A few days ago I promised to start working out some positioning statements for OWS (and progressives in general). The point I made was that the right wing has staked out some excellent (although also horrible in practice) positions such as “taxes are bad” and “government is bad.”
I argued that these are great positions from a marketing perspective because they focus on “bad” instead of good (taking advantage of “bad is stronger than good“). “Bad is stronger than good” is an important concept from a marketing standpoint, but there is a counterpoint. As Simone Weil observed,
Imaginary evil is romantic and varied; real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring. Imaginary good is boring; real good is always new, marvelous, intoxicating.
I ran across this quote yesterday, in Gretchen Rubin‘s The Happiness Project, and it made me realize there are two sides to the “Bad is stronger than Good” meme. While “bad” is useful for marketing, “good” is boring as a marketing message but much better for governing. This is to a large degree the source of the GOP’s big problems, that are just getting bigger – their positions are fundamentally destructive and “gloomy and boring” – they can only take stuff away from us, not create stuff for us. And it points out a critical thing we need to keep in mind as we craft new, stronger positions for progressive policies. Our challenge as progressives is to come up with strong positions – which means they need to reflect the fact that bad is stronger than good, as well as other marketing basics – that also allow us to do effective governing.
Well, this is old news now, but remember when Rick Perry was saying that he wants to simplify the 3,500 page tax code because it’s too complicated?
The reality is – facts here, so we’re going to state them, then see how to make an actual useful argument – most of the tax code is about corporate taxes, and in particular about exemptions, deductions, and exceptions for the benefit of various business and types of businesses. If you wonder why Exxon doesn’t pay any income tax on profits of $60 billion, or whatever the number is, it’s because the tax code specifically gives big oil companies breaks on their taxes for innumerable special cases and exemptions. With the result that the most profitable company in the history of the world paid no income taxes in 2010. I think we can all get behind the idea that the tax code needs some work.
What Perry is trying to imply when he says he wants to simplify the tax code is that it will make it simpler and cheaper for individuals – not only will their taxes be lower, but the burden of doing their taxes will be smaller. This of course is a canard – for most ordinary Americans the tax code is pretty simple, especially if they don’t own a house or own their own business. If they own a house or a business, then it gets a bit more complicated, but it’s not that bad. So, the argument against this ridiculous claim has two prongs:
Compare the amount of tax code that applies to individuals to the amount that applies to corporations. “Mr Perry, are you going to simplify the 100 pages of tax code that apply to Exxon and that enables the most profitable corporation in the history of the world to pay no taxes in 2010? I think that would be fantastic!”
Or, “Mr Perry, I applaud your effort to get to the bottom of how Exxon, the most profitable company in the history of the world, managed to pay no income taxes in 2010.”
Or, “Mr. Perry, I think your idea of a flat tax is excellent! I agree we need to address the situation we had in 2010 where Exxon, the most profitable company in the history of the world, paid no income taxes.”
I seem to be stuck on the Exxon example, but it’s pretty hard to beat the “most profitable company in the history of the world” trope!
Then, for the second prong: The reality is that corporate America bought and paid for that complicated tax code, and they are not going to let some upstart just go and simplify their deductions away. So that’s totally not going to happen. So if you’re a progressive or liberal pundit you really have to hammer on the fact that the winners in the complicated tax code game are the corporations themselves. You should have specific examples for different situations, but the Exxon example is perfect as the catchall example – there’s clearly quid pro quo going on for the oil companies, there’s a good link to Bush, and it’s just unfathomable that the most profitable company in the history of the world would end up paying no income taxes. So you just have to imply that all this other malfeasance is going on, and it’s right there in the tax code, in 3,450 pages out of the 3,500 pages. I’m not sure whether it’s better to say “99% of the tax code is loopholes for corporations” or “only 1% is about what individuals have to pay, the rest is corporate loopholes.”
There are some people who can get away with talking about these “loopholes” – I’m not sure Obama can himself. But anyone who comes on to, say, Christiane Amanpour’s show as a “liberal” should have all these tropes to hand. And you just hammer on these tropes, just like the Republican shills hammer on their tropes.
Let’s make a list of all the true things you can say when a right-winger claims tax cuts are good for the country, for the economy, or for jobs:
You bet we need some tax reform – Exxon, the most profitable company in the history of the world, paid no income taxes in 2010.
Tax cuts always result in lower growth or recession or other economic problems. Reagan’s cuts resulted in the biggest peacetime deficit in history (until Bush) and we’re still paying for it
America has its highest growth during periods when taxes are relatively high
Republican intransigence, personally targeted against Obama, has resulted in a double-dip recession, no jobs, and no relief for the rules-following homeowners whose homes are under water due to Bush’s 2008 crash.
The problems we have still are do to Bush’s 2008 crash.
The 2008 crash was caused by Republican-driven deregulation of the financial markets, after 50 years of safety following FDRs Depression-era regulations.
If we’d had these regulations in place in 2007 (transparency rules and leverage limits) the 2008 crash could not have happened
So, I keep hearing that a problem with Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is the lack of demands, and I think this is actually a feature of OWS right now. If they had demands, then their overall message of suffering would get sidelined, I think. OWS should not be (at this point anyway) about demands, it should be about a message of deep unfairness and unbalance in the economy, a structural inbalance that’s caused by excessive influence of the financial and business sectors in politics. So there’s a message, but there are no demands in that. In fact, if you think of the right wing positions, there are not really demands, except stupid simplistic ones that we don’t believe, there are just positions – taxes are bad, government is bad, business is good, states are better than Feds, the government is corrupt. Some demands come out of there, but they are extremely inchoate – Lower Taxes! Smaller Government! But mostly they are just about positions.
So what OWS needs is some good positions – these are what Lakoff calls “frames” in a certain way. And OWS needs its positions to be highly simplified versions of things like “no special treatment for financial companies.” That does not roll off the tongue. Compare it to “taxes are bad.” We need phrases like that, that resonate, that are simple, that overly simplify, but that are simple to say and remember, and get the point across. It’s always harder to do this for positive messages – the right wing is all about negative messages, and those are easy.
But let’s think about the simplest possible trope here, in comparison to “x is bad,” which is the right wing trope. The simplest alternative is “x is good.” What can we say is good without sounding stupid? Or at least having a resonant position? “Police are good.” “Having a police force is good.” “Public education is a good thing.” Not quite as tripping off the tongue as the taxes one. Another possibility is “Government is good.” That sounds way too Big Brother-ish. I wonder if there is a version of that trope, though, that could work?
Tomorrow, a lot more on how to turn the weak-kneed “x is good” into something really compelling.
In my last post I talked about how “Bad is stronger than good” is playing out in the Occupy Wall Street movement, and elsewhere. But I also mentioned some specific tactical mistakes that some people in OWS are making, such as running around nude at OWS events.
In the context of attempting to make OWS a national movement that attracts people from across the political spectrum, people running around naked is a pretty big “bad.”
The reason it’s a bigger bad is related to a whole other set of cognitive concepts that Jonathan Haidt talks about in this TED Talk, which I will try to summarize. Haidt identifies five dimensions along which people make moral – and hence political – decisions. These dimensions are:
Simply put, liberals weight the first two much more strongly than the last three (which many liberals weight negatively, in fact), while conservatives weight all five dimensions strongly – they are equally strong on the first two as liberals, but much much stronger on the last three.
Now, think about the 1%/99% message – the central message of OWS. It’s primarily focused on the first two or Haidt’s dimensions – fairness (it’s not fair that the 1% has been able to amass so much wealth), and harm (because I can’t get a job, I can’t take care of myself or my family). One immensely clever aspect of the OWS movement has to be to articulate the 1%/99% divide, since it also activates the “group membership” dimension – essentially everyone can recognize themselves as being in the 99%.
But OWS has problems with purity/sanctity – because it’s a bunch of people camping out, which is a dirty, smelly experience at best – and with authority – because it’s intrinsically in opposition to various authority figures, such as the police, the city governments, and the owners of the places like Zucchotti Park.
So when you add in a naked man, which is horrendous from a purity/sanctity point of view, and not good at all from an authority and group membership point of view, (and at best neutral on fairness and harm) you suddenly have a very strong set of Bad that outweighs, for conservatives, the fundamental position of OWS. And, to be honest, it doesn’t do much for the liberals who are supporting OWS in the first place either, although they are generally not going to judge.
(Note: This post was drafted before the UC Davis pepper spray incident, which I’ll write about later, but I couldn’t resist using the picture to the right.)
There’s a by now well-proven fact that “bad is stronger than good” – it’s been proven in all kinds of ways, like the fact that you need five good interactions for every bad interaction in order to prevent a divorce, and stuff like that. It’s been very well demonstrated in politics in at least two major ways:
Negative campaigning – much much more effective than positive campaigning (we’ll get to some examples why in a bit)
The right wing political positioning. Note that it’s all in terms of negatives, at least the main positions – “taxes are bad”, “government is bad.” The main message is a bad message, even if it’s backed up, rhetorically, with good messages – “lower taxes create jobs” or whatever it might be.
The left wing political position – almost always in terms of good – “we need higher taxes in order to pay for things that are good for you,” “the Jobs Bill is good for jobs.”
And of course the news industry. There is no good news in the news industry – it doesn’t sell, no one reads or watches it! If there’s no bad news today, we’re not going to talk about the good news of the day, we’re going to talk about the anniversary of the last bad news. (I would love to credit the person who gave me that line, but I don’t remember who it was!)
So, what can we learn from this? Especially if we actually want to have a positive political position in general? Well, take a look at some examples. First, our favorite example of a great positioning statement – “Taxes are bad.” Let’s try simply turning that around – “Taxes are good.” Not very compelling is it? Sounds kind of stupid, actually. And that illustrates the problem perfectly. What can we do instead? Well, how can we turn this good into a bad? That is, how can we say something good in a way that makes it sound like we’re against something?
Well, the opposite of taxes is what? Not easy to say, so it’s not going to work to say “<opposite of taxes> are bad.” (Again, the right wing wins!) But we can do something. What do lower taxes cause? Worse services, for one. Who cares about that? Everyone. So we can say something like “Lower taxes cause crime.” That’s not exactly true, but it’s as true as the “taxes are bad” statement for sure. So let’s run with it. Remember, truth is not our highest cause, “directionally true” is more what we’re going for.
So, “Lower taxes cause crime.” What if someone asks you to defend that statement? It’s pretty easy – “Who pays for your police force, the FBI, border patrol? It’s your taxes that pay for that. You cut taxes, you have to cut those guys. Is that what you want?”
Or, “Lower taxes cause lost jobs.” What’s that one about? “When we lower taxes, the first to suffer is not the rich, but the kids, the ones in school whose teachers are laid off, who don’t get textbooks, and who will end up losing their jobs to kids in China or India.”
The point is that, while these positions are a little extreme, they have the great benefit of being a) about bad news, and b) being directionally true. And this kind of thing can be applied to all kinds of political arguments.
Bad is stronger than good at OWS
There are two competing examples of Bad is stronger than Good showing up at OWS. The first is the overall focus of the movement on the 99% and the 1%. The 1% is “bad” – that’s a central tenet. In fact, it’s not so much that they are bad, but that the system is corrupt that allows the 1% to amass so much wealth, while the 99% suffer. So there are two bads here – the system that led to the 1%, and the plight of the 99% – that’s “news” in the sense that it’s bad news. At any time the media can run a story on “This person is a recent college graduate and cannot get a job though he/she has been looking non-stop for six months, eight months, a year, and has had to finally go to work flipping burgers.” (Or whatever the story is – the point is that stories like that, in America, are news – that’s not supposed to happen here.)
And the story of the multi-millionaire who foolishly put gold-plated bathroom fixtures in the six bathrooms of his/her Manhattan penthouse is also always a story.
The images of old ladies being pepper-sprayed, the police hauling off peaceful protesters from Zucchotti Park, and Iraq veterans being sent to the hospital by the police – also all Bad, and all serving to legitimize OWS.
But there’s another side of Bad being stronger than Good at OWS. For example, I head today that there was an Occupy-related march in San Francisco, and one of the marchers was a completely naked man. I have no intrinsic problems with a naked man, but some people do, and they consider it bad. For those people, the bad-ness of a naked man at an OWS event can completely overwhelm the 1%-99% *bad-ness.” And that means that being naked at OWS is a tactical mistake, if you support OWS. BTW, nakedness is a bigger bad than 1%-99%, and it might be bigger than pepper-spraying an old lady, if the old lady was, for example, cursing at police.
I’ll talk more about how Bad Is Stronger Than Good is working at OWS, and how we can tactically take advantage of it, in my next post.
Have you noticed that the right wing has managed to convert a lot of good words, with historically popular meanings, into bad words – “liberal,” “elite,” “government,” “expert,” even “politics?” Every one of those words used to carry a positive connotation in our society (or at least in the case of “politician” a more positive connotation). This transformation is not an accident. It was done via marketing. When you hear the word “liberal” today you subconsciously add in the phrase “tax and spend.” When you hear the word “elite” you might think “not mainstream.” When you hear “government,” you’re likely to think “inefficient” or “too big” or “bureaucracy.” Well, those associations are all ones that have been marketed to you, very effectively, by a right wing message machine.
This “machine” is a well-orchestrated marketing effort that extends from right wing think tanks, to right wing media like the National Review, to the corridors of the Republican national offices, to training and recruiting activities like Young Americans for Freedom. The end result is that conservatives, for the most part, are talking from the same rhetorical playbook, with the same simple positioning messages, reiterated over and over until they sound like truth, rather than opinions – “taxes are bad,” “government is too big,” “media is liberal,” “tax and spend liberals,” Social Security and Medicare are “entitlements” rather than something we the people have paid for, that the rich “create jobs,” and so on.
Where is the equivalent set of marketing messages on the left or progressive side? You can look for one, but you won’t find it. Why is that? There are several reasons, some of which I’ve listed below. I’ll address each of these in (multiple) upcoming articles:
Liberals and progressives believe that marketing is manipulative and bad.
The left doesn’t realize that they have been undone by a sophisticated and disciplined marketing effort
Liberals and progressives believe that “the truth” itself should be stronger than any spin or marketing
The left doesn’t really understand how people really make political decisions
As a result, too many politicians on the left have simply tried to step up to the right’s marketing positions and pledge their allegiance to them: promising to lower taxes, reduce “entitlements,” rein in government, increase defense spending, and even balance the Federal budget.
Are You Seething Yet?
I hope you’re getting angry as you read this, and thinking “how can we change this?” And the answer is that one of the first things we need to do it take responsibility for using language effectively as progressives.
So, inspired in part by Mike Lofgren’s Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult (also mentioned in this post), the purpose of this series of articles is to explore and explain (with examples!) how the progressive left can start using language much more effectively to support its positions and policies. My goal is to help individuals in the progressive movement articulate their positions in such a way that swing voters, in particular, will be drawn to them, and to give the progressive movement as a whole a blueprint for creating a messaging platform that can counteract the massive right wing message machine that’s been gaining hegemony in our political discourse for the past 40 years.
This builds on work done recently by Joe Brewer, in his Progressive Strategy Handbook, and it builds on research and theories from a wide range of cognitive psychologist, moral philosophers, behavioral economists, and ad men.
The first and most important thing to learn is that using language well does NOT mean simply telling the truth more clearly. That’s been tried, it doesn’t work, and people that do that have a name in the right wing lexicon – it’s “elite.” When the right wing talks about some being an “elite” that is code (but more than code, really, as well discuss later) for a “rational” argument, where the speaker sets out the true facts and comes to some conclusions based on those facts. There is a ton of research out there that shows that for many – if not most – people, this type of argument – the so-called “Enlightenment-style” argument, as George Lakoff puts it – is not effective. It puts them off, rather than convincing them. In particular, people do not make political or other moral decisions based on these arguments at all. In fact, what research has shown more particularly, is that people respond to arguments that align with their emotional and worldview, irrespective of the form of the argument.
Why, and more importantly, How?
The series will have two main thrusts. One goal is to provide a theoretical background to this whole thing – the excellent use of marketing by the right wing message machine, where liberals have gone wrong, how people make moral decisions, the role of cognitive biases in peoples’ decision making, and so on. But in addition, I want give you, through examples and guidance, the ability to take existing messaging and improve it, to make it much stronger and more effective for enabling people to subscribe to the progressive position.
I don’t think fixing politics is “as simple as” doing a better job of using language, and applying positioning and marketing to the progressive policies. But I do think that if you’re not doing that when progressives are in such a deep hole, and when, as a result, a lot of people are making political decisions that are arguably against their best interests, that something should be done.
My goals in writing these pieces is to take the ideas of a variety of thinkers such as George Lakoff, Jonathan Haidt, Dan Ariely, Al Ries and Trout, Jim Mintz (Marketing In The Public Sector), and thousands of Madison Avenue copywriters and ad men, and combine them into a new way of talking about progressive politics. One that will be more resonant to individuals who might not consider themselves progressive or even liberal, and one that will be more resistant to the predations of the conservative spin or marketing machine.
How do they manage to do this? Because Democrats ceded the field. Above all, they do not understand language. Their initiatives are posed in impenetrable policy-speak: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The what? – can anyone even remember it? No wonder the pejorative “Obamacare” won out. Contrast that with the Republicans’ Patriot Act. You’re a patriot, aren’t you? Does anyone at the GED level have a clue what a Stimulus Bill is supposed to be? Why didn’t the White House call it the Jobs Bill and keep pounding on that theme?
Language is so important to the ascendancy of the right wing, and they have done it so well that the left should just hang its head in shame – and come up with some really good language of our own. And the cojones to use it!
But the good news is that it seems Obama’s team read this article, and cleverly named their jobs bill “The American Jobs Bill.” It’s a start, anyway.
I found Jim Mintz’s site Marketing In The Public Sector via a search for “Marketing Warfare politics,” thinking that there would actually be some conversations on the web about how Trout and Ries’ powerful marketing ideas – as expressed in Positioning and Marketing Warfare – can apply to politics. Not much came up, I’m sorry to say, except for Mintz. He’s Canadian, so you have to expect pithy and to-the-point comments like the one below:
Just got back from vacation and spent a fair bit of time listening and watching the US news. I have always been a tremendous admirer of the
USA. I love their entrepreneurship and as a marketer have always loved
the marketing that comes out of the USA. So it with great sadness that
I see a great nation losing some of its luster for reasons (i.e. the
debt ceiling) that are baffling.
Why does a country that produces the greatest business persons,
entrepreneurs, scientists, entertainers’ athletes etc. produce such
Well, we do have other mediocre stuff here, it must be admitted (e.g., see the Plymouth Aztek), but in general the good seems to drive out the bad – except in politics.
And I hypothesize that a lot of this comes down to extremely sucky marketing – well, not understanding marketing at all, especially the strategic kind of marketing – positioning, and “marketing warfare” – that Trout and Ries covered so well.
In fact, the lack of good marketing except from the extreme
right wing of American politics has contributed in large part to
America’s current level of dysfunction. They’re the only ones telling a
compelling story, but unfortunately it seems to be disconnected from
reality in a significant way. And no one else has a articulated anything
coherent, even though their positions are much more aligned with
reality. But they don’t know how to do marketing, so that’s the
I’m looking forward to following Jim’s thoughts in the future.
In the last few weeks we have witnessed a really bad collapse of our government and its ability to govern coherently. A complete non-issue turned into a near economic collapse due to a) the ridiculousness of the Congress and b) the strangely backward leadership of Obama. It seems to me that he really failed us, and I think the news yesterday that Standard & Poor’s lowered their rating on U.S. debt to AA backs me up on this.
Wasn’t there a better way? I think there was, and here’s one possible better approach – neither far-fetched or outlandish – both for the country and for Obama himself, assuming he wants to win his next election.
Why not start everything out by going on TV and saying “the debt ceiling should not be linked to any other issue, and I will veto any bill that does any such linking. If the Congress sends me a bill with any other content than a raise of the debt ceiling, the resulting economic catastrophe will be on their heads?” And then, when the Congress says “We want to negotiate in good faith about this,” the president can say “You passed the budget that required this level of spending. If you withhold the spending now, you will crash the U.S. economy. This is not my doing, it is your doing, and you now have to step up and make good on YOUR commitments. And if you don’t, I will invoke the 14th Amendment to ensure the U.S. does not default on its commitments – and what will that mean for your power? Your power will disappear – you will gut the legitimacy of the Congress. Again, this is a problem you have gotten yourself into, and you need to get yourself out it.” Boy, that would have been a lot more effective.
Then he could have gotten on TV whenever the issue came up again and reiterated the position – “Congress allocated all this spending, they committed to it. They can’t just walk away from it. This is problem that Congress has brought upon itself. If they don’t raise the debt ceiling, they will be saying that they would rather just say “No” than save the country from an economic catastrophe. And then I will have to step in, in my position as the Chief Executive, and invoke the 14th Amendment to prevent the catastrophe myself. And don’t want to have to do that, because I think it will gut the integrity of the U.S. Congress, at least until a more responsible set of congresspersons are in place.”
Wouldn’t that have worked out better for him and for everyone else?
What do we do about this? How can we make Obama take control of these situations in the future? Why do you think he’s not?
More and more it seems like cognitive science is the decoder ring not only for understanding how things are, but also how to change them for the better (or worse)!
This is my response to a post from Joe Brewer suggesting Everyone Should Learn Cognitive Science. This blog is my little corner of the world of cognitive science, behavior economics, gameification (yes, that belongs here, since games are an emergent property of human cognition), cognitive neuroscience, cognitive biases, and all the rest. Expect a lot of Dunning-Kruger moments here, because I’ve just started learning about all this myself.
In the coming days and months I’ll not only be giving some of my opinions about how cognitive science and politics are interacting (and what we might do about it), but also reviews of the books and websites I’ve been learning from, and reports of other people who are learning and researching interesting stuff that just shows how very odd our minds are.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this adventure as we get going.