It’s another Sunday, so for those who tune in, welcome to a diary discussing the Nuts & Bolts of a Democratic campaign. If you’ve missed out, you can catch up any time: Just visit our group or follow the Nuts & Bolts Guide. Every week I try to tackle issues I’ve been asked about. With the help of other campaign workers and notes, we address how to improve and build better campaigns or explain issues that impact our party.
When candidates discuss the issues that face their campaign, we put those issues inside of a frame. In 2005 after the 2004 presidential loss by John Kerry, numerous articles were written about the loss of the Democratic frame: How do we discuss issues? The New York Times put together a solid piece about the way our language plays into a campaign’s success or failure. It doesn’t, however, explain how to avoid getting sucked into the vortex of Republican framing. This week, we’re going to discuss exactly that.
The Velvet Glove
In 1992, former President Ronald Reagan spoke to the Oxford Club. He made it clear from the beginning that the Republicans understood the role of the velvet glove in their own campaigns and the way they framed their language. From The Washington Post:
"What I propose . . . is nothing less than a human velvet glove backed by a steel fist of military force," he said in a speech to about 1,000 students at the Oxford Union, the debating club of Oxford University here. There were a few boos when Reagan arrived, but he was given standing ovations before and after the 30-minute speech.
Reagan, who once dubbed the former Soviet Union "the evil empire," said that with the collapse of communism, the world appears to have traded "a single, monolithic threat to the world's peace for a host of smaller, yet no less deadly, flashpoints."
Now, it’s interesting to note that Republicans have seemingly switched sides on the whole Russia thing, but besides that, this is the key strategy Republicans use like a blunt force for everything in any campaign: create a hero, create an enemy, villainize them, and use a velvet touch to bring people to your side.
This is the key to Republican messaging. The content of what you say is almost meaningless. Guns, God, babies. Then frame a few enemies, demonize, and try to smile while you do it. Find people who you can use as specific examples to claim that’s “just how it is”.
This velvet glove is often used to hide the ugliness underneath. Still, Republicans dress up their terrible ideas in velvet to make them palatable for the public, and then trot them out in the hope that no one notices.
The Democratic Party finds ways to respond — at times
So in your campaign, you’re going to have to make sure you have your own way to discuss these issues. In 2005, Democratic consultants began talking about framing. If you’re like me—a former high school debater and college speech nerd—you spent a lot of time in a Rhetorical Communication course (or several of them) during the early part of your academic career, discussing the setting of a framework. A framework of discussion represents the position you want to take in order to make sure your argument is heard and that it is the argument that becomes the focus of discussion. From The New York Times:
Garin shared his polling with a group of Democratic senators that included Harry Reid, the minority leader. Reid, in turn, assigned Stephanie Cutter, who was Kerry's spokeswoman last year, to put together a campaign-style "war room" on the filibuster. Cutter set up a strategy group, which included senior Senate aides, Garin, the pollster Mark Mellman and Jim Margolis, one of the party's top ad makers. She used Garin's research to create a series of talking points intended to cast the filibuster as an American birthright every bit as central to the Republic as Fourth of July fireworks. The talking points began like this: "Republicans are waging an unprecedented power grab. They are changing the rules in the middle of the game and attacking our historic system of checks and balances." They concluded, "Democrats are committed to fighting this abuse of power."
Cutter's war room began churning out mountains of news releases hammering daily at the G.O.P.'s "abuse of power." In an unusual show of discipline, Democrats in the Senate and House carried laminated, pocket-size message cards -- "DEMOCRATS FIGHTING FOR DEMOCRACY, AGAINST ABUSE OF POWER," blared the headline at the top -
Now, I want you to think about how this applies to your local race at any level. While you do not have surrogates who will appear on network talk shows and cannot dominate the airwaves in a crucial U.S. Senate fight, the strategy is very much the same. By changing the nature of the conversation and bringing the truth into discussion, Democratic elected and challengers were able to say bluntly: “This is wrong. Where do you stand?” This framework was so solid in 1995 that seven Republicans flipped against their majority to side with us. Imagine a time where that would be possible now!
There were good examples and bad examples that came of this, however. Many of those who read this column are likely familiar with George Lakoff—or you’ve been at an event where he has spoken or great political trainers have spoken, and a few where we’ve both been present. The one mistake that Democratic candidates make in trying to achieve the frame is that it cannot be about just a bumper sticker. It cannot be about a big, bold refusal. Republicans respond to bumper stickers. Democratic voters want paragraphs. To convince both, you have to have both. You have to have a quick point and substance, too.
In your local races, you should find signature issues you are for and discuss them first. Make them simple to understand, advance the framework, and make sure your opponent answers the questions. You also have to be prepared to show that you understand that topic, really care about it, and that it isn’t just a buzzy talking point. You do so by making sure your argument demolishes the Republican counterargument.
Let’s say you’re running for your local city council. One of your issues is more green space. You have a framing point: “Make our city beautiful again.” There might be pushback, and you have to be prepared to come back and obliterate that argument as unprepared and buffoonish. “Our city has other more pressing needs,” could be met with: “Our city has many needs, but green spaces for our city help attract businesses that attract revenue and make achieving those needs possible. It also attracts more homeowners and apartment builders, bringing in more property taxes. This is how our city grows.” Or maybe your issue is: “A citizens review board to protect all of us.” You can be prepared with data that shows why your idea is solid and has good impact. Use your arguments at every level to snare your opponent, get them talking about issues you are advancing, and deal with the true issues on the ground rather than in hypotheticals.
If you allow Republicans to spend an election cycle talking about problems they create and bad guy straw men they must defeat, you will have very little time to get your own messages out into the race and start the discussion on those issues.
Voters want to hear from Democratic candidates on Democratic issues. We just have to let that happen.