You Want Better Messaging? Here’s Your Messaging!

But you can’t win if you delude yourself into believing that policy doesn’t matter

For the better part of a decade now, one of the biggest criticisms of the Democratic Party has been observers commenting on how Republicans have mastered “messaging” in a superior way that Democrats haven’t.

“Messaging”… “messaging”… “messaging”…

Anytime Democrats lose an election, major or minor, this appears to be the knee-jerk diagnosis.

I agree that Democrats tend to struggle with messaging, and must improve at it. But that’s only half the problem.

As I touched upon in my op-ed piece from last spring entitled “Democrats are Masters of Self-Fulfilling Prophecy” — their party also needs to reexamine its approach to policy.

People don’t want to hear broad platitudes about how morally superior Democrats are over Republicans.

They want to hear what solutions are going to improve their lives. Up until the pandemic hit, both major parties were failing miserably on that front.

As ScottCDunn wrote in an editorial of his from last month — Republicans have far more skeletons in their closet than Democrats do, when it comes to hypocrisy and selective outrage.

So, yes, the messaging needs to get better. But all of the immaculate messaging in the world won’t make up ground, for the Democrats, if voters don’t see a blueprint that will back it up.

As a moderate Independent, here would be my policy-based “messages” I’d offer, as swift-and-crisp rebuttals, to the most dangerous aspects of the Republican Noise Machine.

Capitalism

What they usually say:

We need to embrace a free market. We shouldn’t be “picking winners and losers.”

What I’d say, in response:

Sometimes you need to prioritize federal funding for research, development, and investment.

For example, if our food supply gets compromised because it ends up controlled by too few powerful people…then we’re all going to become “losers” with absolutely no “winners.”

Economy

What they usually say:

All of this “reckless liberal spending” is turbocharging inflation.

What I’d say, in response:

You mean the same “reckless liberal spending” that is bringing back more American-based manufacturing, kept schools and businesses open through the COVID-19 pandemic, has begun to reverse Louis DeJoy’s destruction of the U.S. Postal Service, provided rental assistance and mortgage grants, and funded the types of new infrastructure projects not seen in decades…???

Oh, yeah! All of that stuff is icky. It’s got to go!

Abortion

What they usually say:

If we allow “abortion-on-demand,” we’ll be opening the door to infanticide.

What I’d say, in response:

If you mean killing a baby after it’s born — nobody supports that.

If you are trying to classify late-term abortions as “infanticide” — that’s deceptive (*cough!* Meghan McCain *cough!*).

People are never going to agree on the morality (or lack thereof) of abortion. If The New York Times published my own views on it, as someone who will never be pregnant…how many people would brand me as a “baby killer”?

Lindsay Graham’s and Mitch McConnell’s “national abortion ban” would sacrifice the health and lives of women. Period.

Election Integrity

What they usually say:

There’s nothing unreasonable about requiring voters to show a Photo ID before they receive their ballots. We can’t be allowing fraud to take place where scammers use the identities of dead people in order to cast bogus votes.

What I’d say, in response:

It’s fine to require Voter IDs as long as there are protections in place to fix clerical errors or technicalities…such as when someone’s current address wasn’t updated in the city’s database on time, or if the voter’s ID contains their full middle name while the voter roll contains only that voter’s middle initial.

But availability of those IDs must be free and efficient to attain.

And while we’re at it: let’s ban state legislators or rogue election officials from retroactively throwing out ballots when they dislike the initial vote counts, as Republicans are poised to allow them to do.

Climate Change

What they usually say:

Advocates of the “Green New Deal” want us all to become vegans, stop using electricity, and increase our dependency on unreliable and untested forms of alternative energy.

What I’d say, in response:

We can reduce our intake of meat without giving up meat products entirely.

Electricity isn’t going away anytime soon. But we need to hedge our bets against Mother Nature by making as many clean energy sources as possible widely available. That would maximize TRUE “free market competition.”

“All-of-the-Above” energy independence doesn’t mean we should keep mass-producing gas, oil, coal, and nuclear power — while only investing piddly little amounts into solar, wind, geothermal, hydrogen, tidal, and biomass

It means we continue scaling up ALL of these fuels and power sources, so that we’ll have failsafe and stopgap options to fall back on if any of them go out of commission.

Immigration

What they usually say:

Without limits on immigration, we will become a nation of open borders. People from other countries will feel entitled to flock into the United States with zero (or very little) fear of consequences.

What I’d say, in response:

There’s a middle ground to immigration reform. In general, immigration is good for the United States because it increases our workforce and prevents cultural stagnation.

We can pass new restrictions against “chain migration” sponsorship and overhaul the green card lottery — while still protecting DREAMers, guest workers, and asylum-seekers from deportation.

And, if we’re worried so much about out-of-control immigration, we should reexamine where American foreign policy has destabilized other countries; their residents end up wanting to relocate to the U.S. so they can upgrade from a deteriorated quality-of-life. Better international alliances would reduce the trend of undocumented people attempting to enter the U.S. illegally.

Multiculturalism

What they usually say:

Liberal activist teachers want to promote curriculums that make White students feel guilty and ashamed, while holding Black students and other Students of Color to lesser standards.

They are trying to turn our children gay, bisexual, and transgender while still in grade school.

What I’d say, in response:

There’s a big difference between individual educators who promote “political correctness” versus objectively teaching about the injustices and brutalities of American history. We can teach what happened, through multiple cultural lenses, without specifically holding present-day students responsible for what their ancestors may or may not have done.

We should be teaching our students critical thinking skills — not partisan agendas based on either whitewashed historical fairy tales or hyperwoke virtue-signaling.

And part of that critical thinking is recognizing the reality that LGBT+ Americans are here — and always have been here. Yes, some grade levels are too young for sex education…and that should be recognized across the board, regardless of sexual orientation.

Crime

What they usually say:

The Left is trying to defund the police and, eventually, abolish them altogether.

What I’d say, in response:

The message should be #PoliceAccountability (we don’t have it, but we need it!) — *NOT* #DefundThePolice.

We must provide funds for law enforcement to do their jobs. But they must face severe consequences when they engage in racial profiling and unnecessary physical brutality.

Cops need to protect all innocent people…*NOT* project their flawed people skills.

Health Care

What they usually say:

Socialized medicine will only lead to death panels, medical rationing, and even higher health care costs.

What I’d say, in response:

America has some of the highest health care costs in the world. How can we bring those costs down when politicians oppose the very cost-controls that their big donors fear would no longer benefit them?

Preventative care through Community Health Centers (CHCs) will relieve congestion of hospitals and larger clinics by addressing underlying health issues before they balloon into major crises. That, in turn, will keep our health care wait times lower than those of many socialist nations.

Let’s enact a “hybrid” health care system with more flexible payroll deductions, a public option for low-income people who “fall through the cracks” (i.e., who don’t qualify for Medicaid), fee-for-results billing, and private “boutique” plans still available to those who can afford them. Sort of a cross between the health care models used by Portugal and Singapore.

Gender & Sexuality

What they usually say:

“Those people” want to mandate that churches, private employers, parochial schools, and faith-based services be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies or praise genderfluidity in children. Communists want them to abandon their traditions.

What I’d say, in response:

Churches and other houses-of-worship should retain the right to recognize (or refuse to recognize) whatever relationships or identities they wish to respect (or disrespect).

It’s called the First Amendment!

But the First Amendment works both ways.

If we’re going to prevent the federal government from interfering in the private affairs of religious institutions, then religious leaders shouldn’t be able to dictate civil law governing secular (nonreligious) marriages.

So, yes, same-sex marriage should remain legal in all 50 states as well as U.S. territories.

Click here to subscribe to my stories.