Thread by @DavidPepper

🚨 🚨

A 🧵 on the need for actions to match words

Thank you to those Texas Democrats taking their courageous stand, and thank you to those supporting them in Texas and beyond. Standing up to the anti-democratic tactics of Trump and state leaders

1/

like Abbott is absolutely critical at the moment.

In fact, there is no choice.

As a matter of strategic action, and as a matter of message.

In fact, if our actions don’t match our words, we lose!

2/

For good and for bad, we project powerful messages way beyond the words we use. Drew Westen calls it our “meta-message”— what we communicate from our action or inaction, and the urgency with which we act.

3/

That meta-message becomes especially important as rhetoric heats up and the political battle becomes highly charged.

4/

Think about it this way: less political or less engaged Americans are watching fierce back-and-forth rhetorical battles play out on issues as profound as democracy and the rule of law. The words are at a fever-pitch

5/

At some point, unsure of who to believe amid all that rancor, many may tune out the war of words— but they’re still making judgments based on other cues. That’s where meta-messaging comes in.

6/

And a meta-message that is inconsistent with a heated verbal message could be the ultimate tiebreaker in who those watching believe

7/

Here’s an example: Many Dems spent much of 2021 bemoaning state attacks on voting rights as a dire threat to democracy. (I was one of them—it’s why I wrote Laboratories in the first place.)

But a Senate debate/vote to protect voting rights didn’t occur until January 2022

8/

When it finally came, it felt like the Senate was largely going through the motions. And after that vote failed to overcome the filibuster, no debate occurred for the rest of the term.

Hardly earned a mention.

9/

To many Americans, the meta-message from that long-delayed and half-hearted Senate effort spoke far more loudly than the fierce rhetoric about democracy and voting rights coming from some quarters:

10/

if you really think democracy is under attack, you’d do something about it. You’d fight hard! Since you’re not doing much about it, it must not be that bad.

11/

Here’s another: We labelled January 6 an insurrection—an attack against democracy. Members of Congress were involved in its planning, and many voted against certifying the election early the next morning.

12/

But those members never faced accountability for their actions—for the most part, accountability wasn’t even attempted. Almost all of those involved got reelected, and now they enjoy the majority. As Westen put it to me, “Now we have a House run by coup attempters.”

13/

To many Americans trying to make sense of it all, the meta- message from this sequence comes through loud and clear: “if you really thought they were part of an illegal and criminal insurrection, you would at least try to do something about it….

14/

There would be accountability. Since you didn’t even try, it must not be that bad—especially when we see action taken immediately in other countries.”

15/

More broadly, in the second Trump administration, we are seeing a daily assault on principles, norms and laws that anchor a health democracy. Responding to all of this with a “politics as usual” meta-message risks normalizing it all.

16/

Beyond the general role of meta-messages, certain audiences interpret those meta-messages in ways that drive their own future actions.

Whatever words you may use, if a bully never sees you do a thing to hold him accountable, the meta-message sent is clear.

17/

Westen, again: “When you appease, the message you send to a bully is that you’re weak, and they’ll go after you again.” That has been a consistent theme of the last decade.

18/

Bullies get more aggressive when they detect cowardice and no accountability. They don’t just keep going—they go further.

And if you cower to that bully, those watching that showdown also take note:

19/

“The message you send by cowardice is that you’re a coward, and no one votes for a coward. People vote for the people who show conviction in their firmest beliefs.”

20/

Finally, think of the audience that tends to agree with you, but is unsure if it’s worth leaving their comfort zone to get in the fight. If they see cowardice, or hesitation, most will decide it’s not worth the risk, or their sacrifice.

21/

If the champions of the cause aren’t going all in, why should they?

As a contrast, think about the meta-message sent by John Lewis. And so many like him.

Their lifetimes of action were consistent with their fierce rhetoric.

22/

They never stopped. They took risks. They never backed down. That conviction and persistence and courage comprised a robust meta-message, and legions joined them in what began as impossible fights.

23/

And in April 2023, look at how the nation responded to the “Tennessee Three” when they stood boldly against the gerrymandered Tennessee legislature that voted to oust them.

24/

They fought back fiercely, and woke up the country about how broken these legislatures are. The same thing happened after Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow spoke up so forcefully in 2022.

25/

Democracy is under attack.

In tone and action, and in everything we do, our meta-message must be consistent with that growing threat, along with the words we use to describe it.

26/

Thank you to the Texas Democrats for standing up to the bullies in Austin and DC. And for standing up to new threats and thuggery. Your actions are matching all of our words, and that matters!

Keep going, however long it takes.

27/

And never forget the words of Frederick Douglass, who in his July 4 speech, knew some thought his rhetoric too fiery, to which he replied: “It is not light that we need, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind and the earthquake.”

END