10 words

January 2, 2006

I’m glad to see the fine folks at National Journal’s Hotline are back after a holiday break with a pretty good round-up of political/campaign news from the last two weeks. But like Ezra, I thought one of the items stood out.

Best Good Question To Which I Don’t Yet Have An Answer: IA Gov. Tom Vilsack, who asks in a Heartland PAC e-mail “What are your ten words that define the Democratic Party’s message?”

Ezra suggests it’s crazy to think “a major political party in the world’s most powerful country should be able to define its message in ten words.” I’m not so sure.

I don’t think it’s controversial to believe that Democrats need to do a better job with message development and party sales pitches. Matthew Yglesias noted some months back that The American Prospect solicited ideas from readers for a liberal counter to the conservatives’ “low taxes, traditional family values, and a strong military” frame — and the results were hardly encouraging. It’ll surprise no one to hear that the left is still dealing with the whole “elevator pitch” problem.

With this in mind, it’s not necessarily absurd to think a party’s general approach to government can be summarized quickly and easily. Using Yglesias’ question, the right’s pitch of “low taxes, traditional family values, and a strong military” is only nine words. If you take out “a” and “and,” it’s seven. Does it even begin to address important policy questions like the environment, the judiciary, health care, the budget, and poverty? Not even a little.

But when the typical voter wants to know what the Republican Party is all about, the GOP has these nine words. For the sake of understanding the parties, it doesn’t matter whether these ideas are good, fair, or accurate; it’s about whether the Republicans have a coherent idea about guiding principles that they take to voters. They do. Dems are making progress — admitting you have a problem is always the first step — but I don’t think they’re there quite yet. I hope they keep trying.

Over a year ago, Kevin laid out a rough pitch for the left that read, “Equal rights, economic security, personal liberties, and protection from huge corporations.” Sure, that’s 11 words, but it’s clearly on the right track.

Americans don’t want to be protected from huge corporations. Many Americans get paychecks from them. That smacks of attacking part of what makes America great.

People want to know that their kids will have a better standard of living than they have and that the government will get out of their way making that happen. That means you need to tell tham that their vote brings economic growth, that your future won’t be tied up in debt, that we won’t come into your house, and that this deal is good to everyone.

And you need to use as simple words as possible. Can’t use “economic” as many don’t really understand that. That’s why “low taxes” and “strong military” work.

How about: Financial opportunity and safety, personal freedom, privacy, equality for all.

And it’s even ten words!

  • I’m sure I can come up with better (“this is hard work!”), but here is a start:

    * Good health, good jobs, and good schools through good government.

    * Freedom from fear and freedom to succeed – for all Americans.

    * Bringing America back together for a stronger, safer, better future.

    * The “Right Track” Leads to the Left of Center. (heh.)

    Ok, so this one is too negative, but it really gets to the heart of the problem with the Rethugs’ cheap attacks on government itself over hte years:

    * Wars. Disasters. Recessions. A Government on Your Side Matters.

    and of course, that old 11-word standby that would still be a great ideal today (and one we are far from acheiving):

    * Government of the People, by the People, and for the People.

  • Anyone who runs on the following program wins hands-down:

    National unity (a commitment to reducing, if not eliminating, the divisions in our country)

    Strengthened American industrial and educational competitiveness

    Energy independence

    Fair, effective, and efficient health care

    Honesty and openness in governance

    A total commitment to effectiveness, not idealogy, in government programs

    Individual rights

  • I’m not going to try my hand at sloganizing (at least not today), but I think the Democrats and progressives generally need to start making the positive case for government again.

    For the better part of 40 years now, we’ve been hearing that government is the problem. That’s certainly true of the incompetent and venal government Republican rule has produced, but “government” also helps educate, house, feed and protect millions of Americans. Government has brought us Social Security, public schools, sanitation and highways, health care for the old and the poor, and (some measure of) protection from corporate exploitation and malfeasance. And with the daunting challenges we now face–economic transition, terrorism, and demographic transformation–we’ll need government at its best, run by those who believe in its power to effect positive change, to continue to grow and thrive as a country.

  • I was thinking along the lines of

    “Financial opportunity, real family values, and a united country.”

  • Clean and clear
    Not business as usual but Refreshingly different
    Restoring checks and balances
    Goverment that welcomes investigation
    because it lives by the ideals of democracy

    over ten words, but could be summed up as
    THE NEW AMERICAN REVOLUTION

    As I write this, how can we assume that a dominant democratic party in 2006 will not also become another sex toy in the hands of the big special interests?

    We need REAL reform not just a status quo process with clever progressive counter spinning to counterspin the clever right wing spinners while in fact big money will continue to call the shots behind the scenes no matter who is in power..

    We need to expose the corruption in the whole interconnected process not just one party. (Ike and the military industrial complex is a good place to start)
    I’d like to see a no holds barred housecleaning on both sides of the isle and drastic restructuring of political practices and finances and a rebuilding of trust in the american institutions. I think is would sell, but would politicans really want something like this to gain speed?

  • I’m not buying “strong military.” That’s taking Republican/militarist bait. I’m for a small, effective, flexible defensive force. Defensive. Defensive. No more aggressive action for political gain, and careful adherence to international agreements.

  • Using 10 words to sum up the Democratic platform seems like kind of a trap — as Ezra notes, nobody’s really confused about where the Dems stand on an issue-by-issue basis.

    Instead, the problem is that Republicans take advantage of our “reality-based” approach (which means dealing with nuance, balancing interests, etc.) to portray us as wishy-washy on a personal level … and then claim that this indecisiveness makes us unfit to govern.

    The goal, I think, should be to serve up the same medicine by reframing the GOP’s love of ideological absolutes as a negative, and Democrats’ willingness to address reality as a positive.

    And instead of using a ten-word mantra, Dems can pursue this goal with only two: Common sense.

  • If the Dem pitch doesn’t start with national security it’s a loser. It doesn’t matter how fired up the base gets, it’s a loser. It doesn’t matter how much masturbatory giving the netroots engage in, it’s a loser.

    Not engaging first and foremost on national security is a loser for Dems.

  • I’m thinking of Analytical Liberal’s mantra,
    repeated three times.

    Only nine words, but a powerhouse of a
    triple troika. Sure beats “together, we can
    do better,” which is pathetic.

    I think, first of all, the Dems need to
    stand for something. Then they need
    some buzz words and slogans to sell
    what they stand for. Trying to sell
    nothing is kinda hard.

    At least I know where the Republicans
    come down: throw all the money at the wealthy,
    business and the military, and the rest takes
    care of itself.

  • People’s
    Reform
    Of
    Government
    Republicans
    Earn
    Stiff
    Sentences
     
    It’s not a visionary message, but maybe it ought to be a battle cry of sorts.

  • I, for one, am getting a little sick of these “What do we stand for?” posts.

    If you don’t know what the Democratic Party stands for, then you probably should not be running for office (this means you, Vilsack). If you do know, and just can’t find a concise way to articulate it, then hire an advertising agency, don’t solicit suggestions in a PAC email; that only makes you look like the rudderless idiot that you are trying to convince people that you aren’t. If what you say isn’t being received by the masses, then your problem isn’t figuring out 10 or 11 words.

    JeffStoned and Swopa put their fingers on the real problem: The Democratic Party leaders, at least those in N.Y. and D.C., refuse to publicly defend the political philosophy of the party. Who cares if you come up with a beautifully constructed slogan, if the leaders run away from it every chance they get?

    The Republican Party doesn’t just concoct a bunch of clever slogans, they are slogans which remind people of the arguments which Republicans make.

    “Lower Taxes” is shorthand for “Lower taxes stimulate the economy.” If you don’t believe the latter, the former is not an effective soundbite. Yet, when was the last time a Democrat openly mocked the Republicans for trickle-down economics?

    For the past 20+ years the Republican party has been peddling a set of macroeconomic policies which have been proved as bogus as transmutating lead into gold or creating energy through cold fusion. And yet Democratic leaders have utterly failed to declare that the emperor has no clothes.

    Why is this? Cowardice? Stupidity? Laziness? To be honest, I am a bit perplexed myself. But it contributes to this terrible perception that Democrats don’t stand for anything.

  • Fair taxes, fair trade, fair play and a secure homeland.

    10 words and captures most of a) what we actually stand for, and b) what’s wrong with the GOP

    Fair taxes: the GOP doesn’t want fair taxes they want high taxes on the middle class.

    Fair trade: how else to ensure a strong domestic economy while simultaneously protecting the global environment and helping other nations to develop sustainable economies.

    Fair play: if we fail to take advantage of the scandal plagued GOP we deserve to lose. AND if we don’t clean up our own act we don’t deserve to govern.

    Secure homeland: I’d prefer to state something more internationalist (e.g. fair dealings with other countries), too many voters are insecure. We can’t ignore that. Plus, if we play it right, it shows why we believe rousting the al queada supporting Taliban from Afghanistan was good (they harbored people who attacked us) and why invading Iraq was bad (they didn’t threaten our homeland).

    Fair taxes, fair trade, fair play and a secure homeland.

    With a messanger whose credibilty on the last item is unassailable. Go Wes Clark (with a running mate who bolsters the others…John Edwards anyone?)

  • And if 4 ideas are too much then go with

    Fair taxes, fair play and a secure homeland.

    Fair play can cover fair trade from a policy standpoint as well as the ethics issues.

  • Problems with “Equal rights, economic security, personal liberties, and protection from huge corporations.”

    “Equal rights” is assumed to be a democratic issue (as opposed to a Republican one) and shouldn’t need to be said. Anyone concerned with this issue is already a Dem. To the swing voter, it smacks of “quotas”.

    “Economic Security” smacks of protectionism, which isn’t in vogue in most places.

    We need to focus on the issues that the Republicans have flubbed which are important to the swing voter.

    My 10 words:

    Rule of Law
    Energy Independence
    Smarter Foreign Policies and Taxes

    Most other issues fall under these categories. Health care, for example, falls under Corporate Crime Control and Governmental Integrity. Pollution and corruption fall under Rule of Law. Military issues fall under foreign policy.

  • I always liked Clinton’s mantra about helping those who work hard and play by the rules succeed.

    I strongly disagree with the “fair taxes” suggestion above — right or wrong, if you say anything about taxes except cutting them, you are going to sound like Walter Mondale and lose 49 states. If you want to talk about fiscal discipline, better to talk about leaving our kids with a bright future, not leaving the next generation to clean up our problems, or even just keeping government focused, small and smart.

  • if you say anything about taxes except cutting them, you are going to sound like Walter Mondale and lose 49 states.

    I disagree. Firstly, if we don’t say anything about taxes then that leaves us as the higher taxes by default. Secondly, I believe Americans have a very strong sense of fair play. We can capitalize on that.

    • Comments are closed.