That…took a turn there at the end. But yes. I am itching to deliver a copy of the bipartisan, Senate approved National Security Act to my neighbor with the “Close the borders, Joe” sign in his yard. But I’m too afraid of being shot at if I try.
People don't trust real facts anymore because propaganda and truth get equal treatment in the media. Sounds like Brian wants Democrats to not be so strict in their fidelity to "unbiased" facts. Maybe "facts" aren't always the same as the truth and can be reinterpreted a little. There's always partisan spin. Dems could get better at it. I have no problem with this. But will it help much with the both sides media? The vibes based journalism of click bait headlines? It's a big problem, and won't be solved in a cycle.
I think your insight here—vibes vs reality—is very important, and I hope you will continue to work it. Republicans have benefitted for decades from a set of deeply held but false beliefs. Are Republicans better for the economy, stronger on national defense, more for law & order, better on immigration? Nope, not at all, in fact, the opposite. But attitudes have been shaped by decades of clever, deceitful marketing and misinformation, and many citizens are willing to swallow easy to-to-digest slogans and performative gestures: “Tax-and-Spend Democrats”, “Socialist”, “soft on crime” “bleeding heart liberals”, “knee-jerk liberals.” Somehow, holding these attitudes—false though they are—make many people feel smart, informed and tough. And why? What is the psychological reward for feeling smart, informed and tough based on falsehoods?
I am thinking this through as I write. I can come up with various motivations for why—frex, a desire to affiliate with the rich, racism, greed, hostility to change, resentment, lawlessness, as well as complacency, individualism, a preference for hierarchies and simple solutions, a focus on the past rather than the possibilities of the future, a strong need for order, toughness and discipline. Some of these seem to be personality traits and unlikely to change, but others are situational and probably malleable.
In any case, the question that truly interests me is whether anything can be done to change such fixed beliefs and attitudes? Is it possible for a culture to recast its vibes? Social psychologists! Where are you now in our hour of need?
Brian - Do you get Anat Shenker-Osorio's Message Briefing emails (via ASO Communications and The Research Collaborative)?
The messaging framework they use, built on the race-class narrative co developed with Prof. Ian Haney López and Heather McGhee, provides both a structure and overarching themes that address many of the challenges Democrats and progressives face in communicating with voters and the general public.
If you don't, please drop me a note and I'll send you a sign-up link.
While it is just a feeling, seems to me that media in general want to accept the framing of those out of government or those doing the critiquing or attacking. Sometimes this is also helped by a tendency for progressives to adopt language which is complex, nerdy or wonkism rather than simple and straightforward. Recently here in Canada we see the government trying to push for greenhouse gas emission reductions using market mechanisms it calls a ‘price on pollution’. Critics and the media consistently refer to a ‘carbon tax’. Once the word tax becomes the accepted framing all public discussion is centred on something that most of us hate. Defunding the police as a slogan also comes to mind and results in all discussion easily being painted as depriving communities of the resources needed to keep them safe. It is just never entirely clear to me how we arrive at what is the accepted or default framing by the media or on social media.
That…took a turn there at the end. But yes. I am itching to deliver a copy of the bipartisan, Senate approved National Security Act to my neighbor with the “Close the borders, Joe” sign in his yard. But I’m too afraid of being shot at if I try.
People don't trust real facts anymore because propaganda and truth get equal treatment in the media. Sounds like Brian wants Democrats to not be so strict in their fidelity to "unbiased" facts. Maybe "facts" aren't always the same as the truth and can be reinterpreted a little. There's always partisan spin. Dems could get better at it. I have no problem with this. But will it help much with the both sides media? The vibes based journalism of click bait headlines? It's a big problem, and won't be solved in a cycle.
I think your insight here—vibes vs reality—is very important, and I hope you will continue to work it. Republicans have benefitted for decades from a set of deeply held but false beliefs. Are Republicans better for the economy, stronger on national defense, more for law & order, better on immigration? Nope, not at all, in fact, the opposite. But attitudes have been shaped by decades of clever, deceitful marketing and misinformation, and many citizens are willing to swallow easy to-to-digest slogans and performative gestures: “Tax-and-Spend Democrats”, “Socialist”, “soft on crime” “bleeding heart liberals”, “knee-jerk liberals.” Somehow, holding these attitudes—false though they are—make many people feel smart, informed and tough. And why? What is the psychological reward for feeling smart, informed and tough based on falsehoods?
I am thinking this through as I write. I can come up with various motivations for why—frex, a desire to affiliate with the rich, racism, greed, hostility to change, resentment, lawlessness, as well as complacency, individualism, a preference for hierarchies and simple solutions, a focus on the past rather than the possibilities of the future, a strong need for order, toughness and discipline. Some of these seem to be personality traits and unlikely to change, but others are situational and probably malleable.
In any case, the question that truly interests me is whether anything can be done to change such fixed beliefs and attitudes? Is it possible for a culture to recast its vibes? Social psychologists! Where are you now in our hour of need?
“Biden hasn’t measurably helped his cause” boy howdy if that isn’t the understatement of his entire re-election.
Brian - Do you get Anat Shenker-Osorio's Message Briefing emails (via ASO Communications and The Research Collaborative)?
The messaging framework they use, built on the race-class narrative co developed with Prof. Ian Haney López and Heather McGhee, provides both a structure and overarching themes that address many of the challenges Democrats and progressives face in communicating with voters and the general public.
If you don't, please drop me a note and I'll send you a sign-up link.
Thanks.
I think even Brian isn't direct enough in attributing the Trump crime wave to Trump. Specifically: Does Trump have an alibi?
While it is just a feeling, seems to me that media in general want to accept the framing of those out of government or those doing the critiquing or attacking. Sometimes this is also helped by a tendency for progressives to adopt language which is complex, nerdy or wonkism rather than simple and straightforward. Recently here in Canada we see the government trying to push for greenhouse gas emission reductions using market mechanisms it calls a ‘price on pollution’. Critics and the media consistently refer to a ‘carbon tax’. Once the word tax becomes the accepted framing all public discussion is centred on something that most of us hate. Defunding the police as a slogan also comes to mind and results in all discussion easily being painted as depriving communities of the resources needed to keep them safe. It is just never entirely clear to me how we arrive at what is the accepted or default framing by the media or on social media.
I would like to see whether people would buy the idea that Trump causes crime. Like, the vibes seem right? But idk what sticks.
Again it comes back to we need a massive overwhelming paid advertising campaign.