Book review--Being Right is Not Enough
If there is only one book that I could choose for politicians who actually love our country to read, this would be it. Paul Waldman's Being Right is Not Enough contains so many good ideas on how the left can simultaneously defeat Republicans at the ballot box and win the hearts and minds of the majority of the country's citizens--not just voters--that I hardly know where to begin.
"The problem isn't liberal ideas; the problem is liberals." (p. 5) Right from the beginning of the book, Waldman gets it right. Every poll taken shows that the majority (and sometimes, the vast majority) of people in this country hold "liberal" or "progressive" ideals, but the country still manages to elect men and women who are fighting against those ideals with every bone in their bodies. Waldman seeks to explain why throughout the first few chapters. The liberal message is just fine; it's the messenger that is wrongheaded. Republicans since 1964 have created what Waldman terms a "master narrative" that enables them, with every debate and article published about what they believe, to reinforce their image of being outsiders and people just like you and me, even though any cursory glance at what policies they actually support once in office are designed--and there is a design, make no mistake about that--to screw you and me. Progressives, on the other hand, do not even have a master narrative. No one knows what the left stands for, and no one is able to articulate it. Democrats far and wide are able to count off the individual issues they stand for, and are even able to present themselves as fighters for the little guy, on occasion. The problem in not having a narrative behind that, though, is that all of the issues and stances the left supports do not add up to anything larger that the public can grasp.
Waldman notes that the public--even the voting public--pays incredibly little attention to the actual issues involved in politics, and so therefore Democratic appeals to people's interests fall on deaf ears. Republicans, however, already know this and so they have been able to win elections because they are appealing to voters' feelings and instincts. Waldman refers to Aristotle's discussion of argumentation, wherein Aristotle outlines three methods of persuasion: logos (argument based on logic, facts, and reason), pathos (appeal to emotion), and ethos (appeal based on the character of the speaker). The Democrats since 1968 have been using only logos, while the Republicans are using the latter two and winning hands down. According to Waldman, Progressives must begin to use the methods of the Right as far as how they couch their arguments and appeals, additionally making sure that they have first crafted a master narrative that explains who they are, not what they stand for.
The beauty of Waldman's exploration of what the Progressive master narrative should be is that by crafting one that actually captures what the left holds dear (as he does by using the phrase "We're All In It Together"), the left will automatically pin the Republicans down as rhetorically opposing what they actually oppose in practice.
By means of example, Waldman posits a dozen or so progressive tenets and their corresponding conservative counterparts, in order to show how progressives can win debates and at the same time reinforce the public view of them as caring about all of us--just like the Republicans have been doing for decades. That progressives hold views that the majority actually believe in will make it all the easier for us to win those debates and presumably elections.
The fun part of the book lies in the stance that Waldman takes toward how progressives should approach the media and their opponents. He stresses that those on the left need to state their beliefs forcefully, repeatedly, and without hesitation or apology. For those of us sick to death of the waffling and reticence of our leaders to stake out a moral position on the political issues of the day that they truly believe in, regardless of the political consequences, this advice is like water in the desert. As Waldman notes, "Americans do think about progressive priorities as moral issues. Progressives need to start talking about them that way. When they do, they'll find their arguments resonating more strongly with voters." (p. 99) This is the key, once a master narrative is in place. By creating a positive image in the minds of the citizenry of what a progressive is, the issues they believe in, if articulated forcefully, will simply be seen as evidence that that image is accurate and trustworthy. And since our positions are the majority's positions, all the rhetorical heavy lifting will be shifted to those who oppose us.
Lastly, Waldman urges the Democrats to stop trying to be nice. The Republicans have successfully appropriated the public image of being the only tough guys on the block, but it wouldn't take much to erase that advantage. Referring to Smirky's 2004 campaign derision of Massachusetts when attacking Kerry's record as senator (noted on p. 102), Waldman reproves Kerry's weak response, urging instead a fierce counterattack:
That would have been awesome, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be awesome to have someone do that now? Waldman's book should be required reading for all members of the Democratic Party; we can only hope enough do read it to begin the processes outlined in it.
"The problem isn't liberal ideas; the problem is liberals." (p. 5) Right from the beginning of the book, Waldman gets it right. Every poll taken shows that the majority (and sometimes, the vast majority) of people in this country hold "liberal" or "progressive" ideals, but the country still manages to elect men and women who are fighting against those ideals with every bone in their bodies. Waldman seeks to explain why throughout the first few chapters. The liberal message is just fine; it's the messenger that is wrongheaded. Republicans since 1964 have created what Waldman terms a "master narrative" that enables them, with every debate and article published about what they believe, to reinforce their image of being outsiders and people just like you and me, even though any cursory glance at what policies they actually support once in office are designed--and there is a design, make no mistake about that--to screw you and me. Progressives, on the other hand, do not even have a master narrative. No one knows what the left stands for, and no one is able to articulate it. Democrats far and wide are able to count off the individual issues they stand for, and are even able to present themselves as fighters for the little guy, on occasion. The problem in not having a narrative behind that, though, is that all of the issues and stances the left supports do not add up to anything larger that the public can grasp.
Waldman notes that the public--even the voting public--pays incredibly little attention to the actual issues involved in politics, and so therefore Democratic appeals to people's interests fall on deaf ears. Republicans, however, already know this and so they have been able to win elections because they are appealing to voters' feelings and instincts. Waldman refers to Aristotle's discussion of argumentation, wherein Aristotle outlines three methods of persuasion: logos (argument based on logic, facts, and reason), pathos (appeal to emotion), and ethos (appeal based on the character of the speaker). The Democrats since 1968 have been using only logos, while the Republicans are using the latter two and winning hands down. According to Waldman, Progressives must begin to use the methods of the Right as far as how they couch their arguments and appeals, additionally making sure that they have first crafted a master narrative that explains who they are, not what they stand for.
The beauty of Waldman's exploration of what the Progressive master narrative should be is that by crafting one that actually captures what the left holds dear (as he does by using the phrase "We're All In It Together"), the left will automatically pin the Republicans down as rhetorically opposing what they actually oppose in practice.
By means of example, Waldman posits a dozen or so progressive tenets and their corresponding conservative counterparts, in order to show how progressives can win debates and at the same time reinforce the public view of them as caring about all of us--just like the Republicans have been doing for decades. That progressives hold views that the majority actually believe in will make it all the easier for us to win those debates and presumably elections.
The fun part of the book lies in the stance that Waldman takes toward how progressives should approach the media and their opponents. He stresses that those on the left need to state their beliefs forcefully, repeatedly, and without hesitation or apology. For those of us sick to death of the waffling and reticence of our leaders to stake out a moral position on the political issues of the day that they truly believe in, regardless of the political consequences, this advice is like water in the desert. As Waldman notes, "Americans do think about progressive priorities as moral issues. Progressives need to start talking about them that way. When they do, they'll find their arguments resonating more strongly with voters." (p. 99) This is the key, once a master narrative is in place. By creating a positive image in the minds of the citizenry of what a progressive is, the issues they believe in, if articulated forcefully, will simply be seen as evidence that that image is accurate and trustworthy. And since our positions are the majority's positions, all the rhetorical heavy lifting will be shifted to those who oppose us.
Lastly, Waldman urges the Democrats to stop trying to be nice. The Republicans have successfully appropriated the public image of being the only tough guys on the block, but it wouldn't take much to erase that advantage. Referring to Smirky's 2004 campaign derision of Massachusetts when attacking Kerry's record as senator (noted on p. 102), Waldman reproves Kerry's weak response, urging instead a fierce counterattack:
I've mentioned before how much fun George W. Bush had in 2004 poking fun at Massachusetts. What did Kerry say in response? Not a thing. But imagine if he had said in front of the cameras, "Mr. President, I've had just about enough of you insulting my home state and the fine Americans who live there. Why don't you try saying it to my face? Then we'll see how funny you think it is when I knock you on your phony Texas ass."(p. 219)
That would have been awesome, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be awesome to have someone do that now? Waldman's book should be required reading for all members of the Democratic Party; we can only hope enough do read it to begin the processes outlined in it.
posted by bryduck at 9:58 AM
1 Comments:
The Right blows. Out.
Post a Comment
<< Home