Squeeze an Elephant Into Your Frame

Having good political positions isn't good enough. Having a clear message is a must. As a matter of fact, the way a message is crafted and presented to the public is more important than the validity of the claims and the soundness of the argument. I'm not for dumbing down, nor I am for an Orwellian newspeak.
I used to think that "the truth shall set you free, " but even being armed with a truckload of facts you won't very far in the sphere of politics where, unfortunately, impressions dominate over the facts. The good news is that the progressive base of the Democratic party today is very active in the debate over the party's future, and that, finally, they're setting up think-tanks and grass-roots organizations to establish a two-way communication.

The Democrats seem to have a problem formulating a clear message and picking the right messenger to deliver it. Richard Margolies from the Maccoby Group suggested to me that the Dems, from a personality standpoint, are attracted to obsessives: Carter, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, Kerry. These messengers are confusing because they get lost in the details. They make lists, they love the complexity of issues and love explaining them. I couldn't agree more. It's intellectually honest to have the facts on your side, but they can serve as a support, not the focus themselves, and should be available for whomever is interested in looking into them.
Dr. Margolies added, Clinton was not an obsessive, he is a narcissist, as was Johnson. Narcissists tend to articulate, when they are really talented, a clear vision. Bush is not a narcissist, he is our first president with a marketing personality, a person who has little ideas of his own but knows how to play to his market. To that I'd add, Bush came out as good as he did because he was compared to an obsessive. Having so many objective negatives (approval ratings, direction of the country, jobs, economy, etc) against him, Bush nevertheless got more Americans to vote for him than Kerry! Look, I am not looking for the ideal candidate. Maybe they don't exist, and certainly they don't run. Yet, Kerry would have had a good chance of winning if he had never hired the usual losers (read recent post on the consultants) who perpetuate the same stale message and wooden language.

I've been thinking about his for a long time, ever since I realized that too many Americans hold false beliefs on important issues. Yes, it has to do with human psychology, but also it has to do with the images & messages available to them. Even simple things like WMD in Iraq. Further, anyone with a little effort and minimal critical skills could determine that there was no connection between AlQueda and Iraq, and that the latter had nothing to do with 911. Unfortunately, as high as 30-40 % of Americans still maintain those beliefs!
I worked for the Kerry campaign in Ohio, and throughout my stay there I talked to many people. Even those who voted for us admitted to me that Kerry was too confusing! They thought his message wasn't clear enough, and they even held (unfounded) views of him as defined by the other side! Bush's simplistic and emotional message was better received. This is the puzzle we have to solve.

We don't lack the facts or the ability to confront the other side's talking heads. This is important, and we're learning to do so, unlike in the past when we didn't bother to discuss or debate ridiculous arguments. That was a big mistake, because we gave the impression that the Repubs were right! So, again, the impression mattered a lot. Therefore the problem lies elsewhere. The question is how to reach these people. The ones who control the language also tend to win the debates. The Dems must go to school and learn how to frame the issues. I would urge everybody to read George Lakoff's, Don't Think of an Elephant!,which is a blueprint on how the Dems and progressives can win. Lakoff, a linguist, also explains how to frame the issues and use the appropriate language.

We always have to be thinking about the intended audience, because we, thinking progressives, tend to include too many details (which is OK if we're in search of the truth/facts), but we have to craft a powerful message on a few pillars and promote it relentlessly! The details can be available to anyone who cares for them, but too much information, even if correct, often confuses and distracts, making the message less clear. I'm a polisci guy, but like a good comedian I know that if you lose the audience you bomb!