Most Conservatives Don't "Get" Messaging
I come from a campaign/public affairs background. Most bloggers come from a journalism or policy background. So I guess it's no wonder I don't always see eye-to-eye with conservative bloggers.
.. I just came from one such meeting.
In fairness, it is very cool that Rob Bluey and Tim Chapman organize these meetings. I'm all for sharing information and being briefed on the important matters of the day.
Today's meeting involved a briefing by Ken Johnson of Pharma. Ken was there because the pharmaceutical industry has come under attack from politicians who want to institute price controls (essentially Socialism).
Ken is clearly one smart cookie who understands how to craft a message.
If you're a frequent reader of this blog, you know that every message requires the following components: emotion, contrast, connection, and credibility.
Ken gets this. His message about the pharmaceutical industry involves all the right components. For example, he contrasts what the world will look like in 10 years if America has the best and safest drugs, versus what the world will look like in 10 years if America quits doing drug research (and discovering new cures for diseases).
Of course, this also has an "emotional" component -- and it "connects" with average folks (who could picture themselves -- or a loved one -- needing a cure some day).
Based on the briefing, it is clear that Ken understands that without credibility, he has no message. That's why the industry launched several campaigns to let folks know the good things the pharmaceutical industry is doing.
Here's where I have my differences with some conservative bloggers: Ken kept getting questions about whether or not his industry was going to do anything to educate Americans about how price controls are really Socialistic -- and about how they are anti-Free Market.
While I agree philosophically that: 1. Price controls are anti-American, and 2. Most businesses and industries don't do a good job of standing up to the liberals, I think it is extremely naive to expect any industry to spend their time educating the public about the Free Market -- especially when they should spend their time and energy actually fighting the battle before them (of course, the bloggers disagreed with me).
Of course, it makes sense that bloggers -- the very people who spend their lives devoted to educating the public about the conservative cause -- would expect others to do the same. But the very reason Ken was at the meeting was, no doubt, to enlist bloggers to help educate the public (or, at least, a targeted group of conservative leaders who are actually likely to care about such things).
It also shouldn't surprise me that many conservatives still haven't learned that you don't win an election -- or a Legislative battle, for that matter -- by educating the public -- or by arguing logic. In fact, it is axiomatic that in politics, if you're educating, you're losing.
Logical arguments rarely persuade anyone. As a wise man once said, "logic leads to conclusions and emotion leads to action." (Sadly, this flies in the face of conservatives who care deeply about the issues and believe they can win public policy battles through debate and intellectual discussion).
Here's a fictitious example to illustrate what I'm getting at:
The conservative "educational" argument: "The Founding Fathers intent was for a Free Market. But if we allow one industry to become Socialized, it's just a matter of time before all the dominos fall. We must preserve Adam Smith's "invisible hand ..." (This message might resonate with you and me, but it won't resonate with the average person).
The liberal "emotional" argument: "I just don't think we should have American senior citizens have to cut their pills in half and make the choice between putting food on the table or getting the medicine they so desperately need. "
... Ok. Be honest. Which argument would the AVERAGE American buy? You and I both know it's the emotional argument.
The final reason candidates and industries (who are currently engaged in battles) should not be expected to educate is because today's media environment moves fast. It relies on sound bites. In short, a spokesman can either spend his time getting your persuasive message out -- or you can spend your scarce time allotment trying to save the world.
Please note that I obviously don't have a problem with pedagogy. I mean, Rush Limbaugh is on the air for three hours every day. We also have think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. And we also have plenty of conservative authors and opinion leaders who are more than happy to argue about what's right and what's wrong.
My take on this issue put me at odds with the bloggers who are more passionate about the issues, but adhere to the Barry Goldwater model of persuasion (which is to argue with enough people until you lose) ...
.. I just came from one such meeting.
In fairness, it is very cool that Rob Bluey and Tim Chapman organize these meetings. I'm all for sharing information and being briefed on the important matters of the day.
Today's meeting involved a briefing by Ken Johnson of Pharma. Ken was there because the pharmaceutical industry has come under attack from politicians who want to institute price controls (essentially Socialism).
Ken is clearly one smart cookie who understands how to craft a message.
If you're a frequent reader of this blog, you know that every message requires the following components: emotion, contrast, connection, and credibility.
Ken gets this. His message about the pharmaceutical industry involves all the right components. For example, he contrasts what the world will look like in 10 years if America has the best and safest drugs, versus what the world will look like in 10 years if America quits doing drug research (and discovering new cures for diseases).
Of course, this also has an "emotional" component -- and it "connects" with average folks (who could picture themselves -- or a loved one -- needing a cure some day).
Based on the briefing, it is clear that Ken understands that without credibility, he has no message. That's why the industry launched several campaigns to let folks know the good things the pharmaceutical industry is doing.
Here's where I have my differences with some conservative bloggers: Ken kept getting questions about whether or not his industry was going to do anything to educate Americans about how price controls are really Socialistic -- and about how they are anti-Free Market.
While I agree philosophically that: 1. Price controls are anti-American, and 2. Most businesses and industries don't do a good job of standing up to the liberals, I think it is extremely naive to expect any industry to spend their time educating the public about the Free Market -- especially when they should spend their time and energy actually fighting the battle before them (of course, the bloggers disagreed with me).
Of course, it makes sense that bloggers -- the very people who spend their lives devoted to educating the public about the conservative cause -- would expect others to do the same. But the very reason Ken was at the meeting was, no doubt, to enlist bloggers to help educate the public (or, at least, a targeted group of conservative leaders who are actually likely to care about such things).
It also shouldn't surprise me that many conservatives still haven't learned that you don't win an election -- or a Legislative battle, for that matter -- by educating the public -- or by arguing logic. In fact, it is axiomatic that in politics, if you're educating, you're losing.
Logical arguments rarely persuade anyone. As a wise man once said, "logic leads to conclusions and emotion leads to action." (Sadly, this flies in the face of conservatives who care deeply about the issues and believe they can win public policy battles through debate and intellectual discussion).
Here's a fictitious example to illustrate what I'm getting at:
The conservative "educational" argument: "The Founding Fathers intent was for a Free Market. But if we allow one industry to become Socialized, it's just a matter of time before all the dominos fall. We must preserve Adam Smith's "invisible hand ..." (This message might resonate with you and me, but it won't resonate with the average person).
The liberal "emotional" argument: "I just don't think we should have American senior citizens have to cut their pills in half and make the choice between putting food on the table or getting the medicine they so desperately need. "
... Ok. Be honest. Which argument would the AVERAGE American buy? You and I both know it's the emotional argument.
The final reason candidates and industries (who are currently engaged in battles) should not be expected to educate is because today's media environment moves fast. It relies on sound bites. In short, a spokesman can either spend his time getting your persuasive message out -- or you can spend your scarce time allotment trying to save the world.
Please note that I obviously don't have a problem with pedagogy. I mean, Rush Limbaugh is on the air for three hours every day. We also have think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. And we also have plenty of conservative authors and opinion leaders who are more than happy to argue about what's right and what's wrong.
My take on this issue put me at odds with the bloggers who are more passionate about the issues, but adhere to the Barry Goldwater model of persuasion (which is to argue with enough people until you lose) ...
posted by Matt Lewis at 11:30 AM
<< Home