Losing The Narrative Battle: Progressives Need To Turn Pro
ByNo, the facts will not set you free. Time after time, progressives lose the narrative battle to the superior messaging firepower of the conservative movement. The facts don’t matter if you can’t sell them.
President Obama spoke again to GOP leaders at their caucus’ retreat in Baltimore on Friday. Again, because the first group Obama met with upon taking office a year ago was the GOP leadership. (He met with conservative pundits for dinner at George Will’s house before the inauguration.) Obama even invited more Republicans to join his cabinet than any of his Democratic predecessors. Those are the facts. Not that they matter.
In Baltimore, Obama called out Republicans for portraying health care reforms supported by the likes of Republican former Senate Majority Leaders Bob Dole and Howard Baker as some kind of “Bolshevik plot.” The rebuke drew suppressed laughter and scattered applause — not for the president’s joke, likely, but for the success of their anti-reform narrative.
Supporters are sure to read Obama’s Baltimore performance as some kind of takedown. But don’t expect to hear about it beyond YouTube. The left may sometimes take the narrative high ground but cannot hold it. Conservatives will still appear on the Sunday talk shows to declare unblinkingly that the world is flat: Obama has gone too far left, attempted too much, not been bipartisan, etc. As Bill McKibben wrote of the Christian right, “by their very boldness [they] convince the rest of us that they must know what they’re talking about.” And listeners swallow it without even bothering to chew.
The progressive movement lacks the professional media training and support infrastructure conservatives use to train and retain such media spokesmen.
Case in point: James O’Keefe and his alleged co-conspirators arrested last week after an incident at Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu’s offices in New Orleans. O’Keefe became a conservative hero last year after posting doctored video “stings” shot at offices of the community organizing group, ACORN. O’Keefe is an alumnus and former employee of the Leadership Institute in Arlington, Virginia, a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) charity and one of conservatism’s top training camps since 1979. Among the school’s more prominent alumni are Karl Rove, Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist and Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. O’Keefe received a $500 “Balance in Media” grant through the Leadership Institute for starting a conservative college monthly, the Rutgers Centurion. O’Keefe can expect a steady paycheck from movement conservatives even if he spends time in jail.
Along with paid internships at Heritage and other think tanks, the conservative movement provides a career track for budding activists. With few exceptions (the Center for Progressive Leadership among them), progressive organizations take a different approach. More progressive energy goes into winning short-term electoral gains than into promoting a progressive narrative over the long haul. Because many jobs are temporary, volunteer or low-paid, progressives eventually lose much of their promising new talent.
Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong discussed the Leadership Institute in Crashing the Gate, contrasting the conservative training and employment infrastructure with the lack of a progressive one. Progressives expect their activists to work for “psychic income” rather than a living wage:
On our side, we face a steady stream of defections to the private sector where the pay is far better. As Napoleon said, an army travels on its stomach, a lesson progressive leaders have yet to learn. We train them young, teach them the ropes, and as they reach the age where they could take a more active leadership role in the movement, they decide they can’t live with six roommates, default on their student loans, and eat Ramen noodles for dinner every night. They decide they want things like a car in good working order, they want to own a home, and they want to feel that their efforts are properly compensated.
The Leadership Institute has spent about $11 million a year recently to train new conservative leaders for a lifetime of spreading the conservative gospel. After South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” at Obama last summer, his opponent, Rob Miller, raised over $1 million dollars in small donations in two days. Given the left’s proven success at online fundraising, progressives should lend that kind of support annually for expanding their training infrastructure and for funding progressive media professionals — not to emulate the Roves, the Reeds and the O’Keefes, but to reach voters more effectively. Or we can continue to shout at our televisions and bang our heads against the wall.
Progressive think tanks have enjoyed greater presence lately in a media environment typically dominated by conservative ones. Yet progressive efforts at controlling the popular narrative still appear amateurish in the face of the high-decibel weirdness on the right. Hunter Thompson said, “When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.” It is time that progressives turned pro as well.
(Cross-posted from the Huffington Post.)
27 Comments
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:37 am
Ironically, HuffPost’s usual bold front page headline and photo yesterday was MYTHMAKERS, meaning the GOP leadership’s budget offensive:
Uh, no. Logic has nothing to do with it. Rhetoric does.
Rate this comment:
1 
5
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:22 am
Question. Let’s say the progressive movement trains a lot of media savy leaders to help get the truth and a progressive message to the Big Gulp American public. What are the chances the MSM will give actual air and print time to these leaders where most Americans get their opinions in the little amount of time they give to such matters?
Rate this comment:
1 
3
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:03 am
n th thr hnd, prhps th rsn th prgrssv mssg s prcvd s wkr s smply bcs th prgrssv thry f gvrnng rlly s wkr.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:35 am
Ralph,
What is your interpretation of the “progressive theory of governing”?
Yes, this question opens itself up to a volume of jokes, but would you do your best to answer it straight?
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:56 am
“The progressive movement lacks the professional media training and support infrastructure conservatives use to train and retain such media spokesmen.”
I just don’t buy this. Much of the mainstream media (with the exception of Fox, of course) solidly backed Obama in ’08, and the marketing of “hope and change” was good enough for them to declare him the best candidate ever. I watched as Katie Couric grilled the republican ticket derisively but gave Joe Biden a pass when he declared that FDR had been president in 1929 (Hoover was) and had APPEARED ON TELEVISION (not yet invented) that year! Active members of the current democratic power structure- Donna Brazile, Paul Begala, James Carville- even appeared as analysts during CNN’s election coverage. It was clear to me that the media was pro-progressive for that election cycle.
I don’t think the progressive movement on the national level is failing because it isn’t savvy enough. I think it fails because it is supposed to. After all, “progressive” means fairness and equality and sustainability. That doesn’t serve the goals of the corporations and huge power brokers that now pull our strings. (And will pull them even more openly thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision equating money with speech!)
We have to come to grips with the real possibility that we are being PLAYED by the supposed two parties. (It seems to me this dynamic, although present from the mid ’60s on, really solidified during the Reagan years.) The democrats say things that we like at election time, but they nearly always fail to deliver. We call it ineptitude, lack of media training, wanting bipartisanship too much, getting outsmarted by evil Joe Lieberman, etc. The republicans promise things we generally loathe, and they almost always deliver, with the dems rolling over and pleading helplessness. We have to at least consider the possibility that they are ALL members of the one corporate party and that they put on this liberal vs. conservative show for us just so we won’t pick up torches and pitchforks and storm the gate.
If I laid out this theory for you about China or Russia or Iran, you might say, “Hmmm…I can see that would explain a lot. It makes sense.” But when the same scenario is offered for the US, most people laugh and roll their eyes at the crazy conspiracy theory. But to borrow a phrase from Sinclair Lewis: “It CAN Happen Here.”
In my opinion, for the true values of progressives to succeed, progressives on the local level need to remain separate and skeptical to some degree from the state-level and national-level parties. In my view, Organizing for America has been a real detriment because it has taken what should be local donations and energy and continued to funnel them to the national level. I still get emails from them asking for money almost every time Obama makes a speech!
We have to build something strong and real in our own communities and let that spread out and push upwards. The national media spokespeople, no matter who trains them, will never truly be on our side.
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:02 pm
See the link in the last paragraph. Progressive spokesmen are getting more media space lately. Then again, the other guys have trained about 40000.
Rate this comment:
2 
0
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:13 pm
I think it is a classic case of legislative over reach by the Progressive Wing of the Democratic party. That over reach has sparked resistance in those most opposed to those ideas.
The Triumvirate of Obama, Pelosi and Reid have abandoned the tried and true Gramsci incrementalism that have devastated Western Civilization over the past few decades. It is my hope that enough people can be awakened to what has been happening and turn this thing back by a substantial margin.
However, all that being said, I have learned the hard way never to underestimate my party’s (the GOP) keenly honed ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Rate this comment:
2 
0
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Pay no mind to Ralph. After all, he’s the person who first told me about Phillip Berg’s lawsuit against Obama (aka he’s a birther)
Rate this comment:
0 
4
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Forgive my sexist bluntness, but progressives never get anywhere because they are pussies.
Rate this comment:
2 
2
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:12 pm
And Neocon chickenhawks get people killed trying desperately to prove that they’re *not* pussies.
Rate this comment:
4 
2
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Grdn, dd y xpct ths tpc nt t dtrrt rpdly, vn t th xtnt f ttrctng Bggs t f th wll>
Bt y skd fr srs nswr nd wll gv y n:
Prgrssvs tnd t vr-nnc thngs nt mrss f shds f gry, mkng rl prblms s cmplx thy nvr gt slvd, ndlss dbtng th whchnss f why.
Wht’s th rslt? xmpl, th Dmcrts hd 60-st sprmjrty n th Snt nd stll cld nt pss hlth cr rfrm ftr mnths f tryng.
nthr xmpl: Prsdnt bm hs blwn wht ws t lst rsnbl mndt fr chng nt rnnng Jmmy Crtr cls rc fr bcmng th mst nffctl n-trm prsdnt n th lst 100 yrs.
Whl th GP s by n mns prfct, thy tnd t gt thr mssg crss mr chrntly thn th Dmcrts (s sttd bv). My frst rply ws flp bt nt lss tr – myb yr mssg s wkr.
N, d nt rjct ths lgc t f hnd. f y kp (t s th clch vryn lvs s mch s ppld th crrnt dmnstrtn nd Cngrss) kp “sntchng vctry frm th jws f dft” thn th fllwng pssblts xst:
1. Y r lsy cmmnctrs.
2. Y r wrng.
3. ll f th bv.
d wsh y lck n th cty cncl, Grdn, bt y gys r mkng th sm mstk s n th ntnl nd stt lvls – .. vrly cmplctng smpl prblms nt n nslvbl nslvbl mrss f zlln spcl ntrst grps pllng y hthr nd yn.
Dd mntn lts f fr prkng dwntwn s smpl sltn yt?
Stll… rlly d wsh y gd lck, Grdn. Y’ll nd t.
By th wy, whr d Y prk fr th cty cncl mtngs?
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:11 pm
free parking downtown? That sounds like Socialism.
Rate this comment:
4 
1
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:15 pm
n Shd, t snds lk gd d … n whch wll gnrt mr rvn fr mrchnts, th cty, nd vryn.
jst pln ld gd mrktng.
Rate this comment:
2 
3
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Ralph, I vote for A. That’s why I suggest getting serious — professional, even — about messaging, not just Googling for data. Progressives don’t seem to know the difference. That’s why the right regularly eats their lunch. The right invests in, trains and nurtures their activists while the left expects theirs to live on slaves’ wages.
Progressives need to fund their own if they expect to compete.
I have tried, in my own modest way.
Rate this comment:
0 
3
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:42 pm
the Democrats’problem is that the only thing voters wanted last election is someone who is not Bush, but they got instead a more eloquent version of him.
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:03 am
Tom,
I believe you are correct. Progressives need to be able to articulate their message in short, effective narratives if they want to win hearts and minds of the public at large. Or at least not lose them to the Conservative narrative machine.
Just yesterday, the main story was the testimony of military leaders on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) so that homosexuals can lawfully serve in the military. Out came the lunatics who not only want to reverse the status quo, going back prior to DADT, but they also want to overturn Lawrence v. Texas and many other civil rights so that they can outlaw homosexuality. They “boldly” put forth the view that the homosexual is a rampant deviant and allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military will lead to unmitigated shower rape, barracks rape and a host of other sexual problems in the “intimate” setting of combat life (intimate being their word not mine). Here it comes. Obama wants to turn Don’t Ask Don’t Tell into Don’t Drop The Soap! Or, Teh gays think there are no heterosexuals in foxholes! Lewd, born of complete ignorance and hate, and totally insulting and demeaning to all the professionals who serve us today, especially those whom are homosexual, and of course insulting to so many more. Yet, we will see the Conservative narrative machine boldly kick into high gear spewing such tripe on this one. While we Progressives have the truth on our side on this (and a few more…), I agree we are probably not prepared with a narrative. I will just try this one: If the purpose of our military is to “fight and win wars”, then surely we should expect those in the military to act like grown-ups.
There is a dilemma here. We want to fight fire with fire. But these Conservative message mongers just plain and simply LIE. THEY JUST LIE!!!! THEY ARE JUST A BUNCH OF LIARS!!!!! The most effective narratives from the right are JUST PLAIN AND SIMPLY A HOUSE OF CARDS, A STACK OF LIES!!!! From death panels and socialism to the Republican fiscal conservatism and now, the comment just above mine, no. 15. This comment is a total lie, a lie recently spoken by none other than liar Roger Ailes himself. So I think the question is, if Progressives don’t want to lie, and I assume most don’t want to, how do they message truthfully?
-writ
PS. The bit “The purpose of our military is to fight and win wars.” was Dubya campaign speak from 2000. It resonated as our CEO would-be President dazzled audiences with his ability to simplify things. Last night I heard a former soldier counter the Dubya-ism with, “The purpose of our military is to defend our country.” It made me think that even there, a contest between two short mission statements is where the battle of narratives begins. One statement leads to a narrative that puts our country on a path of fighting unprovoked offensive wars. The other attempts to preserve our general traditional (or conservative) use of deterrence against attack, and then fighting only when attacked. Here, the Conservative message machine was used to get Conservatives to act in ways that aren’t conservative. There are other examples.
Rate this comment:
2 
4
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:15 am
Can you say “death panels”? Sure, I knew you could.
Rate this comment:
0 
1
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:17 am
Writ,
Your comments remind me of Tom Buckner’s recent post on game theory. If we play to win the debate on the issue while they’re playing to completely and utterly discredit our issue argument, character, and political philosophy in order to enact some unspoken goal – then we’re losing.
It’s a conundrum, indeed.
Rate this comment:
4 
0
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Good post, Tom! Money is a perennial problem for progressives precisely because they’re on the side of those who don’t have the money. $11 million a year is a pile to you and me but to someone like Charles Koch it’s pocket change (he’s worth $17 billion -2008 estimate).
I recall reading where a progressive organizer referred to the Tea Party bus, saying “we never had a shiny new bus with flashy graphics at any of our rallies.”
There’s nothing wrong with progressive ideas about governance, but the opposition is implacable and well supplied, and cynically willing to wreck the government if that will keep it from being used to progressive ends; hence the strategy of appointing saboteurs to run programs they don’t believe in, like Bill Bennett in Education or Christine Todd Whitman at the EPA. To our conservative readers, imagine if Obama had appointed Jane Fonda as Secretary of Defense: it’s like that.
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:33 pm
A lie? WAR – YES! now including Pakistan ECONOMY – as before NO BANKER LEFT BEHIND JOBS – NOT UNLESS YOU LIVE IN CHINA GLOBAL GOVERNMENT – Security and Prosperity Partnership LIVES!, GLOBAL BANKING AGREEMENT,CAP and TRADE,ETC.ETC. PHONY TERRORISM – underwear bomber helped onto the plane with covert government assistance BILL of RIGHTS – NOPE, STILL NOT APPLICABLE
Rate this comment:
3 
0
February 5th, 2010 at 10:20 am
going to take a LOT of Democrat spin doctors’ efforts to put lipstick on these pigs: covert war spending more taxesoverspendingbut the lapdog media is trying
Rate this comment:
3 
0
February 5th, 2010 at 10:36 am
Jim,
Just checking in. Are you intending to be persuasive or simply expressive?
Rate this comment:
0 
3
February 5th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Just putting out the facts…
Rate this comment:
3 
0
February 5th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Expressive. Got it.
Rate this comment:
0 
3
February 6th, 2010 at 9:39 am
It comes down to this: the primary motivations for civic action are Love and Fear…and Fear is by far the stronger of the two.
Fear has been at the core of every conservative argument for the last 50 years: fear of Commies, fear of Blacks, fear of Fags, fear of Wetbacks, fear of Socialism, fear of Women, fear of Atheists, fear of Muslims, fear of Anything Different. Fear of Change.
And it’s far easer to craft a message around hate and fear. Just ask Joseph Goebbels, Jesse Helms, Richard Viguerie, Terry Dolan, Morton Blackwell, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh.
Rate this comment:
3 
0
February 6th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
What change?
Rate this comment:
3 
0
February 6th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Any of it, Jim. Any of it.
Rate this comment:
0 
3