A progressive suggests that progressives are not communicating well…and why.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/486478-were-talking-past-one-another-a-lesson-democrats-must-understand

The author makes good points, with viewpoints from both sides.

“Many [Trump supporters] likely do believe some truth underlies the president’s bluster. But simply disproving this or that specific claim is unlikely to shake their faith because they do not expect all his claims to be literally true. Lecturing Christians or Jews about whale digestion will not make them atheists, Jonah notwithstanding.”

The author goes on to describe the importance of loyalty by Trump and his supporters.

“Progressives find his fury at those he appointed embarrassing for the president, especially in light of his promise to hire “the best people” into government. From the perspective of members of his “team,” however, apostates’ disloyalty is the worst moral offense.”

Honestly, it is a decent, short read by a progressive lecturing progressives about understanding the Trump movement. And, of course, what they have to do to be more effective. Nothing earth shaking, or necessarily new, just concise.

Of course, that is MHO about an opinion, not an article.

21 thoughts on “A progressive suggests that progressives are not communicating well…and why.

  1. “Dumb down or die” is the message offered for progressives. No thanks. In my elitist opinion it is better for leaders to try to educate and to persuade with relevant facts than to promise unattainable goodies or invoke tribal loyalties. Trumpish – that is to say, Stalinist – leadership works in the short term on some people but in the long term facts actually do matter and “legal and ethical” behavior IS important if we are to maintain “Truth, Justice and the American Way.”

    Like

      1. Of course, that is true. But look how damaging it has been. Ronald Reagan promised “Morning in America.” That turned out to be the precursor to the destruction of the middle class. Leadership involves LEADING. Pandering is not leading. Of course, with that said, at some point you have to win. Bernie is finding out that appeals to fear are very powerful.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. There are policy sues that can be to the Democrats favor. Healthcare is a big one that worked in 2018. And it still is. So much so that Trump pulled his lawsuit against ACA to try and blunt that attack.

          Liked by 2 people

  2. Interesting that Me Super does exactly what he complains others are doing.

    The article starts with the premise that liberals are right on the issue, so how do we persuade the deplorables to submit.

    The difference is not factual, it is philosophical.

    It comes down to the value you place on individual liberty vs collective security.

    Like

    1. @Tabor
      “It comes down to the value you place on individual liberty vs collective security.”

      What you call “collective security” is actually individual security. You will not be able to enjoy much “individual liberty” if you have died for lack of food, clean water, safe housing, clean air to breathe, a safe place to work, medical care, etc. As we have seen the overzealous pursuit of “individual liberty” by government leads to those outcomes for many millions of people. Those middle class people with realistic opportunities to actually enjoy “individual liberty” are becoming an endangered species.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. RE: “Interesting that Me Super does exactly what he complains others are doing.”

      That was my impression, too. The possibility that so-called progressive ideas may simply be wrong or wrong-headed doesn’t occur to him. Hence the misdiagnosis that the problem progressives must solve is merely a question of packaging or communications.

      To grasp how incoherent this thinking is, imagine trying to sell a global warming response agenda in an America First package.

      Like

      1. The reverse is also true.

        The possibility that so-called conservative ideas may simply be wrong or wrong-headed doesn’t occur to you or other supporters of the regime.

        That is the matter of viewpoint that the author is addressing and which he feels progressives are not paying enough attention to.

        The column is not so much about praising progressive views as it is about paying attention to the viewpoints of the other side. Then shaping the message so it at least addresses Issues from that viewpoint.

        Talking past each other was the title. And with reason.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “The possibility that so-called conservative ideas may simply be wrong or wrong-headed doesn’t occur to you or other supporters of the regime.”

          I don’t find that to be true as a matter of lived experience, but it doesn’t matter. I certainly agree that we all have our biases and blindspots, if that’s your point.

          RE: “The column is not so much about praising progressive views as it is about paying attention to the viewpoints of the other side. Then shaping the message so it at least addresses Issues from that viewpoint.”

          I can see that you took it that way. I didn’t, however, because the writer denigrates specific ideas he attributes to Trump supporters. The concept of Trumpian loyalty, for example. To the writer, Trumpian loyalty is “key to cutting through this narrative,” especially to show that Republicans are playing Trump supporters for suckers.

          The writer thus combines both logical fallacy (straw man) with implied insult. It is impossible to have an eye-level conversation with someone who tries to communicate in such a way.

          Like

          1. …”the writer denigrates specific ideas he attributes to Trump supporters”…

            I’ve read through the piece three times now and I still don’t see that anywhere. Trumpian loyalty theory is proven when anyone, regardless of position or party, says anything that could be taken as negative towards Trump gets blasted on Twitter or at some political rally. Or if in the administration fired via executive tweet.

            And you might want to consider yourself in the same light as you portray in your last sentence.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. I cannot see how you can call the loyalty issue a straw man. After impeachment, he fired people who had nothing to do with testifying or undercutting his policies. They’d just told him or his subordinates facts regarding military aid to Ukraine. Or they were related by blood.

            And of course any senator who deviated slightly with reasoned opinions was trashed.

            Or the Washington State governor who was called a snake because he questioned federal virus policies as voiced by a Trump.

            Loyalty to Trump is paramount. And I believe his base expects and rewards that.

            So why would an opinion about how to voice a narrative not take that into consideration?

            I wasn’t try to persuade anyone. Just relating an opinion that has, I believe, some veracity.

            That you disagree is not terribly surprising.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. RE: “I cannot see how you can call the loyalty issue a straw man.”

            Easily. The writer assumes loyalty is an issue that Trump supporters think about. It is not, however, an issue I think about or which any Trump supporters I know think about.

            RE: “That you disagree is not terribly surprising.”

            I agreed with Dr. Tabor’s impression of the article for the reasons given. You are the one who is disagreeing with me.

            Like

          4. I meant disagree with the article, not me.

            Disagreeing with me is a given.

            As far as loyalty, I would probably agree that you and other supporters don’t necessarily think about loyalty to Trump. But you can bet Trump thinks about it a lot. His tweets affirm that when he picks someone for the snide insult of the day. Or never lets a good grudge go from even years back.

            And, in my opinion, he feels his supporters appreciate his emphasis on loyalty. And, personally, it fits the “us versus them”, or more divisively, “real Americans versus everyone else”.

            Liked by 1 person

    3. See, that’s the impression I often get from reading and interacting with conservatives (this article notwithstanding).

      You guys are Right, because you alone can interpret the sacred document and know the will of the prophets. Anyone to your left is, at best, stupid, at worst, intentionally trying to destroy The Shining City on the Hill.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Nail on head!

        A variation of “Real Americans” v. the rest of us.

        The illusion is that the urban elite are looking down on the rural folks. In reality, the opposite is also true, even more so from a populist president. A review of the “victim” status played by the right in so many issues. War on Christianity, war on white people, war on the wealthy, war on babies, etc.

        These are played to the max at every rally, speech, talk show, op-eds. Less of “why we are better” and more of “look what they are doing to you, your loved ones, your God”.

        It is definitely a two way street.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. First, it’s an opinion about how progressives can be more effective in selling their agenda. So I would assume that the author thinks his policies are the better ones.

    Funny, when I posted this piece, I was wondering how it would look to the conservatives. Your phrase “persuade the deplorables” kind of met my expectations. Not being unkind mind you, just an observation that the view of the valley is different depending where the person stands.

    I believe that there is a middle ground on individual liberty and collective security and the whole concept of a nation is based on that balance.

    This Coronavirus pandemic is probably going to highlight that to a degree we may not be ready for. I really hope not. My health, though good, is after all 72 years in the making. My retirement, though solid, is also vulnerable over a long period of time.

    Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read the piece.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s