Moderate Framing for Successful Change

Framing is Crucial

Framing is the process of setting the context of the discussion of a political issue. Effective framing determines the way that voters see an issue. For example, do we call Medicare for All an extension of an existing program? Do we call it a socialist invasion of private healthcare? Do we call it a revolutionary expansion of social justice in the United States? How do we want voters to think about it?  A political proposal can succeed if it is framed in a way that draws political support, or it can fail because it is framed in a way that alienates voters.

Democratic Socialists Need Help With Framing

Last week, I said that the Democratic Socialists have good ideas that need to be reframed as the moderate proposals that they really are. The Democratic Socialists present their ideas as revolutionary improvements in our society, but in fact, their ideas are far from radical. They are well within the main stream of American politics, and they include nothing that poses the slightest danger to our capitalist system. However, the Democratic Socialists' ideas need to be reframed to make their moderate character obvious to everyone. Republicans have already begun to characterize the proposals as dangerous communistic ideas. If Democrats allow that framing to dominate the discussion, their proposals will fail for lack of support from voters and politicians. A moderate framing might just give Democratic Socialists' proposals a chance to win. What would such a framing look like?

The American People Are Not Looking For a Revolution

We Americans are not a revolutionary people. Most of us believe - rightly or wrongly - that we live in a fine country with good institutions that offer all of us opportunities to get ahead. Even our labor movement has never been revolutionary. The movement has focused on obtaining higher wages and better working conditions in the workplace, and it has avoided becoming the base of a political movement. We have never had a labor party. We recognize that our country has problems, and we understand the need to solve them, but we don’t see our problems as symptoms of a system that is fundamentally flawed and needs to be replaced.

It is true that a sizable part of the electorate has lost faith in our system. Many believe that the system is rigged against them and that both parties are dominated by money and by corruption. Such people form the base of the MAGA movement on the right and of politicians like Graham Platner or Zohran Mamdani on the left. However, those alienated voters are not the people who need to be persuaded. The ones on the left are already prepared to support policies to make our country more equitable, while the ones on the right can probably not be persuaded to support such policies under any conditions. The voters who might be persuaded by a moderate framing are the people in the middle who still believe in our system.

Those of us who wish to promote change to solve our obvious problems must work within this political culture if we wish to be successful. That means that we must frame our proposals in a way that appeals to the fundamental, political attitude of the majority of Americans. How can we do that?

Use a Narrow Problem-Solving Approach

One element of moderate framing is a narrow, problem-solving approach that avoids fundamental criticism of our society and economy.  This approach says that, while our economy and society are fundamentally just and sound, a problem has arisen that we need to solve. For example, many of us know that Americans pay more for healthcare than the people of any other industrial country in the world. We know, too, that our system produces mediocre health outcomes at best. We can say that this problem has come about because greedy people have taken advantage of our open economy to build healthcare system that brings them enormous profits at the expense of the rest of us. For the benefit of all of us, we need modify the system so that it provides better care at a cost that we can afford.

Propose No Major Break With Our Existing System

A second element of moderate framing is to emphasize the fact that our solution does not represent a major break with our existing system. We need to argue that the solution we are proposing is really an extension of the system that we already have. Medicare for All is such an extension. Our existing Medicare program is one of our most successful programs. It provides affordable healthcare to millions of senior citizens. All we are proposing is to extend it to cover the rest of us. Why should seniors be the only people with affordable healthcare? Why shouldn’t all of us have it? No major change to the system is needed. We just need to extend it to cover us all.

Emphasize Reducing Cost and Putting Money in People's Pockets

A third element of moderate framing is to show that our solution would save money for American businesses and put more money in everyone's pocket. Americans are stressed economically, and we can address their suffering by pointing out how our proposal would put money in their pockets. In the case of Medicare for All, our case could begin with the idea that the taxes they would have to pay would be less than the health insurance premiums that they are now paying. As a result, people would have more money to spend on other things. In addition, Medicare for All would relieve businesses of the cost of health insurance. That would allow the businesses to raise salaries and also to hire more workers.

This argument is particularly important for persuading so-called "centrist" Democrats. Today's Democratic Party is not a working-class party. It is the party of the patrimonial middle class, and the members of that class do not need Medicare for All because they already have decent health insurance. In order to get get Congress to pass Medicare for All, it's supporters will have to persuade the centrist Democrats as well as some Republicans that Medicare for All would benefit everyone and not just people who lack health insurance today.

Make a Moral Case Based on Traditional American Values

A final element of moderate framing involves showing that the moral case for our proposal comes from traditional, American values. James Talarico’s campaign website provides one way of doing that, but it is not the only possibility. His approach is religious, but one possible secular approach would be to emphasize traditional, American ideas of fairness. A system that was designed to make money for its designers while squeezing the rest of us financially is fundamentally unfair. It is not consistent with our idea of fairness. A system that provides affordable care for some people but not for others is incompatible with American values.

Say it Over and Over

The key to successful framing is to repeat it over and over and over. We can't just make our point and assume that people will get the idea. We have to repeat our point over and over. We have to say it in different ways every day. We have to use TV ads, blog posts, Instagram posts, FB posts, newspaper articles and magazine articles. We have to repeat our point so often that it becomes part of the accepted view of the topic. Republicans are very good at this. Democrats have to learn.

Let's get busy!

Why Do So Many on the Political Left Call Themselves "Democratic Socialists?"

 Why is the Label "Democratic Socialist" Popular?

Why do many progressives in the United States like to call themselves “Democratic Socialists?” Why do they insist on a political label that is suspect and even vaguely threatening to many Americans and that opens candidates up to the undeserved accusation that they may be communists?

They have not adopted the label because of a need to identify a radical political platform that is outside of the main stream of American politics. In fact, the political platform of the Democratic Socialists is well within the main stream of politics in capitalist countries or even in the United States.  A proposal like Medicare for All is hardly radical. It is nothing but the expansion of a successful, existing program to include more people. Another favorite of Democratic Socialists, the Green New Deal is nothing but a modification of our longstanding policy of promoting energy development for the benefit of our economy. Why are such moderate proposals labeled as “democratic socialism?”

We Leftists Like to Label Our Proposals as Revolutionary Changes

One reason is that we on the political left like to describe our proposals as revolutionary changes. We like to think of ourselves as saving the world rather than merely making modest changes in our current policies. So, we describe what we are doing in revolutionary terms. Moreover, it is hard to mobilize millions of young people to work for a political campaign with the goal of tweaking the status quo. So, we call ourselves a revolution even when we aren’t really one.  We exaggerate as Bob Dylan did in the 1960s. “Democratic Socialist” is far more thrilling and satisfying as a label than “progressive Democrat.”

The Disadvantage of the Label 

However, the label also has a disadvantage: it invites the political right to agree that our proposals are radical or even revolutionary and that the people who make such proposals are socialists or even (gasp! choke!) communists. Ronald Reagan did that when he warned of “socialized medicine” in his campaign against Medicare in the 1960s, and Pres. Trump used the same kind of language in his Fourth of July speech at Mount Rushmore. Thus, both the left and the right tend to paint the left’s policy prescriptions as more radical than they really are. For the right, they are changes to be avoided at all costs, and for the left, they are a revolution that we must fight for if we are to have a better society.

Our Political Dialogue Substitutes Fantasy for Reality

Unfortunately, this illusion of radicalism makes our political dialogue very unrealistic. Disagreements are painted as much greater than they really are. Both sides act as if they believed that a revolution were coming. The social media are full of leftist posts that fulminate against the evils of capitalism and of rightist posts that warn of danger to all of our most cherished rights and traditions.

Both sides are talking nonsense. Nothing remotely radical or revolutionary has been proposed by the Democratic Socialists. Expanding a successful and popular healthcare program like Medicare to cover more people is not a revolutionary change, and neither are any of the other proposals of the Democratic Socialists. Consider, for example, the domestic policy proposals in the agenda outlined by Melat Kiros, the Democratic Socialist who recently won the Democratic primary in Denver, Colorado. They include "Medicare for All, stronger housing and childcare programs, public financing of elections, ... and abolishing ICE." 

Let's Get Real

Kiros's ideas may be good ideas, but they are hardly revolutionary, and they do not threaten capitalism in any way. If all of her proposals were adopted, many of our people would probably be better off, and our society would be more just, but the structure of our capitalist economy would not change. Our corporations would still be profitable, and capitalists like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel would still be billionaires. Even the public financing of elections coexists with capitalism in many countries. The truth is that the Democratic Socialists are in no way revolutionary. They appear to be radicals only because they think of themselves that way and because they use the "socialist" label in a way that plays into the hands of those who oppose even moderate changes to improve the life of our people.

We don't have to allow ourselves or our country to be drowned in a fight over imaginary radicalism. The fight favors only the political right and gets in the way of needed changes. We can frame important and useful proposals like Medicare for All, affordable childcare or the Green New Deal as the moderate proposals that they really are, and we can find real solutions to real problems like extreme inequality. We can avoid getting trapped in pointless discussions about the meaning of "socialism," and we can start to mitigate the injustices of our society.  Let’s get real.

It's the Economy, Stupid!

 A Radical Suggestion

I have a really radical suggestion. The Democrats should fight this election on domestic, economic issues. Appropriate issues are not hard to find.

• The cost of healthcare is killing our people
• The cost of housing is hurting millions of our people
• The cost of childcare is keeping women out of the work force and thus constraining the growth of our economy
• Trump’s tariffs are killing our exports and driving our farmers into bankruptcy
• Deporting a large part of our workforce is hurting our economy and costing jobs for Americans
• The national debt is unsustainable
• Social Security must be preserved

Candidates Will Pick Their Issues

Obviously no individual candidate could run on all of these issues. So, candidates will pick the ones that are most important to voters in their respective districts or states. Candidates should propose solutions and support them on their merits.

Possible solutions may be found easily on the campaign websites of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez or James Talarico. They have been characterized as “far left,” but their proposals are really very moderate, and they can easily be framed as the moderate proposals that they really are. A candidate will need to go to the websites of “leftists” like Ocasio Cortez or Talarico for ideas because the so-called “centrists” in the Democratic party are almost completely devoid of ideas for the future.  

Framing is Key

Fortunately, it does not matter where the ideas come from. What matters is how they are framed. A useful example of framing may be found on the campaign website of James Talarico, but his is not the only possible approach. A different approach may be found in an earlier post on this blog. However, candidates will know best what framing will work in their districts.

Keep the Focus on the Issues

Democrats should not allow themselves to be baited into arguments about “socialism.” Democrats who are accused of being “socialists” or “communists” should reply that the Republicans are leveling those accusations because they are afraid to discuss the problems or the solutions on their merits. The Republicans know that in such a debate, they will lose.

Democrats can win if they maintain a razor-sharp focus on issues that matter to constituents and frame those issues in a way that appeals to voters. 

Under-Promise and Over-Deliver to Restore Trust in Our Democracy

Restoring Trust in Our Democracy

We can restore our democracy, but to do that, we will have to restore our people’s trust in our system of government, and that will not be easy. Voters don’t believe the promises that politicians make during elections. So, promises will not help. We will have to deliver real benefits that are big enough that working Americans stop believing that our system is rigged against them.

The Subtle Balance on Which Trust in Our System Depends

Our system depends on a subtle balance between market capitalism and representative democracy, and the problem is that we have failed to maintain that balance, which requires that the combined economic and political system deliver an acceptable level of living to most of the people.

What are the elements of an acceptable level of living in a stable democracy? In The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism, Martin Wolf suggests that they include:

• Prosperity
• Opportunity
• Security
• Dignity

How Has Our System Failed?

Our capitalist system provides prosperity but falls very short on the other dimensions of an acceptable life. Opportunity in the United States is very unequally distributed. There are plenty of opportunities for people with post-secondary educational degrees, but the situation for people with less education is bleak. Security is also very unequally distributed. Workers who lose their jobs will likely get very limited unemployment benefits, and in addition, they will lose their health insurance. That is why health care costs are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States. Finally, changes in our economy have robbed millions of people of their dignity. Millions of men can no longer provide for their families, and millions of single women with children are even worse off.

Mr. Trump's election is a symptom of our political system’s failure to deliver an acceptable level of living to many of our people. As a result of that failure, people have lost faith in our system’s fairness, and they have turned his antidemocratic message and policies.

What Should We Do?

If we are to restore that faith, we are going to have to restore the system’s ability to deliver an acceptable level of living. Otherwise, the problem will continue to fester, and our democracy will become more and more unstable. The key to restoring our people’s faith is to under-promise and over-deliver improvements in people’s lives. By “under-promise,” I mean that we should avoid making big campaign promises, because they will not be believed. Campaign promises mean nothing to people who have lost faith in the system itself. People who believe that all politicians are liars will ignore campaign promises. So, we should be very sparing in our campaign promises.

Being sparing in the promises we make will allow us to over-deliver on them. We will be able to deliver more than we promised because we didn’t promise much. For example, we can probably take control of Congress this year just because people are suffering under the current administration. If we do take control, we will be able to deliver a bill that would - if it passed - really helped people with the cost of childcare. Trump would of course veto the bill, but then, we could run on it in 2028 and deliver real benefits after that.  We should take a similar path in other policy areas: promise little but deliver a lot. That is our path to victory in this year’s elections, and that is the path to turn that victory into a bigger victory in 2028. Don't promise much on the campaign trail, but take action when we are in office.

"Values" and "Social Justice": The Language of James Talarico

 "Values" vs. "Social Justice"

In American politics, a focus on “values” has for many years been code for social conservatism. Politicians who have spoken of “values” have tended to oppose things like abortion or gay rights, and they have supported the existing, hierarchical social arrangements. Such politicians have often rooted their views in one or another biblical religious tradition. The focus on traditional social arrangements has in our society gone along with support for “free enterprise” and low taxes.

In contrast, a focus on “social justice” has been code for social and political progressivism and a recognition of the reality of class conflict. Politicians who talk about “social justice” point to the injustices in our society and propose that we should eliminate or reduce them. In recent decades, that has meant support for changes in racial relationships and in gender roles. It also has an economic focus. Politicians who talk about “social justice” have favored government action to ameliorate the lives of Americans through things like a national healthcare system or public support for childcare.

Talarico Brings Together "Values" and "Social Justice"

James Talarico's way of speaking brings the politics of “values” and the politics of “social justice” together. On the one hand, he speaks in religious language and frames his views in biblical teachings. On the other hand, he is a politician of the left. He favors “social justice,” and he emphasizes the importance of class conflict. On his campaign web site, he says,

The biggest divide in this country is not left vs. right. It’s top vs. bottom. Billionaires want us looking left and right at each other instead of looking up at them. 

The people at the top work so hard to keep us angry and divided because our unity is a threat to their wealth and power. So, their cable news networks and their social media algorithms tear us apart.

They divide us by party, by race, by gender, by religion so we don’t notice they’re defunding our schools, gutting our healthcare, and cutting taxes for themselves and their rich friends. It’s the oldest strategy in the world: divide and conquer. 

Talarico’s positions on specific, political issues are often indistinguishable from those of a more typical leftist politician like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders, but unlike them, he does not claim to be a democratic socialist, and he does not use the language of democratic socialism. Instead, he draws on the American religious tradition by emphasizing its strong support for social justice. He says,

My granddad was a Baptist preacher in South Texas. He taught me that we follow a barefoot rabbi who gave us two commandments: love God and love neighbor. Because there is no love of God without love of neighbor. Every single person bears the image of the sacred; every single person is holy — not just the neighbors who look like me or pray like me or vote like me.
[The] billionaires want to keep us from seeing all that we have in common. They want to keep us from realizing there’s far more that unites us than divides us. Because once we do, we’ll come together — across party, across race, across gender, across religion — to fix what’s broken in our country and take back power for ourselves and our communities.
2,000 years ago, when the powerful few rigged the system, that barefoot rabbi walked into the seat of power and flipped over the tables of injustice. To those who love our country, to those who love our neighbors: 

It’s time to start flipping tables.

Talarico also says,

Politicians like John Cornyn and Ken Paxton claim to stand for freedom, family and faith,

• But you can't stand for freedom and control what we say, what we read, and what we do with our bodies. 
•  You can't stand for family and vote against paid family leave, affordable child care, or the right of every American to marry who they love
•  And you can't stand for faith and then warp and weaponize religion to hurt our neighbors

Talarico's Language Has Deep Roots in American Culture

This way of speaking is deeply rooted in American culture. It reaches back to f Frederick Douglass’s Fourth of July speech against slavery:

Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery – the great sin and shame of America!

We can hear, too, the cadence of William Jennings Bryan’s famous "cross of gold" speech:

You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

Democrats Should Take Note

This way of speaking frames social justice in a way that resonates with Americans all across our country’s heartland, and the Democratic Party should welcome candidates for political office who talk this way. Most Americans support the policies that people like AOC advocate, but many do not respond to the language of “democratic socialism.” That language may play well to young, educated people in our cities, but to many Americans, it sounds foreign and vaguely menacing. 

Talarico offers a way of framing social justice with deep, American roots, and if Democrats want to win elections in the heartland, we would do well to accustom ourselves to hearing people talk as he does. His campaign for the Senate in Texas will test the value and strength of his style in American politics. We should pay attention.

We Have to Work Together

Antisemitism is One Expression of the Fear of Otherness

I have written a lot lately about rising antisemitism in the United States, but in this article, I want to point out that it would be a mistake to view rising antisemitism in isolation from rising prejudice and violence against all groups that are not white and Christian. We have Islamophobia, anti-immigrant policies, oppression of Native Americans and repeal of civil rights protections for black people. All of our minorities are in danger, and we Jews should see our concerns in that context. 

We Jews tend to think of our sufferings as unique. We see contemporary antisemitism as the expression of an age-old prejudice. We think of the slaughter by the crusaders of the Jews in the Rhineland; we think of the expulsion of the Jews from Spain; and of course, we think of the Holocaust. We say to ourselves, "No other people has suffered as we have." 

This attitude prevents us from seeing that right now, here in the United States, other people are suffering too, and the failure to see their suffering prevents us from building alliances with people who share our interest in building and maintaining a diverse society "with liberty and justice for all."

Instead of thinking of antisemitism as unique, we should see it in the context of widespread fear of people who are “other,” we should understand that antisemitism is one expression of that fear.

Why is the Fear of Otherness So Widespread?

Why is that fear so widespread today? Why is there so much political action and so much political propaganda against minorities? Part of the answer is that much has changed in our country in recent decades. We have far more people of color in our society than we used to have, and what is more important, white people encounter members of minority groups far more often that they used to. 

In the past, white people rarely encountered people of color except as service workers, but today, white people encounter people of color daily on the streets, as employees of supermarkets or local banks, and as neighbors. All of this contact creates a strong sense that our society is changing, and for some of people, the changes are frightening. That fear provides the basis for the widespread fear of "otherness."

Antisemitism springs from the fear of otherness, and in addition, it comes with a long tradition of literary justification from the false medieval blood libel to the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the racist teachings of the Nazis. It is not surprising that in a time of widespread fear of people who are “other,” we should see antisemitism rear its head. If we look at antisemitism in this light, we can see that our interests align with those of all groups that are seen as "other."

Trump's Republicans Have Built a Political Movement Based on Fear

The fact that fear of otherness is widespread is not a complete explanation for the rise of racist politics because fear is not by itself a political movement. Political action and political propaganda can come only from an organized political movement, and a vague fear is not an organized movement. Turning a vague fear into a political movement requires lots of money along with political leaders who want to capitalize on the fear by using it against their enemies. Bringing together the money and the leadership is the role of Trump’s Republican Party. It has created a regime based on fear of minorities including Jews. 

Don't be Confused

Don't be confused by Trump's theatrical statements against antisemitism in universities. Those statements come from his desire to crack down on the universities and from a desire to get more Jews to vote for his supporters. He has no real concern for Jewish students. We know that because we can see that he never speaks out against the antisemitism of his supporters.

Jews Share With Other Minority Groups an Interest in Defeating Trump's Republicans

We Jews along with other minority groups have a common interest in overthrowing Trump’s hold on the federal government. We can accomplish that by working to elect Democrats in this year’s elections. We can be successful if we work on building a coalition with other groups. Jews, Muslims, Latinos, Blacks and Native Americans should all work together to defeat a common enemy. 

We Have to Work Together

In order to work together, we are going to have to table the issue of Israel's policies for now. All sides of that controversy are going to have to tone down their rhetoric. American Jews are going to have to focus on the issues here at home, and non-Jewish progressives are going to have to do the same. Non-Jewish progressives will have to stop saying that the State of Israel is a colonialist entity that should not exist, and Jews will have to stop saying that anyone who criticizes Israel's actions in Gaza is antisemitic. We cannot protect the security of minorities including Jews in American society if we insist on insulting each other. We cannot win if we allow our differences concerning Israel to blind us to our common interest here at home. We have to work together.

Are We Missing the Point of Memorial Day?

 Something Has Begun to Bother Me

Last week, I marched in the Memorial Day Parade in the community where I live in Wisconsin.  I have marched in the parade for many years, and I enjoy it. It has a small-town feel about it, and after a long winter, it is great to spend time outdoors with friends on a warm spring day. However, something about the parade has begun to bother me. I think we are missing the point of the holiday.

What is Memorial Day About?

Memorial Day is about remembering the people who gave their lives to preserve our freedom. As such, it should be a solemn holiday, and it should inspire us to think about those people and to remember the occasions when we have called on our children (most soldiers are very young) to risk their lives. Memorial Day should be a day for solemn reflection. It should not be a day for mindless, flag-waving patriotism, but that is what it has become. Participants in the parade wave flags, and high school bands play patriotic march tunes. There are floats glorifying our country, but all that feels wrong. There should be floats with the names of the local people who lost their lives in our many wars. We should recite their names.

We should also think about the wars in which they died. Were all of them really justified? Have we always been honest with our children when we sent them off to war? Have we ever asked them to risk their lives for unnecessarily? Has our freedom really always been at stake?

We Have Not Always Been Honest

As I marched in the parade, I could not help remembering the occasions in my lifetime when we dishonestly asked our children to make great sacrifices. We sent them off to fight in wars that did not really defend our freedom. Our children fought for many years in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Each of those wars was lost without diminishing our freedom here in the United States. In effect, we lied to our children and to ourselves when we asked them to show “the last full measure of devotion.” We should think about that; we should recognize our guilt; and we should resolve to do better in the future.

We Should Be Honest in the Future

On Memorial Day, we should not wave flags. We should remember the people who died, and we should accept our responsibility for their deaths. We should resolve never again to send our children to war on false pretenses. We should be honest with our children and with ourselves.