|
I am headed to the airport in a bit, won't be able to respond to comments much immediately, but will be checking when I can over the next few days.
I am even more immersed in public opinion research than usual in this election year summer because of a project that the group I run, American Family Voices, is doing with Drew Westen and with Stan Greenberg's research firms (Westen Strategies and Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research).
As many of you know, Drew is a professor of psychology at Emory University who is probably the leading researcher in the country as to how people's brain react when they are thinking about politics. Drew wrote a book called The Political Brain, which talked about how people react to politics more instinctually and emotionally than in a linear way and that politicians who campaign primarily by talking about 10 point plans and House Resolution 2459 are likely to lose. The book also showed how networks in the brain are activated by certain words and symbols, and why it's important for political leaders to understand how those networks work. Regardless of what people think about the particular rational point that you make, they could easily get turned off if you activate the wrong associations in their brain (e.g., gun control, which trips over a fundamental American value about independence, as opposed to "common sense gun laws," with which most voters-including gun owners-actually resonate).
Drew and Stan Greenberg and I began talking several months ago about doing a project where Drew's ideas on political issue messaging were thoroughly tested in a real-world political context using more traditional polling techniques. We wanted to see if, through trial and error research, we could come up with ways to frame messages on some of the most controversial issues that are out there that would win over the broad majority. With the support of some forward-thinking progressive donors (the project took 10 months and hundreds of hours of work), we were able to do the research, and to look at some of the hottest button issues around - among them gay marriage, immigration, guns, national security, and taxes - and discovered that for the most part, progressives can win solid majorities for their stands on these issues even in regions and demographic groups not normally thought of as progressive.
More in the extended entry. |
| That's the good news, and it is very, very good. We presented thousands of likely voters in a nationwide sample with carefully developed, paragraph-length, values-based language in an audio format online, much as they would hear it in an ad or stump speech, generally 35-45 seconds. We'd first tested and refined the messages in focus groups with voters in the political center. After watching how people reacted to each message and each phrase using online dial tests, we will now test the refined messages through a nationally representative telephone survey.
Of the 10 issues we studied, we produced messages that won solid majorities nationally, some messages on nearly all issues by double-digits, against strong, well-branded conservative messages. But what we also found is that there are deeply ingrained reasons why progressives have had trouble on these issues, and that those troubles won't go away without some inoculation on our part. At times, that's going to mean using some language that some progressives may not be used to using, because the goal is to open the conversation on the issue by making it clear that progressives and Democrats aren't the elitist, culturally suspect left-wingers that many swing voters think we are. Sometimes that means taking back traditional American values that progressives hold as strongly as conservatives but never talk about, like personal responsibility. Sometimes it means using words people have come to associate with the right but that can be reclaimed as part of a progressive narrative.
Let me give you some examples:
What we found on issue after issue is that if we led our messages with the more traditional liberal language about the issues, people stopped listening and we got generally poor results. If, however, we started our message with language that showed we were aware of the ambivalence most people have about controversial issues, demonstrating that we weren't dismissive of the concerns they might have on those issues, we were able to open the door to them understanding and supporting our stand on the issue.
On the role of government, for example, our two most effective messages began:
- "We need leaders who take personal responsibility for their actions and expect the same from our government..."
- "It's time politicians stopped running for or against government, and start running it well...."
By beginning the message with phrases that many people associate with conservatism like "personal responsibility," we help inoculate progressives and open voters up to hearing the progressive point of view - those opening sentences were followed by very progressive language on health care, energy, investing in education, and attacking big business.
We discovered that the same approach works well on virtually all of the "wedge" issues we tested. On abortion, one of our strongest messages started with the phrase, "Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. That's why I'm both pro-choice and pro-personal responsibility." Our best message on guns started with, "My view on guns reflects one principle: that our gun laws should guarantee the rights and freedoms of all law-abiding Americans," and went on to support the right of law-abiding Americans to hunt and protect their families but also to see their kids come home safely from school. One of our most successful messages on gay unions led by acknowledging that marriage is a religious term as well as a legal one, and said that "in this country, we don't' force one person to live by another person's interpretation of scripture"-a point that cuts both ways. Our most successful marriage on gay unions talked about "treating everyone fairly under the law," about not discriminating with specific examples of ways that gay and straight people should be treated fairly, instead of vague references to "rights."
The language we used that worked was generally tough, and even macho and nationalistic at times, redressing the view that progressives are weak and unpatriotic. Several of our messages on the economy dominated the conservative standard principles, including one that started with the single sentence, "I want to see the words 'made in America' again..." and then took a strong populist position on trade and outsourcing. On national security and Iraq, we were able to win with multiple messages, many of which espoused very progressive points of view, but all of which shared one characteristic: They demonstrated conviction and toughness in that conviction.
As with any honest polling, there was also some tough news, although probably most people won't be surprised at much of it. Some of the progressive messages we tested just didn't work, especially without the inoculating language upfront. Although all the language on our side that we tested lined up with the legislative positions of most of the democratic caucus, and far to the left of the existing law on most subjects, we did test a variety of policy positioning, and on many wedge issues found higher positives on more centrist Democratic positioning. Progressive messages on guns won by 10-20 points over the traditional conservative "they want to take away your guns" language that has led Democrats to be silent on this issue, suggesting that we should be playing offense, not defense on guns. But you don't win support for progressive positions on gun issues (background checks, outlawing assault weapons, etc.) unless you make clear from the start that you want to preserve the rights of the people to own guns for hunting and "protecting their families." Similarly, progressive policies on immigration are far more acceptable if you start with tough language on securing our borders and the importance of immigrants learning English. Of course, many of the right and the left actually converge on many of these points, but for different reasons. Progressives have no desire to see the development of a permanent underclass, and the best way to create one is to fail to teach English to new immigrants and their children. In fact, a progressive message that builds the concept of the American Dream into the importance of speaking English does well with people in both the center and the left.
Some of these are tough issues, especially immigration and gay marriage, and not everything we tried worked. We had to experiment with several different messages on some of them before we were able to make them emotionally compelling to the majority of voters. But the point is that it is possible to win on every one of these issues, and to do so in some very unlikely regions of the country. While in many cases we had to use the kind of "inoculating" language I discussed to allow people to first feel comfortable that the speaker shares their values and understands their concerns, the language we ultimately developed and tested was always very clear on the progressive policies it advocated. What our work documented is that Democrats and progressive can take clear progressive positions, even on the toughest issues, and that we can stop being fearful and cautious about the issues we advocate for. In fact, Drew's bottom line message in his book is that progressives and Democrats hurt themselves more by being mealy-mouthed on issues more than they ever have by taking strong stands. When you show yourself to be weak and wish-washy, you send the red flags shooting up high.
We can win on all these issues if we use language that regular people can relate to, and we can win by being strong and clear in terms of where we actually stand. |
© OpenLeft 2007-2008, Powered by 