Every place and context is different, to be sure. But the things I learned from the Irish and Argentinian campaigns to legalize abortion are absolutely on my mind here and now. /1
In Ireland, for example, the embrace of the 3 c's: care, compassion and change, none of which was choice. This core slogan contextualizes abortion as something a desirable society has - it seizes the moral high ground. Choice emerges from a libertarian - individual frame. /2
And from Argentina, the interplay of multiple messages - one to engage the base and move them to repetition, another to persuade the conflicted, and a third that unabashedly marginalized the opposition. Yet all coherent thanks to echoed symbology. /4
The base message? "La revolución de las hijas" and the pañuelos verdes, an emblem that attaches back to the white kerchiefs the Madres de la Plaza wore - to the relentless mobilization of older generations of women against the previous dictatorship. /5
The persuasion message? "Salvemos miles de vidas" "we'll save thousands of lives" delivered by medical care providers from the provinces, where folks were far more conflicted/on fence than in the city. Reclaiming "life." /6
And marginalizing oppo? Neon green glowing coat hangers, again same color as kerchiefs, out in all the marches. And then hanging the names of the Senators who had voted "no" the first time in the square in front on Congress. /7
Follow up responses on "choice": Even in hyper individual US, shown in testing to be ineffective. It activates stereotyping b/c "choice" normally used for simple, consumer decisions (decaf or caf, skim or whole). Signals a decision made lightly, not of consequence.
As Reproductive Justice leaders & scholars have argued, "choice" ignores the *economic* elements of issue - what good is the "right" to abortion if you can't actually access it because of money/time/hurdles?
Further, "choice" and whole "get gov't out" libertarian framework paved way for not just Hyde Amendment but entire notion that kids are basically like pets - privately owned "products" that are only responsibility of their guardians.
"Why should I pay for X, you chose to have that child?" argument rests upon idea that parenting (and not parenting) is wholly individual issue. Ditto "school choice" aka privatization of public education.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We know how to win against right wing race baiting and this applies also to anti LGBTQ fear mongering. We have done it. Here's the story of winning WI, and with it the White House, in 2020: wordstowinby-pod.com/season-2-episo…
Here's the tale from MN 2018 flipping the state house, winning all the exec races and 2 Senate seats despite unending anti-Muslim, anti-Black, anti-immigrant invectives from GOP: wordstowinby-pod.com/greater-than-f…
Overseas this also applies. Here's how a brand new grassroots group blocked the far right ruling party in Switzerland's omnipresent zenophobia: wordstowinby-pod.com/equal-rights-u…
Once more: If you present yourself as the B- version of your opposition, you reaffirm their claim to merit power moving conflicted voters to them while utterly demobilizing your base.
The overwhelming embrace of @MalloryMcMorrow's speech is proof positive of how desperate people are to hear Democrats actually stand up for what is right.
What McMorrow did was say what she is for - speak up from a place of values, seize the moral high ground. Then, she called out the opposition, exposing not just their lies but revealing the motivation behind them. Not just the what but the why.
Glad to see the punditocracy dedicated to silencing conversations about race and gender awakened to reality that if you want people to come to your cause - you must say what you're for and make clear why the opposition spreads lies and sows division.
Two years of 2-4 focus groups a *week* with every demographic you can imagine. Number of times anyone has said "wokeness" or "defund" or "cancel culture" in response to "what do you dislike about Dems" - zero.
Of course, if you push poll people into this - you can get some to agree this upsets them. But what are top of mind frustrations for potential Dem voters? What electeds are NOT doing to stand up for working people of every color, background and gender.
Those arguing Durbin had to speak on this: The way to do that is by saying what KBJ is for - not repeating and therefore bringing top of mind what she opposes./1
Rather than engaging the "when did you stop beating your wife" convo, you say - "KJB is a lifelong champion for children's rights & wellbeing in face of corporations who deny their families decent wages and lobby politicians to block benefits..."/2
"But today, the very same politicians literally taking food from kids' lunches & plunging their parents into poverty by blocking childcare credits want to spin sick lies about KJB so they can rule for the wealthy, white few."/3
Addressing right-wing claims by rebutting them is handing the GOP a club and hoping they don’t hit you with it. Whether it’s Nixon telling us he’s not a crook or Biden repeating he doesn't want to defund police, negating constructions simply reinforce the original claim. /1
In research on negating statements, respondents recall the topic but not whether the assertion was a confirmation or disavowal. /2
Repeating Dems don't want to defund the police, or perhaps flipping the coin to promise more cash for cops or plans to secure the border is to cede the terms of conversation. /3
Sometimes I am absolutely so frustrated and saddened at having to answer the “how should Dems be messaging” interview when the conversation ought to be - why is the media so unwilling to cover the authoritarian power grab by the MAGA Faction? The decimation of freedom?
And then having to listen to admonitions that Dems should simply screw progressives who are purportedly to blame - when it’s the corporate sell outs who blockade the bills the majority favor and progressives have led the way on?
And further still, to have those admonitions the week that we honor MLK which is also the week that every Senate Republican voted against even having to consider that all of us merit equal freedom to say who represents us?