That's a misleading title; it implies that I've got some kind of solution in here. I don't. But I think that we can all agree: If all people saw the true nature of progressivism, it would be far more popular. If people could look beyond a couple bogeyman type issues (Taxes! Big Government! Socialism!) and see what progressivism was truly about (gee, I don’t know, maybe general societal progress, as if that is an evil concept) they would see that it is nothing to be feared. Getting more Americans to go along with basic progressive principles would be an undeniable benefit: Yes, corporate greed and what not are still factors in American politics, but votes are votes.
So, the question: How do we advance our beliefs? I don’t have an answer, but I do have an idea. The basic problem: Americans like progressivism as long as it's not called progressivism. They like the ideas, but not the image surrounding the movement. Here are the conclusions that I have drawn about the roots of that problem: That in many ways, basic progressive policies go up against moneyed interests, and so many of our desires are uphill battles to begin with, even if a slim majority of the American people agree on the issues. That Republicans have a damn good strategy in place: If the Dems want to set up a government program, no matter how well run, no matter how positive the benefits, they can just scream “Big Government,” bullshit some stats, and a solid chunk of the country will be against it. That some of the problem lies with the media, a media that can’t seem to point out the difference between truths and lies. Republicans lie all the time; Obama can come out with a half-truth, or a smaller lie (he is a politician, after all), Republicans can turn it in to a bigger lie, and then it’s back to “all politicians are the same.” The whole false equivalency concept. But the biggest factor in our messaging failures, I think, is the extreme focus on left v. right issues, a focus we buy in to far too often on this site, and in politics in general. Left says one thing, right says the opposite, and vice-versa. Left says “Guns are bad” right says “Guns are good” and the opinion that guns are both flawed, dangerous objects and a fundamental part of our society is never really discussed. Left says “Republicans hate women” right says “Democrats are baby killers” and the root of the problem, whether or not the government should restrict what a woman can do with her body in order to save the potential life of an unborn fetus, is never really brought up. Another factor, in my opinion, is the disrespectful rhetoric on both sides… A larger issue with Republican voters, to be sure, but certainly an issue for us as well: Is it true that some Republicans are racist? Yeah, so are some Democrats, so simply saying “the racist Republican party” is not only simplifying a complex issue, not only is giving the right more passion and more ammo, but also it just doesn’t get us anywhere, other than making ourselves feel good: Left screams racist, right screams baby killers, and the world keeps on spinning.
So how do we advance our beliefs? Not at a political level (where our influence is inherently limited), but at a “hearts and minds” level. I would argue, in general, that progressives oftentimes go about it the entirely wrong way… A way that Republicans depend on to keep progressive policies from becoming popular.
Here is my basic thought: We argue on specifics far too often; instead we should put the strong focus on general philosophies. Because here’s the thing: Statistics can be countered with other statistics, and, in the end, for convincing the public at large, it doesn’t matter what is technically true. Politicians on both sides have been using this same tactic since before any of us were born: They’re side has stats, we need stats too, and it doesn’t matter how we get them.
Debating philosophies is harder than debating specifics. But here’s why I believe it will work in combating Republicans: They don’t have any deeply thought out philosophy to promote. Their philosophies are simple: Lower taxes are good. Government institutions can be made more efficient by limiting their power and cutting off their funding. These are basic philosophies that have worked for them because we don’t counter it with our own philosophies; we counter them with facts… Then Republicans or conservatives have their own facts, and who gives a shit?
So what do we do? Well, get talking. People say that it is hopeless or pointless to try to talk to conservatives, but I disagree. Any ground ceded on their part would be a positive thing. A Republican admitting, fine, Obama’s a liberal but he’s not a socialist, would be a very good thing, as would a libertarian admitting that, yes, the government does indeed provide a lot of good.
How do you win those arguments? That’s a little tougher, but this is the strategy that I find that works: Buy the fuck in to their basic philosophies, and go from there. Admit, yes, it would be bad if taxes were too high… Are they now? Historically, not even close. Admit yes, some governmental institutions are inefficient… So should we give them less money? No; the core cause of those inefficiencies are oftentimes a lack of money. Point out that the military is the one institution that most Americans agree is at least run efficiently, and that that is a direct result of tax dollars being pumped in to it at a ridiculous rate.
This can be a frustrating way to argue, to be sure, and of course there are people that simply won’t listen… I mean, we don’t usually listen to them. But I’ve found solid success with it. Here’s an example: A friend of mine is a Ron Paul style libertarian… We pretty much agreed to not talk politics for fear of ruining the friendship, but when we’ve had a few beers, we’ll get to talking… And not really come to any kind of conclusion. But a few weeks ago, Ayn Rand came up: He loves her philosophies but hates her writing, and thought that the recent movie was hilariously bad. And this (basically) is what I said about Rand:
I can agree with Rand’s general philosophy: Yeah, you should spend money on yourself more than you spend it on other people… Far more. She’s right in the fact that you’ve got to look out for you and yours before others. But my problem with Rand is that she uses that fact to promote wildly radical ideas: Charities? She has a problem with fucking charities? Yeah, no shit, if you’re poor, don’t give money to charity… And if you’re middle class give a little, and if you’re rich give a lot. Who gives a fuck if some charities are slightly inefficient, or whatever: They still do an incredible amount of good.
And he agreed, for the most part… He thought that some charities were bad because they promoted “laziness” (dude’s still a libertarian) but that, yeah, overall they are a positive force, and yeah, just because you’re doing good for others doesn’t necessarily mean that you are abandoning yourself as well. And that was pretty much it: I didn’t get him to change his mind on anything huge. But that’s not the point: The point is I got him thinking, and I poked a couple small holes in his overall way of thinking. When we argue politics, that’s all we can really do.
Is this line of argument always the right one? Of course not… I think some would argue that it is too wishy washy, too vague. I think that it is the same basic line of thinking that Obama uses to get his messages out there, but, with a media that focuses on style over substance, that message often gets lost. But I believe that our current strategies are pretty much not getting us anywhere, or at least, we’re not selling our ideas nearly as well as we could be. How the hell do we change this? I don’t know, but I know what I’m doing: Talking to people when I can, buying in to their core beliefs, and respectfully challenging them to defend certain aspects. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Maybe I’m just good at it because I’m a really awesome dude (though I sincerely doubt it). I don’t know. This is a massive problem with no true answer. But these are my ideas, and I hope y’all find them helpful.