When I was a canvasser, I would employ different strategies in different neighborhoods. For example, in Weiser, Idaho, I wanted to avoid wasting time with conservatives who opposed health care reform, so I said we're working for single-payer national health care like Canada has.
That meant they would slam to the door in my face and I could move on. With folks who seemed more likely to support, I would use less polarizing language in order to have the conversation. We're working to make health care accessible and affordable for all.
But this is the kind of retail, one-on-one conversation that allows for judgment calls and persuasion. It's not mass marketing. In mass-market messaging, you do not want to polarize, because that means you lose the chance of persuasion.
Frank Luntz' entire career is about finding language that does not polarize Republican values and does polarize Democratic values. Take the inheritance tax. People will support the inheritance tax when it's called that, but they oppose death taxes.
Folks can understand the medical necessity of a late-term abortion while opposing partial-birth abortions. Their history of the last 40 years has been finding ways to polarize issues to shut off debate.
It's really dispiriting to see Democrats doing Luntz' work for him.
And yes, I am talking about "Defund the Police" which for most of the people using it, actually means Reimagine Policing, Redirect Police Funding, or even Stop Asking Police to Fix Everything. A slogan really needs to mean what it says.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
