OurFuture.org Blogs: Bernie Horn

Who’s Winning the Presidential Chess Match?

Bernie Horn — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:28:37 -0400

A high-profile election campaign is more like a chess match than a football game. What’s important isn’t so much the current score (i.e. the polls), it’s the way the game has been played so far. Examine the moves that John McCain has made—his framing of the campaign for persuadable voters. McCain has boxed himself into a difficult endgame.

To explain, let me review the concepts of “persuadable voters” and “framing of a campaign.”

Persuadables—Americans who remain undecided in this election are not like you and me. They haven’t been paying much attention to the candidates. They probably didn’t watch the conventions or the presidential debate. They’ll start thinking seriously about this election sometime in the next week or two, or maybe not until the final weekend. A recent Associated Press poll found that 18 percent remain persuadable—which seems about right.

Framing—A campaign’s frame is the big-picture reason to support the candidate. For example, in 1992 the Clinton frame was “the economy, stupid,” designed to focus voters on the question “Which candidate is more likely to fix the economy?” That year, Clinton was the obvious answer. In 2004, the Bush campaign focused on the question “Which candidate is the ‘strong’ one?” That year, Kerry was painted as a weak flip-flopper so Bush could be seen as the strong leader in a time of war.

Those of us in the progressive base, as well as those in the conservative base, tend to support our candidates because we agree with them on a variety of issues. But persuadable voters generally don’t decide that way. Persuadables are captured by an effective frame.

Back to the chess game. It takes tremendous work—usually over a period of months—for a campaign to link a candidate to a frame in the minds of persuadable voters. We all know Obama’s frame because he’s repeated it for 18 months: it’s change. Obama recognizes that Americans overwhelmingly believe the country’s headed in the wrong direction, and he promises to change directions. It’s a simple, effective frame, and actually not very different from the one that worked for Clinton in 1992.

But what is McCain’s frame? What’s the story that might make him the choice of persuadable voters? Before the GOP convention, McCain’s frame was experience. He said you can’t trust the presidency to someone who has only a few years in high-level electoral politics, and that Obama is no more than a Paris Hilton celebrity. But in recent weeks, he's effectively destroyed that frame. First, the selection of Sarah Palin crushed McCain’s credibility to argue over experience—because she’s less experienced than Obama, and far more a celebrity candidate. Second, Obama’s debate performance made the McCain experience argument seem absurd on its face.

McCain might try to shift his frame to national security. Pundits argued all summer that McCain’s military background gives him a huge advantage, and early polls seemed to support the idea that voters trust McCain more than Obama to keep America safe from terrorists. Yet, recent polls indicate that Obama won the debate on national security. More important, Americans are much more focused on the economy than they are on foreign affairs. Unless there is another terrorist attack on the U.S. or Bush invades some unfortunate country before the election, it’s very unlikely that security issues will win over the persuadables.

What about McCain’s reputation as a straight-talker? For years, the media trumpeted McCain’s truthfulness and honor to the point that reporters seemed to be his greatest supporters. But the press has fallen out of love with McCain over his easily-debunked lies, his refusal to talk to the media, and his walling off of Sarah Palin from reporters. Without media support, the straight-talker frame falls apart.

In fact, McCain has made so many wild, unconventional, or ill-advised moves in this game that he has few options left. Apparently his latest attempt at framing is to position himself as the “maverick.” He and Palin are trying to portray themselves as full-fledged anti-Washington populists. In other words, he is agreeing with Obama that voters should focus on the question “Which candidate is more likely to bring change to Washington?” McCain is arguing that he’s the agent of change while Obama is for more of the same.

I am not so foolish as to say that Obama can’t lose. But if McCain doesn’t shift gears, and soon, he can’t win. It is irrational to expect persuadable voters to see a 72-year-old, 26-year Washington veteran, who is white, conservative, and Republican as the candidate of change against the likes of Barack Obama. Both progressive and conservative partisans who've followed McCain's career for years can at least imagine him as the "maverick." But for persuadable voters—who simply don't pay that much attention to politics—the idea is too much of a stretch.

What does that mean for progressives around the nation?

First, progressive advocates should double-down on the theme of change. When both presidential candidates are for change, down-ballot conservative defenders of the status quo are at a big disadvantage.

Second, with both presidential candidates running anti-Washington campaigns, absolutely nobody is defending the President. It’s a great time for progressives to jump aboard the Populist Express, arguing that the failures of the Bush Administration are failures of ideology, not policy execution.

Third, progressives everywhere should focus on five simple economic contrasts:

On jobs, contrast conservative trickle-down with progressive growth.

On health care, contrast conservative market schemes with progressive affordable health care for all.

On trade, contrast conservative unfair trade with progressive fair trade.

On Social Security, contrast conservative privatization with progressive strengthening of the trust fund.

On energy, contrast conservative cheerleading for the oil industry with progressive energy independence.

To learn more about how these economic contrasts can checkmate the conservatives, click here.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the recent book, Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People.

How to Talk About Security in a Post-9/11 America

Bernie Horn — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:40:50 -0400

Here is the “lesson” of 9/11: Never forget that the top priority of any government is to keep its citizens safe from harm.

Many progressive candidates forgot that lesson in 2002 and 2004, and lost. In those years, too many Americans thought that conservatives were for security and progressives were against it. More recently, conservatives lost the election of 2006 in large part because they bungled the job of ensuring security.

Today, conservatives know their spin. They holler “don’t cut and run,” “don’t surrender,” and “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” The “nation’s at war,” they shout, because the terrorists “hate our freedoms.”

And the progressive response is . . . what?

Whatever our national security objective—whether it’s the withdrawal of troops, the initiation of diplomacy, greater participation by our allies, the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison, or something else—we must always begin by stating firmly that our goal is to make America safer. Only then should we go on to explain how our solution accomplishes that goal. Our fellow citizens want to hear how America is going to protect Americans. Once you address that concern, you’ve got their attention and they’re ready to listen.

Unfortunately, as I’ve given message-framing workshops around the country, I’ve noticed that progressives usually detour around the word security. That word seems to stick in our throats, primarily because we’re worried we’ll sound like conservatives. Sometimes it even seems like we don’t want to argue the issue. But, this is an argument we want to have. To quote the president, “Bring it on.”

Since 2001, conservatives have devastated national security:

The Bush Administration’s utter contempt for our traditional allies, its violations of the Geneva Conventions, and its refusal to comply with important treaties have sacrificed America’s moral standing in international affairs. As a result, our nation is now far less able to protect Americans and American interests worldwide.

The neoconservative doctrine that justified preemptive war in Iraq has fractured our military forces and the cost of that war—$656 billion and counting—has devastated our economy.

The massive tax breaks for the wealthy enacted by a conservative-controlled Congress greatly inhibit our ability to deal with security issues, from international terrorism to emergency preparedness.

In every important way, the right wing has made our country less secure.

At the same time, almost two-third of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq. And persuadable voters believe, by a 2-to-1 margin, that America’s security depends on building strong ties with other nations rather than on our own military strength.

So let’s keep the upper hand in this debate. Whether we’re talking about terrorism, Iraq, military policy, nuclear proliferation, or domestic security, make it clear that we are for commonsense policies that will make all Americans safer.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the recent book, Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People.

From the People Who Brought You Misery...

Bernie Horn — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:28:03 -0400

Misery in America has risen to record levels—according to the Bush administration!

This morning, the Labor Department reported that the unemployment rate rose to 6.1 percent for August 2008, a substantial increase from July’s rate of 5.7 percent. This is the highest unemployment America has seen in five years.

Podcast

Hear Economic Policy Institute President Lawrence Mishel discuss today's unemployment report and how it should affect the debate on how to stimulate the economy.

Those of you who were around for the Carter and Reagan campaigns, do you remember the “misery index”? The misery index is an economic indicator that combines unemployment and inflation rates. It was created by Arthur Okun, a highly-respected economist who served as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Lyndon Johnson.

As a result of today’s unemployment statistics, the misery index is up to 11.7 percent (6.1 percent unemployment plus 5.6 percent inflation). The misery index is now worse than it’s been in any month since May 1991. We haven’t been this miserable in more than 17 years.

Progressives should be talking about the misery index right now. It is a terrific message frame.

Polls show that Americans believe we’re in a recession. But because “recession” is a technical term and economists can’t say whether the economy meets the definition, progressive candidates and leaders shy away from using the word.

They can get the same idea across by using the misery index. And what a descriptive term that is! Who can doubt that the economy is miserable?

Many of you remember that the misery index played an important role in the presidential campaigns of 1976 and 1980. In ’76, Jimmy Carter charged that no one responsible for a high misery index should be reelected president. (It was a little over 13 percent that fall.) Ronald Reagan famously turned the misery index against Carter in ’80, pointing out that stagflation had increased the index to more than 20 percent.

Once again the unemployment and inflation are increasing at the same time. Let’s talk about our nation’s misery.

For a convenient listing of the monthly misery index since 1948, click here.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the recent book, Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People.

What We Stand For—In Twelve Words

Bernie Horn — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:58:21 -0400

There’s no doubt that George W. Bush’s administration has been a catastrophe, and that historians will one day rank him as one of our nation’s very worst presidents. We’ve got to take back America—now—before solutions to national and global problems slip away into the distant future.

Because Bush and his allies have failed, our fellow citizens are ready to consider the progressive message. But what is it? In simple terms that all Americans understand, what do we stand for?

It’s crucial for us to have a simple, compelling answer. Yes, we’re for change…and prosperity, and peace. But these generalities aren’t persuasive enough. As U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan told a reporter for the New York Times:

I can describe, and I’ve always been able to describe, what Republicans stand for in eight words, and the eight words are lower taxes, less government, strong defense and family values. . . . We Democrats, if you ask us about one piece of that, we can meander for 5 or 10 minutes in order to describe who we are and what we stand for. And frankly, it just doesn’t compete very well.

The generic conservative message is pretty much taken for granted. Paul Waldman calls “low taxes, small government, strong defense, and traditional values” the “Four Pillars of Conservatism.” In Don’t Think of an Elephant!, George Lakoff listed the conservative message in ten words: strong defense, free markets, lower taxes, smaller government, family values.”

So what’s our philosophy? Fair wages, fair markets, health security, retirement security, equal justice…for all. Let me describe each in turn.

Fair wages means that we recognize and will address the problem of income inequality. Everyone wants, and deserves, a fair wage for their work. We’ll push toward this goal by increasing the minimum wage, promoting unions, and adopting a progressive strategy toward globalization.

Fair markets is the progressive response to free markets. Progressives need to employ this term to defend our economic ideology. There’s simply no such thing as a “free” market. If we continue to let the term go unchallenged without a proactive alternative, we may never overcome conservative economic framing.

Health security is a no-brainer. Quality, affordable health care for all is both an essential policy and a wildly popular one.

Retirement security may be the next healthcare. Baby Boomers are retiring, Social Security needs repairing, and current jobs generally don’t include any reasonable provisions for retirement pensions.

Equal justice encompasses many other values. This phrase is not only about justice in courts; we mean something broader—economic and social justice. After all, that’s what government is for. As James Madison wrote in The Federalist, “Justice is the end of government.”

Finally, for all represents the key distinction between progressive and conservative. Conservatives seek rights and opportunities for a select few. Progressives seek them for all.

You may look at this short description of progressivism and say there’s so much missing. What about environmentalism? Energy independence? Or national security? We can still talk about those. But the point of this exercise is to create a list that’s short enough to remember and repeat, while emphasizing the strengths of our progressive philosophy. We’re a multi-dimensional movement, but our strong suit is economic policy.

These twelve words are entirely consistent with the Democratic National Platform, which says in its very first paragraph:

We believe that each American, whatever their background or station in life, should have the chance to get a good education, to work at a good job with good wages, to raise and provide for a family, to live in safe surrounding, and to retire with dignity and security. We believe that quality and affordable health care is a basic right. We believe that each succeeding generation should have the opportunity, though hard work, service and sacrifice, to enjoy a brighter future than the last.

This is our time. The supreme challenge for progressives in 2008 is to focus our message so that all Americans understand who we are and what we stand for. If we succeed, we can change the future…for all.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the recent book, Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People.

How to Frame the 2008 Campaign

Bernie Horn — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:46:45 -0400

Barack Obama just telegraphed the entire 2008 election. He revealed the only campaign theme that McCain can successfully employ. Here’s what Obama said:

“So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me… What they’re going to argue is I’m too risky.” Associated Press

As we fight over individual issues in this election season, let’s not lose sight of the big picture. Unlike partisans, persuadable voters are not much interested in candidates’ specific issue positions. Issues don’t matter to them unless they are illustrative of a larger theme. (And remember, you’re hearing this from someone who works on issues every day—like all of these.)

What kind of theme persuades undecided voters?

The theme of the 1992 Clinton campaign was “the economy, stupid.” You knew that! James Carville and company turned that election into a referendum on the question of which candidate would better repair the nation’s economy. It’s the question that mattered. If, by voting, Americans were answering that question, then Bill Clinton was the obvious choice. If voters thought their ballots were answering the question “Who’s best on foreign policy?” Bush would have been the answer. So the Clinton campaign highlighted economic policies, not as a laundry list but as illustrations of its “the economy, stupid” theme.

Similarly, the theme of the 2004 Bush campaign was strength. Karl Rove knew that Americans were deeply affected by 9/11; their sense of security had been shaken. He also knew that George Bush was perceived as a strong leader, someone who was supremely confident of his direction (even when all evidence pointed the opposite way). So Rove set out to frame the election as a referendum on which candidate was stronger. While Bush played the macho cowboy, his campaign pulled out all the stops to portray John Kerry—who won a Bronze Star, a Silver Star, and three Purple Hearts for his service in Vietnam—as a weakling.

The book Take It Back, by Carville and Paul Begala, includes a heart-breaking account of behind-the-scenes decision making in the Kerry campaign. Kerry focused on a laundry list called J-HOS, which stood for Jobs, Health Care, Oil, Security. As Carville and Begala lament:

“That, of course, is a litany, not a narrative. Calling ‘J-HOS’ a message is like calling a supermarket full of food a gourmet meal.”

Despite impassioned pleas by both authors, Kerry would not adopt a frame. Carville and Begala explain that this played right into the Bush strategy of defining John Kerry as “weak, waffling, and weird.” The Bush attack worked—Kerry was painted as a cartoon image of a liberal—because voters didn’t know what Kerry stood for, really. Moreover, they believed he didn’t know himself. (Don’t your ears still turn red just thinking about 2004? What a nightmare!)

That brings us to 2008. What is McCain’s theme? How would he like to frame the question that the voters answer on Election Day? It’s fear! Which candidate are you afraid of? Which is the greater risk? Which is inexperienced in a time of terrorism and war? Granted, this is a pretty pathetic reason to vote for McCain—but it’s the only thing he has. McCain can’t win based on a positive message. Nobody believes he’ll change anything in Washington; just about everyone realizes he would continue Bush’s policies. That explains McCain’s recent campaign tactics, including going so negative so soon. He can’t win any other way.

Accept the fact that persuadable voters are uncomfortable with Obama at present. Because they’ve been paying little attention to the campaign until now, they hardly know who he is. (At a recent focus group of undecided voters, I watched behind the one-way mirror as one participant insisted that Obama is a minister.) If McCain and his pals spend enough money on it—and his friends in the media repeat charges instead of debunking them—their tactic could succeed.

Obama’s theme is change. You knew that, too! Americans are fully aware that our country is careening wildly down the wrong road. They desperately want change. But change is, by definition, risky. Change is scary. That’s why Obama has been trying so hard in recent weeks to act and speak like a mainstream candidate. That’s why he’s veered away from some of the populist language he used in the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries, and gone back to the values-based language used in his books. It sounds reassuring; it counters the McCain fear-mongering.

Terrorism and war are the issues that best fit McCain’s theme because persuadable voters remain fearful that their families could be killed by terrorists. Seriously! According to a recent CNN poll, 35 percent of Americans think “acts of terrorism in the United States” are very or somewhat likely “over the next several weeks.” In another poll, nearly 40 percent responded that they are very or somewhat worried “that you or someone in your family will become a victim of terrorism.” See both polls here. So expect McCain to come back to life-and-death issues again and again.

Domestic economic issues best fit Obama’s theme. If we make the election about changing the way our nation addresses education, energy, health, housing, infrastructure, trade, and wages, Obama—and progressive candidates across the nation—will win.

So let’s all do our part by repeating the change mantra while trumpeting these issues. But let’s also frame our policies as mainstream and commonsense, so persuadable voters will understand that we offer nothing they need to fear. How? The talking points can be found right here at our Making Sense 2008 website.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the recent book, Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People.

We're the Patriots

Bernie Horn — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:47:10 -0400

Liberals, lefties, Democrats, environmentalists, unionists, consumer advocates—all progressive types—suffer from negative stereotypes. Some of these stereotypes were invented by the right-wing messaging machine, and others are self-inflicted. The stereotype that we progressives are unpatriotic is a product of both.

It is true that the right wing has been engaged in a concerted campaign to persuade voters that progressives “hate America.” As far back as the 1984 Republican National Convention, Americans were told that progressives are the “blame America first” crowd.

Here’s the right wing apostle of hate, Ann Coulter, on the show Hardball:

MIKE BARNICLE: But do you believe that—do you believe that liberals hate America and the flag? Do you believe that?
ANN COULTER: Yes. In fact, I have documented it and written columns about it. They hate it much more than I had imagined.
BARNICLE: What about Bob Kerrey? What about Bob Kerrey? He’s a liberal. Does he hate the flag? Does he hate the flag?
COULTER: The anecdotal evidence is just, is just preposterous in this regard. I have footnotes. I do back this up. I have quotes in the book.

More recently, conservatives tried to smear Barack Obama on the grounds that he attended a “hate America sermon” preached by Reverend Jeremiah Wright. You can bet that the right wing will wave their “Democrats are unpatriotic” banner this fall—because they’ve got little else to say.

It should be easy to rebut this attack. The problem is, we progressives often lean into the punch.

We do hate injustice in America. We are eager to make our country better, and fast. Sometimes undecided voters hear our frustration and take it to mean that we don’t love America. And it is awfully hard to persuade those Americans to join us if they don’t think that we’re on their side.

So let’s all understand: By wanting to fix our nation’s problems, we show that we love America. There’s nothing more patriotic than standing up for our democracy. There’s nothing more patriotic than defending our Constitution.

When we oppose warrantless wiretapping and domestic spying because they violate our Constitution, that’s patriotic.
When we support unions because they strengthen the American economy, that’s patriotic.
When we work to provide health care for all, because that makes Americans more secure, that’s patriotic.
When we seek to save the lives of our soldiers by bringing them home from a reckless, unnecessary war, that’s patriotic.
When we fight to turn our nation into a true land of opportunity and struggle to make the American Dream a reality for millions of Americans, that’s patriotic

So this Fourth of July, hold your head up. It’s a celebration of revolutionaries who loved America but hated the injustices in their society and government. It’s a celebration of political ideals—“that all men are created equal” and that we have “unalienable rights” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Those are progressive ideals.

Let’s make it clear to all Americans that we progressives are the partisans for equality and justice; we are the ones trying to lead our country closer to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. We’re the patriots.

(For more about how to communicate the patriotism of progressives, see the author’s recent book Framing the Future.)

Why Aren’t We Shouting the Battle Cry of Freedom?

Bernie Horn — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:40:11 -0400

Last Thursday, when asked whether the constitutional right of habeas corpus could be suspended for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States Constitution. George Bush and John McCain reacted the same way (as usual). They were appalled.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats in Congress (and a few principled Republicans, such as Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Spector) did a pretty good job defending the Court. They focused on preserving habeas corpus, protecting the rule of law, and defending our “core values.” But they missed the opportunity to present the progressive position within the strongest possible message frame—the principle of freedom.

Why freedom? It is, quite simply, the most popular political principle in America. This is not merely an assertion; it is the conclusion of a nationwide poll conducted by Lake Research Associates. Why should we be surprised by that? Freedom is the cornerstone of America’s value system. It is the most sacred word in our civic religion. It’s the battle cry that best sums up the reason for our nation’s founding.

But it is also a major stumbling block for progressives, because this word is barely on the fringe of our vocabulary. That is our biggest message framing problem because, as Celinda Lake says, “If we want to compete on values, we have to find a way to use freedom.”

After years of warrantless wiretapping, illegal imprisonments, and torture, we should all be saying the F-word with regularity. No, no, I mean freedom. Why do progressives seem allergic to this word? Why aren’t we shouting the battle cry of freedom?

Maybe we’re afraid. In a democracy, the causes for which freedom is most necessary are almost by definition unpopular. It certainly seems unpopular to defend the rights of criminals, or even suspects. Maybe we look askance at the word because we feel it’s been co-opted by the right wing—like wearing little American flag pins.

But really, we need not be afraid or uncomfortable. Consider the experience of Jon Tester, now a Democratic Senator from Montana. In the middle of his 2006 campaign against 18-year incumbent Conrad Burns, Tester was attacked in a televised debate for criticizing the USA Patriot Act. Here is his reply:

Let me be clear, I don’t want to weaken the Patriot Act, I want to repeal it. . . . What it does is it takes away your freedoms. This country was based on freedom. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have fought and died for our freedoms. Take away our freedoms and the terrorists will have won.

Jon Tester’s defense of the progressive position with the mainstream American value of freedom was both truthful and popular. Let’s follow his example.

Let us make it clear to all Americans that we progressives consider it a solemn responsibility to fiercely guard our constitutional and human rights to freedom. Let’s use freedom as our bully pulpit when arguing that government is out of control. Let’s point out that freedom is one of our most cherished values. Let’s remind Americans that Clarence Darrow was right when he said, “You can protect your liberties in this world only by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can be free only if I am free.”

(For more about freedom, see the author’s recent book Framing the Future.)

How Progressives Can Be Making Sense in 2008

Bernie Horn — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:18:54 -0400

Let me tell you about a new project from Campaign for America’s Future called "Making Sense 2008." Or, if you want, skip this advertisement and go right to the project’s first set of talking points.

I’m sure it’s no surprise to you that most Americans are progressive on most issues. By margins of at least two to one, our fellow citizens believe corporations and upper-income people are paying too little in federal taxes; oppose repealing the federal estate tax; favor quality, affordable health care for all “even if it means raising your taxes”; support the idea that the federal Medicare program should negotiate prescription drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies; want federal action to address global warming; would require auto manufacturers to make cars more energy efficient; say laws covering the sale of handguns should be more strict; think labor unions are necessary to protect workers; believe that gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the military; and do not want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

That’s the good news. Here’s the bad. Most Americans also support traditional conservative principles—limited government, lower taxes, free markets, and personal responsibility. (Yes, friends, polls persistently show this.) In other words, a large group of Americans favor both progressive policy and conservative philosophy. As a result, they may side with either progressives or conservatives, depending on how a political question is framed.

These are the persuadable voters. They’re the ones who will make the difference in the 2008 election because, unlike the progressive/Democratic or conservative/Republican base, they can be persuaded to join either side. And the only way to persuade them is to address issues that are most important to them in language that appeals to them.

Here’s my point—I doubt that very many of this column’s readers are persuadable voters. You’ve made up your mind already. So you’re different than the people we have to convince. Compared to persuadable voters, you may have a different set of concerns and somewhat different values, and you undoubtedly pay more attention to political news, know more political facts, and make different assumptions when thinking about issues.

In short, if an argument appeals to you—a committed partisan—it probably doesn’t appeal to persuadable voters!

So I’m asking you to do something that is not natural for progressives—take direction from poll-tested message frames. How will you know what to say? Making Sense 2008 will produce and distribute research-based talking points on a variety of issues during the election season.

\The first is about McCain’s health care plan and you can see it here: http://www.ourfuture.org/makingsense2008. If you want to receive these talking points—sent about once a week at first and then more frequently as Election Day approaches—please sign up by clicking here.

There’s no doubt that George W. Bush’s administration has been a catastrophe, and that historians will one day rank him as one of our nation’s very worst presidents. That’s why this election is so critical—the very soul of America hangs in the balance. We’ve got to take back America, and soon, before solutions to national and global problems slip beyond our reach. I know you’re going to work your hearts out. Let us help you become a more effective advocate.

How to Talk about McCain's Age

Bernie Horn — Mon, 05 May 2008 00:11:28 -0400

My wife warned me not to write about John McCain’s age. “You’ll get busted by the PC police,” she said. Well, I’m guilty, but with an explanation.

Fact: If elected, John McCain, who turns 72 in August, would be the oldest person ever elevated to president. Ronald Reagan was a spry 69 when first elected.
Fact: Voters are fully aware of McCain’s advanced age. He looks a lot older than Reagan ever did.
Fact: Voters generally consider advanced age to be a perfectly legitimate issue. And they will in this general election.

So shouldn’t progressives talk about it? Yes, but the message frame isn’t “geezer.” We progressives don’t discriminate on the basis of age. If McCain is physically and mentally fit to hold our nation’s highest office, we won’t deny it to him on the basis of longevity. But just because we oppose ageism doesn’t mean we should ignore what voters are thinking.

Let’s start with a February 2008 CBS News/New York Times poll which asked, “In general, what is the best age for a president of the United States: in their 30s, in their 40s, in their 50s, in their 60s, or in their 70s?" Here’s the answer:

30s	40s	50s	60s	70s	Unsure
2%	20%	48%	18%	2%	10%

A 70-something just isn’t the voters’ ideal president. It’s not that voters dislike old people. It’s that they look at such a candidate and think: (1) his health might fail while in office, and (2) he might be out of touch with contemporary issues and attitudes. In fact, DNC-sponsored focus groups found that voters volunteer exactly those concerns about McCain.

Here’s where progressives need to understand framing. All of us carry preconceptions, stereotypes and pictures in our heads which we use to make sense of new information. In fact, people can apply more than one stereotype to just about any person, policy, or situation. A child who runs into a burning home to save the family cat can be framed as “brave” or “reckless.” Voters will think about McCain’s age—the question is what preconception or frame they will use to pass judgment on it.

Republicans are all prepared with a frame to jettison McCain’s age problem—they’ll say that McCain is essentially the same as Ronald Reagan. Progressives may revile Reagan, but persuadable voters revere him. If the GOP succeeds in tying McCain to the Gipper, the Senator’s age will switch from a liability to an asset.

So the Republican frame is McCain equals Reagan. What’s ours? When voters think about McCain’s age, what’s the picture we want appearing in their heads? Remember that voters have two concerns: A 72-year-old could be less than healthy, or out of touch. Republican handlers could address the health issue by displaying an energetic candidate on the campaign trail. (The Reagan campaign showed him lifting weights and chopping wood.) Attacking McCain’s health is not the answer.

Instead, we want McCain’s age to remind voters that he is hopelessly out of touch with Americans’ needs, desires and concerns. And here’s the great advantage to that frame—it’s true! Just point out that McCain doesn’t think health insurance should pay for birth control pills. He opposed establishment of the Martin Luther King holiday. He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. He voted against SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. He was anti-environment in every significant vote last year according to the League of Conservation Voters. And he has no problem keeping our troops in Iraq for the next 100 years. He’s dangerously out of touch.

While voters are in an anti-Washington mood, McCain has been a Washington insider forever (well, his 36 years in Congress seems like forever). While voters are eager to dump Bush administration policies, McCain enthusiastically embraces them, no matter how dismally they’ve failed. While voters desperately want change, McCain would stubbornly give us more of the same. He’s willfully out of touch.

So don’t talk about his age. Explain to undecided voters that McCain is hopelessly, dangerously, willfully out of touch with America. They’ll make the connection themselves.

PC police, can you remove the handcuffs now?

How to Talk About Health Care

Bernie Horn — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:40:28 -0400

Meet the Author

Bernie Horn, a Campaign for America's Future fellow, will be discussing his latest book, "Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People," 7 p.m. April 29 in Washington at Olsson's Books, 1307 19th Street NW. For more information, see the book's official web site.

John McCain will be spending the week promoting his health care scheme. The crux of the plan is to abolish employer-based health insurance and throw middle class working Americans to the wolves. It is market fundamentalism at its worst.

But I’m not here to talk about the policy details. I want to discuss message framing. During an election campaign, when our ultimate audience is persuadable voters, how do we talk about health care?

Let’s first understand McCain’s frame. His campaign understands one crucial fact (if nothing else): About 95 percent of the voters in the 2008 general election will be insured—the uninsured don’t tend to vote. Extensive polling and focus group research has shown, without a doubt, that people who are insured are more interested in preserving and improving their own coverage than in covering the uninsured. Americans want “quality, affordable health care.” But of the two concepts, they are more focused on affordability than on quality.

McCain is trying to convince voters that Democrats are all about covering the uninsured while he, on the other hand, is all about lowering health care costs. Understand that this is a good strategy because it fits voters’ stereotypes of Democrats (and is fairly true). To our credit, we focus on “universal” or “single-payer” coverage, “Medicare for all,” “Canadian-style” health, and the like. But this is not good message framing for the 2008 election.

“Single-payer” makes persuadable voters—the swing voters who will decide this election—think of bureaucracy, inefficiency, and bad service (like the “typical” department of motor vehicles). You’d think that one way to sell health coverage would be to refer to one of our nation’s great success stories—Medicare. Unfortunately, Americans have become wary of Medicare, in large part because the Bush administration botched Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit.

And unfortunately, many Americans have a negative impression of the Canadian health care system. More important—because it applies to more than just health care—Americans are not persuaded by comparisons to other nations. If they were, we’d already have single-payer health care, strict gun control, and voting rights for ex-offenders, and we would have abolished the death penalty and signed the Kyoto treaty on global warming years ago. Americans want an American solution. (You’re going to hurt your eyes if you roll them like that.) This is politics; just go with the flow. Evoking national pride helps us enact programs that benefit our fellow citizens—so just do it.

But, you respond, these voters are wrong! We need to educate them about the merits of single-payer, Medicare, and the Canadian system, you say. I’m sorry, but politics doesn’t work that way. You can’t change people’s minds in the course of a campaign—that takes years and there’s not enough time. No, our goal is not to change minds, it is to convince voters that they agree with us already.

We do that by starting from a point of agreement—where polls show that persuadable voters are on our side—and lead them to see that our solution fits their preconceptions.

In the case of McCain’s proposal, the key fact is that the tax provisions will encourage companies to drop health insurance as an employer-provided benefit. Fortune Magazine points this out by quoting an expert in the field: “I predict that most companies would stop paying for health care in three to four years,” says Robert Laszewski, a consultant who works with corporate benefits managers.

Put another way, the McCain plan will cause businesses to drop health care benefits like a rotten egg from a picnic basket. The argument for McCain depends on the idea that once they cut health care benefits, corporations will increase our salaries to offset our loss! And no persuadable voter in America will believe this. So if you're middle-class in America, this plan should scare the sox off of you. This is Bush economics on steroids!

But also, look at it this way. There may be no more important ammunition in the fight against McCain than his health care scheme. If on Election Day voters truly understand this proposal, McCain will be defeated in a landslide.

So let’s reframe the health care debate. It’s not about Democratic coverage versus Republican cost-cutting. It’s about McCain’s radical scheme to dump our employer-provided health insurance coverage into a ditch.