We have two important lines to draw. Domestically, we must expose and fight back against Republican attempts to sabotage democracy. Internationally, we must prevent Russia from invading Ukraine. And let us take notice of who is on which side of these crucial decisions.
I admit that I watched Meet The Press this morning (I know, I know! I can only say by way of an excuse that It's cold and rainy in Florida). Marc Short, Pence's former Chief of Staff was there, having just cooperated with the Jan 6 Committee by testifying for over eight hours. He's pretty mealy-mothed as a rule, and he still made excuses that Trump was given bad advice about Jan 6 (instead of admitting he sought it out), and that there were irregularities in the vote, even though Biden won. We have all been wondering how our Dem messaging gurus could show these sanctimonious grifters for what they are, but the RNC just gave it to us. Attack ad against any Republican running anywhere for anything. Videos of the violence of the riot with a voice-over that says: "The Republican National Committee says that The Jan 6th riot was "legitimate political discourse". Go on to paint them as reckless radicals only interested in seizing power.
Good heavens, the ads write themselves with the GOP supporting and defending insurrectionists, violating the constitutional rights of women, dictating whitewashed school curricula, etc. Leaven that with positive ads about Dem plans for child care support, reducing childhood poverty, reducing prescription drug costs, supporting seniors, protecting us from Climate Change, etc. And maybe a pointed ad or two asking what the GOP plans for governing are.
This RNC decree seems to be a political gift that comes once a generation. Let's please make them own it, eat it, and answer for it as long as it's useful. As for morally superior blowhards -- like Romney -- who criticize it or disavow it, let's make them tell us what they intend to DO about it; to reverse course, to reform their own political party. (After all, his niece, Rona McDaniel, the head of the RNC and stooge for the Trumpist wing, was the one who first read it from the podium.
Watergate happened as I was first getting interested in politics. The election after Watergate saw the GOP routed. Democrats increased their majorities (which they then mostly squandered bickering back and forth with Carter). But their campaigns were mostly smart combinations of tying the GOP to Watergate, and positive plans for the future (okay, they didn't get much done, but we can always learn that lesson from them).
Dan, I wonder if you can make the plea to people not to actually use the words "legitimate political discourse" when they're trying to show that the attempted overthrow was NOT that. It'll just cement the words as the idea without the negation. If we can stop dems from using those words and substituting overthrow or coup or sedition or something like that, I think we have a better shot at winning the argument than if we use the R's words themselves. So far, everyone's making this mistake, and "legitimate political discourse" is getting into peoples' minds, not the opposite. I'm thinking of both Anat S.O. here and George Lakoff who say that if you're using the opposition's frame, you're losing from the start. We need to reframe. Let's maybe use Republican Ruin, in contrast to Biden Boom, or something like that. What do you think?
I wonder if using that phrase, accompanied by the pictures of violence, don't create a Truth sandwich for the reader/viewer. It's not a didactic message. Together they allow the reader/viewer to come to conclusions in his own mind.
Also I wonder if changing the phrase, as Dan does here, to "do you think political violence is legitimate?" or "do you think violence is legitimate when disagreeing about politics?" creates a new frame for the issue.
Sally, actually I don't think using that phrase does us any good. People will hear "blah blah legitimate political discourse blah blah." We're way past the point of coming to their own conclusion rationally. I think we can talk about violence in politics, and how it's bad, but then we have to center violence and not use the words [legitimate political discourse]. I really think we need to, as Dan says, call them to account for trying to overthrow the government of the United States and not let them get away with creating something like "alternate facts" that has now entered the lexicon, and not in a good way. It normalizes violence and shit smearing (literal and metaphorical) like "alternative facts" normalized lies. This isn't just for us, its for the media too, but if we say it loudly and write letters to the editor and tweet at them and do all the things we know how to do as digital advocates, we have a chance at making a dent. Sally--come to tomorrow's Messaging Monday and we can talk it through! (for everyone else, check out www.moreperfectdemocracy.org to find out about our digital advocacy--creating messaging and graphics for social media).
I think using the actual phrase in the context of images of the riot is a forceful way to demonstrate The GOP's hypocrisy, untruthfulness, pettiness towards anyone disagreeing with them, dishonesty, and their attempts to manipulate voters.
I think it might be great to use their phrase. The cognitive dissonance if we juxtapose that with images of violence against police there etc. is too perfect. It is a sick phrase and good remind people of it. No one is going to change the mind of r's who believe that shit, but our fellows who are not voting, maybe.
Oh dear god, seriously, my truther neighbor's favorite go-to is "cognitive dissonance"! Seriously, the r playbook has already commandeered every possible grammatical avenue. I will note, my neighbor is skeptical of everything, even r things, but it doesn't seem to matter. So long as she's fully onboard with not believing anything, she's still the perfect antagonist.
I totally agree. If I asked to my truther neighbor if she thought killing police or smearing feces on the walls of Congress was legitimate political discourse," she would respond, "Well, that's not what they mean. That was an exception. They mean we all have the right to participate in the discourse, and the liberals are trying to stop us." I know she would blow right past the actual issue. We've had enough conversations. I really like my neighbor. Sadly though, she drank the trump koolaid, and she will easily buy into the propaganda.
Dems talk too much. It takes them too long to explain things. They need a better elevator speech that is easily repeated, concise, informative and interesting.
How can the article be presented with Dems as the aggressive gerrymandering party after the lengths the Rs have gone through to cement the minority rule of their party through gerrymandering?
Am I wrong in thinking that Rs are the real villains on this particular issue or is this article framed as a ‘both sides do it’ in incredibly bad faith?
Yes! You're absolutely right. The NYT has been bothsidesing everything about politics recently, and normalizing the election sabotage and authoritarianism of the republicans.
We have two important lines to draw. Domestically, we must expose and fight back against Republican attempts to sabotage democracy. Internationally, we must prevent Russia from invading Ukraine. And let us take notice of who is on which side of these crucial decisions.
I admit that I watched Meet The Press this morning (I know, I know! I can only say by way of an excuse that It's cold and rainy in Florida). Marc Short, Pence's former Chief of Staff was there, having just cooperated with the Jan 6 Committee by testifying for over eight hours. He's pretty mealy-mothed as a rule, and he still made excuses that Trump was given bad advice about Jan 6 (instead of admitting he sought it out), and that there were irregularities in the vote, even though Biden won. We have all been wondering how our Dem messaging gurus could show these sanctimonious grifters for what they are, but the RNC just gave it to us. Attack ad against any Republican running anywhere for anything. Videos of the violence of the riot with a voice-over that says: "The Republican National Committee says that The Jan 6th riot was "legitimate political discourse". Go on to paint them as reckless radicals only interested in seizing power.
Good heavens, the ads write themselves with the GOP supporting and defending insurrectionists, violating the constitutional rights of women, dictating whitewashed school curricula, etc. Leaven that with positive ads about Dem plans for child care support, reducing childhood poverty, reducing prescription drug costs, supporting seniors, protecting us from Climate Change, etc. And maybe a pointed ad or two asking what the GOP plans for governing are.
This RNC decree seems to be a political gift that comes once a generation. Let's please make them own it, eat it, and answer for it as long as it's useful. As for morally superior blowhards -- like Romney -- who criticize it or disavow it, let's make them tell us what they intend to DO about it; to reverse course, to reform their own political party. (After all, his niece, Rona McDaniel, the head of the RNC and stooge for the Trumpist wing, was the one who first read it from the podium.
Watergate happened as I was first getting interested in politics. The election after Watergate saw the GOP routed. Democrats increased their majorities (which they then mostly squandered bickering back and forth with Carter). But their campaigns were mostly smart combinations of tying the GOP to Watergate, and positive plans for the future (okay, they didn't get much done, but we can always learn that lesson from them).
Dan, I wonder if you can make the plea to people not to actually use the words "legitimate political discourse" when they're trying to show that the attempted overthrow was NOT that. It'll just cement the words as the idea without the negation. If we can stop dems from using those words and substituting overthrow or coup or sedition or something like that, I think we have a better shot at winning the argument than if we use the R's words themselves. So far, everyone's making this mistake, and "legitimate political discourse" is getting into peoples' minds, not the opposite. I'm thinking of both Anat S.O. here and George Lakoff who say that if you're using the opposition's frame, you're losing from the start. We need to reframe. Let's maybe use Republican Ruin, in contrast to Biden Boom, or something like that. What do you think?
I wonder if using that phrase, accompanied by the pictures of violence, don't create a Truth sandwich for the reader/viewer. It's not a didactic message. Together they allow the reader/viewer to come to conclusions in his own mind.
Also I wonder if changing the phrase, as Dan does here, to "do you think political violence is legitimate?" or "do you think violence is legitimate when disagreeing about politics?" creates a new frame for the issue.
Sally, actually I don't think using that phrase does us any good. People will hear "blah blah legitimate political discourse blah blah." We're way past the point of coming to their own conclusion rationally. I think we can talk about violence in politics, and how it's bad, but then we have to center violence and not use the words [legitimate political discourse]. I really think we need to, as Dan says, call them to account for trying to overthrow the government of the United States and not let them get away with creating something like "alternate facts" that has now entered the lexicon, and not in a good way. It normalizes violence and shit smearing (literal and metaphorical) like "alternative facts" normalized lies. This isn't just for us, its for the media too, but if we say it loudly and write letters to the editor and tweet at them and do all the things we know how to do as digital advocates, we have a chance at making a dent. Sally--come to tomorrow's Messaging Monday and we can talk it through! (for everyone else, check out www.moreperfectdemocracy.org to find out about our digital advocacy--creating messaging and graphics for social media).
I think using the actual phrase in the context of images of the riot is a forceful way to demonstrate The GOP's hypocrisy, untruthfulness, pettiness towards anyone disagreeing with them, dishonesty, and their attempts to manipulate voters.
Will be there! Thanks for this discussion.
I think it might be great to use their phrase. The cognitive dissonance if we juxtapose that with images of violence against police there etc. is too perfect. It is a sick phrase and good remind people of it. No one is going to change the mind of r's who believe that shit, but our fellows who are not voting, maybe.
Oh dear god, seriously, my truther neighbor's favorite go-to is "cognitive dissonance"! Seriously, the r playbook has already commandeered every possible grammatical avenue. I will note, my neighbor is skeptical of everything, even r things, but it doesn't seem to matter. So long as she's fully onboard with not believing anything, she's still the perfect antagonist.
I totally agree. If I asked to my truther neighbor if she thought killing police or smearing feces on the walls of Congress was legitimate political discourse," she would respond, "Well, that's not what they mean. That was an exception. They mean we all have the right to participate in the discourse, and the liberals are trying to stop us." I know she would blow right past the actual issue. We've had enough conversations. I really like my neighbor. Sadly though, she drank the trump koolaid, and she will easily buy into the propaganda.
The truthers I know have mastered 'cognitive accommodation'
Good point!
Possibly your best post yet Dan. Thanks.
It’d be so nice if Dems could figure out the TikTok version connecting policy with practice. It’s too easy to interrupt them right now.
Could you explain? I don't understand.
Dems talk too much. It takes them too long to explain things. They need a better elevator speech that is easily repeated, concise, informative and interesting.
This is so true!
Dan,
Was threading this article when Message Box came through: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/06/us/politics/redistricting-competition-midterms.html?referringSource=articleShare
How can the article be presented with Dems as the aggressive gerrymandering party after the lengths the Rs have gone through to cement the minority rule of their party through gerrymandering?
Am I wrong in thinking that Rs are the real villains on this particular issue or is this article framed as a ‘both sides do it’ in incredibly bad faith?
Thanks for the work,
J
Yes! You're absolutely right. The NYT has been bothsidesing everything about politics recently, and normalizing the election sabotage and authoritarianism of the republicans.