(I have been messing around with an AI summarizer web app called “Sloppy Joe.” It will take text, or URLs from YouTube or PDFs and summarize them in some unique ways: One liner, ultra-short, short, and long versions as well as presentation style and Word Outline format for use in PowerPoint. Pretty cool. Anyway, here’s a podcast featuring ASO talking to David Roberts about “How the Left Can Suck Less at Messaging.”)
The Three Step Approach: (I put this up top so as not to bury the lede!)
- Start with a shared value,
- Move to a clear villain, and
- End with a vision of a better future.
David Roberts and Anat Shenker-Osorio discuss the importance of messaging in politics, particularly in the current climate. Roberts emphasizes the need to inspire defiance instead of fear, as fear is an inhibiting emotion for most people. He suggests using negative emotions like anger and defiance to motivate voters. Additionally, Roberts stresses the importance of making voters the protagonists of the message, rather than focusing on the candidate or party. The message should emphasize voter agency and their power to bring about change.
It is difficult to sell the message that "Democrats delivered for you," as people view both parties as useless. Democrats are seen as being in the majority, and it will be hard to sell a message that they are lovely. There is a debate in Democratic circles about election messaging in 2022 and beyond, with one side saying it needs to be about the concrete changes Democrats have made to make people's lives better. The other side argues that people need to see that it's okay to freak out about the bad things happening. However, this time around, it is an arguably easier lift because it is not turnout but re-turnout, and there is hard evidence of what mobilized new voters in the past two cycles. The Women's March was powerful in changing people's minds and getting them to the polls.
Messaging to engage the base is crucial for persuading the middle, as social proof is real. While some are being more thoughtful and deliberate about engaging the base, the GOP is making it harder for people of color to vote and easier for them to cheat. However, there are young activists who are better at messaging and research. The Fight for $15 movement used a fairness frame to mobilize people, as opposed to an economic growth frame. The money to pay people comes from their work, not from the "job creators."
Messaging is important in political campaigns, but it is not enough to simply say popular things. Democrats need to speak authentically and full-throatedly to the issues that their base cares about, such as racial justice, climate, women's rights, and immigrant rights. The Democratic base is largely made up of people of color, and if Democrats do not attend to these issues, they risk a mobilization problem. It is also important to engage in "re-turnout" and get people back to the polls. Biden won 2020 first-time voters by 12 points, which shows the importance of turning out new voters. Finally, public opinion about a candidate is not just based on what they say, but also on what they do. The idea that Democrats can simply say popular things and win over swing voters is a house of cards that doesn't stand up to the real world.
Democrats' policies do not necessarily shape people's opinions of them, as those opinions are largely influenced by the rhetoric and messaging of Republicans. Changing policy alone will not change political opinions; instead, Democrats need to focus on changing the politics lever. For example, Obama's attempts to appease non-college white people through deportations and tough border rhetoric did not break through to voters who had been influenced by the right wing's scapegoating and fearmongering. Democrats cannot be silent about race, police, or immigration, as that only allows the other side's race-baiting to dominate the conversation and prevent economic promises from cutting through. The most determinative single variable for cutting through to white men is their religiosity, not their education level.
David Roberts and Anat Shenker-Osorio discuss the misconception that education is the strongest predictor of political ideology. They mention The New York Times “guess my political ideology” quiz and how it asks about race before attempting to determine political ideology. The conversation shifts to the idea of popularism, which suggests that the Democratic Party needs to readjust its messaging to appeal to non-college-educated white men. The popularists argue that the party's messaging has been taken over by young, educated, urban liberals who are out of touch with the majority of Democratic voters. The solution is to use broad strokes in messaging instead of focusing on specific policies that only resonate with a small group of people.
David Roberts emphasizes the importance of having an overarching message that focuses on what people want, rather than what they don't want. He provides an example of a message that unites people from different backgrounds and highlights the negative impact of politicians and fossil fuel CEOs. Anat Shenker-Osorio raises concerns about overstating the significance and number of coal workers in the world, which makes the transition to clean energy more difficult. David Roberts explains that people overestimate the importance of coal jobs because it is talked about frequently. He emphasizes the need to focus on what we are for, rather than what we are against, and to avoid speaking relentlessly about our opposition. Cynicism, rather than opposition, is the main obstacle to promoting our ideas.
Political dialogue is dominated by the right acting and accusing, while the left talks about what the right is saying. Talking about low voter turnout among certain demographic groups can actually lower voter turnout, and discussing vaccine refusal can increase vaccine refusal. People are driven by their identity and the desire to preserve it, which influences their political beliefs. The right understands that the job of the message is to keep their base engaged and enraged, while the left tends to assume that everyone else is still racist. The left needs to stand up and signal to each other that they have the majority opinion, rather than assuming that they are in the minority.
The right wing effectively uses social proof to make their position seem more popular than it actually is. However, most parents support teaching the truth about history and do not want books censored. The Freedom to Learn campaign is a powerful response to the anti-CRT movement. The right's core narrative of negative liberty is being challenged by a more positive concept of freedom, which includes taking collective action to provide new opportunities. Freedom is a contested concept that has been central to progressive movements such as marriage equality, civil rights, and women's rights. A messaging guide called Freedom to Learn has been created to make a full-throated positive case for public education in the era of anti-CRT. The renamed bill, Freedom to Vote, deliberately uses the value of freedom, which is closely associated with the US and is a progressive idea. A more positive vessel for the concept of freedom could be the Freedom to Thrive Act, which suggests a desirable outcome.
David Roberts and Anat Shenker-Osorio discuss messaging for the left and the Green New Deal. Roberts suggests that instead of focusing on policy details, the left should focus on selling outcomes and filling in an empty vessel with positive associations. Shenker-Osorio agrees, noting that the right filled in the Green New Deal with negative associations while the left retreated from it. Roberts notes that research shows the name "Green New Deal" is not particularly effective and does not signal ambition or improvement in people's lives. However, he also acknowledges that a good message should make popular what needs to be said, not just say what is popular.
David Roberts emphasizes the importance of messaging and highlights the mistake of selling policies instead of the benefits they provide. He suggests that policies should be presented in a language that emphasizes the payoff and lived experiences. Anat Shenker-Osorio discusses the anti-government sentiment prevalent on the right and how government spending and regulation are viewed as inherently bad. This sentiment is fueled by the belief that government takes away freedom and is an evil force. She also notes that this sentiment is used to divide people and distract them from real issues. David Roberts adds that this sentiment is further fueled by convincing people that problems are caused by certain groups, such as immigrants, rather than by those in power. Overall, it is important to call out these tactics and motivations to guard against their effectiveness.
The text excerpt is about effective messaging when it comes to climate change. The author suggests a three-step approach: start with a shared value, move to a clear villain, and end with a vision of a better future. By doing this, the cognitive dissonance between the opening and problem statement is resolved, and cross-racial solidarity can be achieved. The author also emphasizes the importance of using clear language that implies causation, such as "damage to the climate," instead of using frozen phrases like "climate change." Finally, the author argues that laws should focus on human behavior rather than climate change itself.
David Roberts discusses messaging strategies for the left, emphasizing the importance of starting with a shared value and avoiding negative messages. He introduces the race-class narrative as a messaging architecture that has been tested for effectiveness. Roberts explains that the left must beg for money from those in power to implement solutions, and that polling and message testing often focus on small details rather than considering a range of approaches. He suggests that fear is hindering progress and preventing people from trying new messaging strategies.
David Roberts emphasizes the importance of having a simple, coherent message that engages the base and counters the opposition's messaging. He cites examples of successful campaigns, including "count every vote," "Fight for $15," and "Red for Ed," which were well-coordinated and executed with pre-agreed messaging across organizations, unions, civil society, candidates, and parties. Anat Shenker-Osorio discusses the lack of sane billionaires seeking to fund organizations behind successful movements to repeat their narratives in other contexts. Roberts agrees but notes that the suspension of ego and pre-agreement on messaging are crucial for breaking through the noise. He also mentions the successful Greater Than Fear campaign in which organizers echoed each other's scripts about taxes, public education, driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants, solar panels, etc., leading politicians to adopt the messaging in their get-out-the-vote tours.
In 2018, a messaging project called Greater Than Fear was implemented in Minnesota after research called the Race-Class Narrative was conducted. The project was successful in its messaging. David Roberts criticizes progressive philanthropy for giving money with strings attached and not trusting organizations to use it effectively. This is different from the way the right funds organizations, giving general operating checks without questions. The left has a financial incentive towards differentiated messaging, which is anathema to persuasion and mobilization. Responsible nonprofit executives want to pay their employees' salaries.
Messaging is important for organizations to have their own message, branding, and campaign to show to funders. The left tends to create a brand new message for each issue, while the right has one or very few messages. The right uses dog whistles and racially coded speech to divide and conquer, which is not new and is also seen in other countries. The left needs to lay a basic foundation for its worldview and be repetitive in messaging over multiple channels and decades, rather than approaching every issue from scratch.
Messaging is an important aspect of political communication, but the left has not laid the same foundation as the right in terms of promoting government and its effectiveness. This makes it difficult for the left to effectively communicate their messages to the public. The right has been successful in promoting negative attitudes towards taxes and government, which makes it easier for them to sway public opinion on issues like cap-and-trade. However, the critical race theory message has gained traction quickly because the right has already laid a foundation of negative attitudes towards affirmative action and criticism of white people. Effective messaging involves a combination of research, focus groups, and in-field testing to determine what messages resonate with the public. In-field testing is especially important as it allows for more accurate measurements of the effectiveness of different messages.
David Roberts and Anat Shenker-Osorio discuss the flaws in traditional polling methods and suggest ways to improve message testing. They argue that asking people if they like a message or find it convincing is not effective because people are not always aware of what influences them. Instead, they suggest structuring tests with pre-questions that challenge people's assumptions and expose them to opposition messaging. Roberts also emphasizes the importance of designing tests that reflect real-world scenarios and using message testing to change the temperature, not just take it. Finally, they caution against using in-channel tests to determine effect size, as they do not accurately reflect what will happen in the field.
Messaging experts use in-channel testing, including qualitative and quantitative methods, to understand the effectiveness and comprehension of different message frames. However, in the real world, messages are encountered amidst noise and chaos, often surrounded by counter-messages from the other side. Therefore, it is important to consider how messages will perform in the scrum of an actual political fight. Studies that analyze people's reactions to messages in isolation, such as in focus groups, may not accurately reflect how messages will be received in the real world. To resolve this issue, experts should focus on the messages they are putting out.
David Roberts discusses the power of messaging and how it can break through the noise, citing examples such as the "Count Every Vote" and "Fight for $15" campaigns. He emphasizes the importance of passing the message from person to person and the need for a functional media infrastructure on the left. Anat Shenker-Osorio notes that the left lacks the ability to coordinate and disseminate messages like the right, highlighting the need for a messaging infrastructure. Roberts explains that messaging involves both word selection and infrastructure, including spokespeople, media outlets, and social media pages.