How Progressives Can Win

How Progressives Can Win
Bernie Horn
June 22, 2006

Bernie Horn is policy director at the Center for Policy Alternatives , a nonpartisan organization working to strengthen the capacity of state legislators to lead and achieve progressive change. This article was written for The Nation magazine.

It is an exaggeration to say that today’s progressives don’t have a philosophy. Progressives have a fairly consistent agenda—we know what we stand for. The problem is, we don’t have an effective framework to communicate our philosophy to persuadable voters.

Because a crucial election looms before us, progressive thinkers are rightfully focusing on this problem. But in fashioning a solution, we must insure that the language we use speaks to the Americans we are trying to persuade. This is a challenge, because most persuadable voters are not like us—they are normal people. Unlike us, they don’t think much about public policy, they don’t have a policy checklist for candidates and they don’t speak policy or use intellectual jargon.

How do we persuade people who are so different? By assuring them that we share their values. “Values” need not be the anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-science mores of the right wing. In politics, they are ideals that describe the kind of society we are trying to build. There is a set of values that progressives can employ to frame public policy in language that will win over persuadable voters. And to those we are trying to reach, our values will sound very familiar: freedom, opportunity, security and responsibility.

What’s so special about these rather moderate-sounding words? First, they resonate with all Americans. When we use these values to describe and defend progressive policies, voters understand that we’re on their side. But more important, they summarize a progressive philosophy that voters can grasp and remember. Successful message framing isn’t just repetition of preselected words and phrases. (Anybody remember how often Kerry said “values”?) The trick is using those words and phrases to communicate a coherent set of principles—a vision for the future.

We can begin by defining the proper roles of government. Progressive policies fit fairly well into three situations, where: (1) government has no proper role because public action would violate individual rights; (2) government acts as a referee between private, unequal interests; or (3) government acts to protect those who cannot protect themselves, including future generations.

Where government has no proper role, the progressive value we should speak of is “freedom.” The idea of freedom is deeply ingrained in American history. It is universally popular. Oddly, progressives rarely talk about freedom, perhaps because we are afraid that defending civil liberties makes us unpopular. But that’s the point of values—to help us bridge the gap between popular ideals and policies that truly uphold them.

Where government acts as a referee, the progressive value is “opportunity.” Americans believe in a land of opportunity where hard work is rewarded and everyone has equal access to the American Dream. Equal opportunity means a level playing field—fair dealings between the powerful and the less powerful, the elimination of discrimination and a quality education for all.

Where government acts as a protector, the progressive value is “security.” Conservatives want to narrow the definition of security to mean only protection from domestic criminals and foreign terrorists. But Americans understand that protection of our health and well-being is also security. Insuring the sick and vulnerable, safeguarding the food we eat and products we use and preserving our environment are all essential to US security.

While progressives work to extend freedom, opportunity and security to all Americans, conservatives try to limit these rights to a select few. When conservatives restrict basic reproductive rights, authorize warrantless police searches and impose their creationist doctrine on schoolchildren, they are trampling on American freedoms. When they block antidiscrimination laws and traffic in government favors, no-bid contracts and economic development giveaways, they are crushing equal opportunity. When conservatives try to gut Social Security; dismantle programs that protect our health, safety and environment; and grossly mishandle the terrorism threat, they are wrecking our security.

All this brings us to “responsibility,” the value that most plainly sets progressives apart from conservatives. We take responsibility for the well-being of our nation by crafting policies to extend freedom, opportunity and security to all. Conservatives cynically turn the word inside out by chanting a mantra of “personal responsibility.” They mean that unemployment, hunger and discrimination are the individual’s problem, not society’s. In this way, conservatives twist the language of responsibility to avoid responsibility. It’s downright Orwellian.

So let’s talk the talk: When advocating a public policy, let’s emphasize freedom if government action would violate individual rights, opportunity if government should act as a referee and security if government should act as a protector. And let’s point out that the progressive position takes responsibility for solving the problem, while the conservative position abdicates it. Here’s a brief example: “America should truly be a land of opportunity. But the current minimum wage denies workers the opportunity to support a family. We have a responsibility to make the American Dream more than just a fantasy. Those who oppose raising the minimum wage are shirking that responsibility.”

Polls consistently demonstrate that our policies are very popular. Americans want fair wages and benefits, consumer protections, quality education, a clean environment and healthcare for all. But many persuadable voters don’t trust us to deliver these programs, because they don’t understand our philosophy. Let’s explain ourselves in language that voters will understand and appreciate. Let’s make it clear that, for progressives, “values” is not just a buzzword. And, this time around, let’s win.

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 22nd, 2006 at 12:15 PM and filed under Articles. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.

8 Responses to “How Progressives Can Win”

  1. David Hunt said:

    The word (progressive) buz word doesn’t exactly sit right with me because it reminds me of a concept of Marx’s Communist Manifesto (loaded concepts)

    (ie.)Progressive taxation means that a person who earns more pays not only additional taxes but also at a highre rate of taxes. This was my heavy metallic concept and is point 2 of the 10 point manifesto of Marx. The concept of progressive taxation is in the US unconstitutional, would not stand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court and certainly did not work out in the Soviet Union or any other country that tried it.

  2. Mike Blaxill said:

    progressive taxation unconstitutional? where in the constitution does it say that?..

    there is so much need in this country - walk outside and you see it everywhere..talk to (non rich) friends and you find they are struggling or have relatives who are struggling..paying for health care, housing, an aging parent.

    That some people can’t find it in their hearts to pay more taxes .. say “get by” on $500,000 instead of $550,000 .. to me is obscene

  3. Brigit Clarke-Smith said:

    Unless Deibold and dictator tactics are stopped in the ‘ghettos’, when voting time rolls around; “felon sheets”, etc. ‘Wrong’ voting places, standing in a line 7 hours to vote, and often in inclement weather…..
    not a chance against the “ALL PUPPET REPUBLICANS”. Not a pregnant idea in any of them. Not a difference of opinion. Only the Republican Way. Whoopee for Kool Aid!

  4. Ian said:

    Sadly, Brigit’s seemingly flip attitude is closer to the truth than some would like to admit. With the Florida debacle of 2000 leading the Supreme Court to “appoint” Bush president [N.B. Inexcusably without the recusal of Scalia despite the fact that his son was on the Bush legal team], and the irregularities coming to light in Ohio re the 2004 election - and, as Brigit notes, with the increasing implementation of touch-screen voting on machines, 70% of which are owned and controlled by companies owned by Bush’s friends - the very concept of a “legitimate” election in this country is becoming questionable.

    This does not mean that “progressives” (a word I also reject as inappropriate, and potentially off-putting) should not make every attempt to reach the voters. But just as important, if not moreso - yes, in the only hyperpower First World country in the world - is having progressives monitor the elections in as many places as possible. Without such monitoring, “we” could reach enough voters to win, but the machines and process could easily undermine that.

    Peace.

  5. Linda Hassler said:

    I would imagine the author has used the positive word “progressives” while avoiding the term “liberals” because the latter term has come to represent causes that frighten those who fear change - the ultra right-wing.

  6. Roxanne said:

    I agreed with #4 Ian and #3’s statements. To keep the Republicans run again in ‘08, they will need to find a new way to win, on the opposite side, we must find a way to prevent this. That’s our new responsible if we truly cares for America and break the “merry go round” in the Bush’s world.
    We have our freedoms, why let them to win?

  7. Peter Fleming said:

    Ah, “progressives”, a new misnomer to replace “liberal” an old misnomber that
    has finally been over exposed to mean bigger government. The 30’s intellectuals of Roosevelt’s administration stole “liberal” away from its 200 year old
    usage: simply less government, more pro free choice individualism.
    “Conservative”, as with the above two, has
    the same unfortunate history. Both groups
    mean: Go To Government to Solve All Problems
    They are both Pro Centralization of government. Bigger government equals WAR!
    I am pro DE Centralization of government
    and truly do not want a war policy.
    This article is archaic, fuzzy offering
    only one remdy: “Orwelian group think”,
    in place of individual choice and accomplishment of free markets.
    Good luck disguising socialism; it’s an old
    con. It can NEVER work.

  8. Mike Blaxill said:

    I’ll take what they have in many “democratic” industrialized countries - universal health care, more regulation of business to protect the environment, mandated vacation days of at least 3 weeks, higher minimum wage, more protections against joblessness, homelessness (sounds a lot like socialism right?).. than the crypto-religio-fascist, oligopoly that we have in this country now any day. If corporations had free reign (or “more” free reign) to do whatever they wanted we’d all be A LOT worse off .. how about Florida under water and PCBs in your soup!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.