.com/donkey.
Grassroots campaigns using simple messages like these can be very effective. They can reach thousands of eyes every day, year after year, in and out of election season.
There is great potential to increase the Democratic vote. Consider that while 66 million people voted for Hillary — the second largest tally in history — there was an even more massive number — 96 million folks — who were eligible to vote but didn’t cast a ballot. Messaging that continuously promotes the Democratic brand is one of the ways to tap this potential.