The Dems want better propagandists
Neil Abercrombie's Dave Helfert nominates himself
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Democrats | Democrats | message — Comments (37) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Dave Helfert, the communications guy for Hawaii Democrat Representative Neil Abercombie, thinks the Dems are doing a lousy job on the euphemistic propaganda front, so he sent out a lengthy attachment to House Dem staffers criticizing them. The Hill newspaper The Hill speculated that because the missive was a lengthy attachment unreadable on BlackBerries, no one read it.
Republicans have done a better job by developing poll data into focus group-tested messages like “culture of life” and “defending marriage,” along with attacks like “cut and run” and “plan for surrender” in Iraq, he argued.
In particular, Helfert points to Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who helped develop the 1994 “Contract with America” and is credited with helping Republicans come up with terms for polices like “Healthy Forests” and “Death Tax.”
“Republicans have been kicking our rhetorical butt since about 1995,” Helfert wrote.
He wants to call SCHIP: a "Healthy Kids" plan. It's too late. As the GOP has said, "Let's put needy children first." It sounds agreeable.
Not shrill.
Read On…
"Heads blown off for the President's amusement."
That is a part of what forms a party's image, and though Nancy and friends might agree with the sentiment, American voters and those surveyed don't go for the off-the-wall, over-the-top lefty hate speech.
Maybe Mr. Helfert's onto something. Maybe the Dems, not intimidated by the size of his memo, should at least lend him an ear or two.
“Everybody’s a message expert,” said one Democratic leadership aide. “The fact of the matter is Democrats are working hard to communicate our accomplishments.
Maybe not.
“We appreciate input from those who have been on the front lines, and we value their opinions,” said Nadeam Elshami, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Well, he tried. Maybe Helfert is not a message guru type, but it turns out that he is something of a neurophysiologist:
His memo is sharply critical of Republican policies but also suggests a neurological explanation for Republican message success: By using emotional appeals and warning of dire threats, Republicans can trigger neurons called “amygdalae” in the temporal lobe, which is the seat of the “fight or flight” response in the brain.
So the Democrats resort to steely logic while Republicans appeal to emotion, digging heavily into the limbic system. But the opposite has been true of the Bush Administrations attempts to promote the necessity of victory in the War in Iraq. Civil war, war for oil, quagmire, Bush's war, innocent Iraqi children, troops are murderers, etc. The Democrats sink to new depths in this regard daily. (Believe it or not, this was Helfert's thesis for his Masters Degree. His professors might have been bribed with liquor.)
So maybe Helfert really is confused.
Republicans were amused. Brian Kennedy, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), said, “House GOP communicators would take his remarks as a compliment.”
There is one thing Mr. Helfert should recognize before he sets himself up as the stooge again. All the well-crafted words and emotional appeals cannot ultimately transform a message which is garbage.
That's the end of my memo. I hope it read okay in your BlackBerries.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Harry Reid plays partisan politics with the California wildfires — Comments (5) »
The Dems want better propagandists 37 Comments (0 topical, 37 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
is counterintuitive to what many of us have seen, in that it does not seem as if the Democrats have been losing the propaganda war.
I was not dismissing the importance of the way ideas are presented. It's great stuff for soundbytes and polls, which has everything to do with the salesmanship of concepts in a political universe where such things are almost all.
I am not making the conservative blogosphere to seem irrelevant by pointing this out; rather, my post pointed out that the initial discussion and memo did not mean much.
You completely missed it.
I missed nothing. I can go to any of the important right blogs and find this totally irrelevant story. Michelle has it, Ed has, and now so does Redstate. Do you know what story I won't find on any of the important right blogs? The story about how the Dems are trusted two to one over the Reps on SCHIP. Don't you think that is also an important story? Yet, no one, no one, wants to talk about that part of the story even though the entire right blogosphere is now fascinated with some obscure strategist and the funny word they used. That is a great way to make ourselves totally irrelevant. Let's ignore the important story, the one that has the Dems crushing the Reps politically on the issue, and let's all like any good echo chamber produce an orgy of stories about some obscure strategist and their funny word.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
Democrat rear as specious. I did not say that Helfert's analysis was correct; rather, I belittled it.
I did not report this story as proof that the GOP was doing anything right.
You seemed to have it in your head that I was doing what everyone else was doing, and I was not.
You missed it completely, m'friend.
Even Limbaugh doesn't seem to get that though the Dems aren't accomplishing anything legislatively, they are pounding Republicans in the PR game, which is their primary goal before next years elections anyway.
The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.
we are leading the Republican leadership right off the poltical cliff. Again, if we in the blogosphere want to fascinate ourselves with this trivial part of the story and refuse to talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the room, the one that has the Dems running commercials against everyone that voted against SCHIP accusing them of wanting to fund an endless and needless war while at the same time not having any money to get little kids health insurance, we can all do that, however we make ourselves totally irrelevant when we do it.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
I have no doubt the American people are as gullible as we fear, but I'd like to see these polls. I took a short cursory tour -- Rasmussen, Gallup, and RCP, and found only a little Gallup blurb -- which was pretty much a toss-up, by the way.
So where, if you don't mind, are you seeing these polls where the Republicans are getting CREAMED in the s-chip issue?
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
To Democrats logic is the enemy and the truth is their terrorist. Democrats just hope you can't see through the propaganda clouds.
Democrats' debate is contained in the included propaganda release ... no debate allowed.
I disagree with him on whether or not this deserves all the attention it is getting - it is a perfectly legitimate story, especially for the way this Helfert guy gets things bass-ackwards.
But, other than that, there is an outside world full of mush-minded swing voters, "moderates" and "Independents" (i.e. the ignorant) who are watching and, for lack of knowing any better, believing ads and newscasters who are telling them Republicans are outright denying children healthcare.
And we will need these people's votes next year. How does focusing so much attention on this and not at all agitating for the GOP's message machine to respond to the Democrats help us ...?
Here is the thing. The entire right blogosphere cannot get enough of this particular and relatively unimportant story. The leaders are all over it. Ed, Michelle, and now Redstate. None of the right blogosphere has the time to mention that the polls have the Reps getting crushed on this issue. Thus, the right blogosphere thinks that it is more important that some obscure operative used a funny word than that the Reps are getting crushed poltically on the issue. If that is so, then the right blogosphere makes itself irrelevant.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
The last I saw, most of the polls were showing the Right's position as more popular by a tiny bit ... but this was before the Democrats' ad blitz got in full swing.
here is how pathetic it is. When the public is asked to measure the specific policy they side with the Reps, however the overwhelmingly trust the Dems on the issue at large. Most people don't know the specifics of the policy so they aren't going to vote with the knowledge that the new SCHIP will have a new limit of 82K per year in income.
Look here is a google search of SCHIP polls.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=polls+on+SCHIP&btnG=Google+Search
There is no doubt who the public likes on this issue.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
Yep, what I saw on the first page of that:
Pollster.com -- quoting Gallup calling it a split-split
Kaiser-NPR-Harvard (can we say LEFT, LEFT, LEFT?) -- the summary paper of the Kaiser report read like a 'how can we get this passed' paper.
CNN -- do I have to comment on a CNN poll?
In short, I'm not seeing this MASSIVE butt-kicking the Dems are giving us on the SCHIP.
And anyway, what exactly should Republicans do? The Republicans are on the CORRECT side of this. Yes? No? So, should we:
(a) surrender the issue, and let America slide well down the path toward national health care? [we are agreed that this is a BAD thing, right?]
(b) fight it, and fight the LYING DEMOCRATS with a public campaign?
Call me an ignorant Neanderthal, but I say "b". It is an important battle, well worth fighting, and has the added benefit of highlighting how the media and the Democrats lie and distort to get votes and power.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Sounds to me like you don't know the specifics of the policy since that 82k per year only applies to New York, which has a substantially higher cost of living than the rest of the country. Either that, or your just intentionally misleading people.......naaa, couldn't be that....
Because if we really decided to go into specifics, such as how much of the money meant to be insuring children is actually being used on adults, how much above the poverty level a lot of the beneficiaries of SCHIP as it currently is actually are, and all sorts of other little details your Leftist friends in Press Corps are helping you hide from the American public ...
Well, let's just say that you'd be down to shrieking "racism", "sexism", "homophobia" and all the other words Lefties deploy when they're losing an argument within three comments.
Have a nice day.
This story was valuable because it is a look at some, I think justified, Democrat paranoia on their use of PR. Both sides have trouble, and I did not argue otherwise.
Ultimately, this was a call for the GOP to take advantage of a self-perceived weakness (or frustration) on the part of the Democrats and do things properly.
... but there is a bigger story out there and I'm not certain we're paying proper (i.e. more) attention to it.
NOTE: The answer to this, of course, is why don't *I* or mike_volpe post something about it ...
If the blogosphere wants to cover this story that is fine, however if at the same time it ignores the obvious, that this is a huge political loser for the Reps, then that makes our side of the blogosphere not very relevant.
What happens is that we create an echo chamber where we think the Dems are propagandists and that everything is going hunky dory as far as SCHIP. If we do that, we are not getting the truth to our community.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
- we are not getting the truth to our community.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather that "the truth" you speak of in that sentence is that the R's are getting creamed politically on the issue. I don't think it's true that "our community" is ignorant of the various reasons that one might legitimately oppose having taxpayers provide medical insurance to families making $82,000 per year.
If the "creaming" is the issue, then what can any of us say except, "Welcome to the United States of America, where the mechanisms of news dissemination are so firmly in the hands of liberal activists that everything the public hears about current events is filtered through the lens of liberal politics."
That issue goes far beyond SCHIP. We got creamed on the War in Iraq; we got creamed on Social Security Reform. We get creamed on everything.
The good news is, we're making progress. We now have actual media outlets, viewed or listened to by tens of millions of people, that venture beyond the Democratic Party's talking points. It is true that those portions of the media which are not mouthpieces for liberal politics reach a minority of our citizens. But I think the empirical results support the idea that "our" media reach at least half of those who actually vote. I say that because we now win our share of the elections, whereas only 13 years ago the Democrats had held the majority in the House for 40 years and had held the majority in the Senate for all but brief intervals during that 40 years.
The idea that most reporters in the United States would fairly represent the views of the Republican leadership if only that leadership would speak to the press is silly. The Republicans can talk until they're blue in the face and no one who does not watch the Fox News Channel will ever know they said a word. That's the ocean we swim in.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
If anyone thinks the GOP is going to come out on top of any issue via the words of the MSM, they are kidding themselves. We get pounded on everything. Even if the Republicans proposed a $1T tax increase, the press would find some way to paint conservatives as racist, bloodthirsty, Haliburton-lovers.
Policy-making to try to impress the press is a losing proposition.
“I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels” - John Calvin
So yeah they need the best propagandists they can get.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Hello,goppies! I've just come to look at what the other side says about the world, and it all sounds familiar, only in reverse. Let me say that liberal websites excoriate the Dems also, but for not being progressive enough, and for being spineless against the GOP. We cite polls too, that show most Americans agree with us on the issues. Yes, you get down to talking specifics and people change their minds, but how many of those specifics aren't just couched in terms intended to scare people out of wanting reforms?
But this string is about Helfert, whose story I doubt will get any play on liberal sites simply because its an old topic for us, i.e. it's been done by the likes of George Lakoff and Ruy Teixera, among others. Also see Eric Alterman's book, "What Liberal Media?" You have your amen corner, we have ours, but most of the media plays it very cautious and in the middle.
Final point--re: presidential candidates. Progressives would choose Dennis Kucinich and think most of the others in the field are "Republicrats", especially Hillary. If you got your wish and all the Democrat candidates died tomorrow, we progressives would hold our collective nose and vote either for Ron Paul, just to end the war, or Mike Huckabee, because he seems the least cruel.
Would like to hear your thoughts back, either here or Common Dreams. Go there and educate yourself.
It's just a "progressive" news aggregator. I don't see anything there that represents a discussion site. I'm not sure how you would "hear out thoughts back" there.
Regarding your main observation, while there are some superficial similarities between the left and right blogosphere, such as that both tend to complain that the mainstream media are biased against them, there is a fundamental difference between the left and responsible right sites like RedState - the left starts with a philosophical presupposition and has to try to find a way to fit the facts to match the philosophy (coupled with a lot of emotional catharsis); whereas the right is more interested in finding what works in practice and inductively learning from historical experience rather than deductively trying to fit everything into the unchallengeable mold.
I'll stop here rather than continue the threadjack. It could be a worthwhile discussion if you would further develop your observations in a blog posting. However, to avoid writing what we call a "conservatives in the mist" blog, which is greatly frowned upon here, it is better that you explicate your position and let us respond, rather than just asking what we think about the topic.
So long as you write in a reasoned fashion and avoid invective (as you did above), while you will likely get critical responses, I would trust that the conversation would remain civil. And I hope you're not one who gets easily offended, vigorous discussion and disagreement do not ipso facto represent personal attacks here - it's the essence of political debate. Good luck.
Common Dreams has blogging after every article. Some of it is smart, some of it is juvenile. Some of it is just too long- winded and pedantic for me.
You sound rather like a judge and I am on trial here. Don't worry your honor, I won't use invective or ad hominem attacks, just occasional sarcasm.
You know, I hear the main criticism of the neo-cons is that they start with a philosophy and then make the facts fit it. Are you gung-ho on Bush, or critical? All the Republican candidates are thumping their chests and saying, "I'm the real Republican here!" Is that aligning with Bush or repudiating him? Are neo-cons real Republicans?
I know most people in a political discussion will use as their master reference "The Big Book of Wishful Thinking" by Hope Springs. You open it up and see what you want to see.
I don't see how the Right has been the soul of probity and pragmatism since--well--a long time. The Left--not the Democrats, but the real Left--would like to hijack the Dems like the neocon true believers hijacked the GOP. Three big barriers to that--no money(because we won't take corporate dough), no ruthlessness(except towards each other), and no popular base(because we are perceived as communists).
But I don't think one side has a monopoly on truth or fact, or rightness or fairness. Nothing is that simple.
are intentionally deceptive because they are unacceptable to reasonable people when taken at face value. For example, pro-abortion becomes pro-choice, changing the pro-abortion "message" of destroying a fetus in the name of personal convenience to the pro-choice "message" of empowering women to overcome servitude. When your policies are corrupt, you must either use deceptive language or load up the judiciary with lifetime appointments to further your agenda.
...and vice-versa, because both sides do it--find language that portays your side as good and theirs as bad. Your last sentence, getreal4once, is true of the goppies as well as dems. It's called politics, and those of us who really believe in something find the pandering, self-promotion, lying, and schoolyard name-calling to be disgusting, but somehow satisfying. Abortion, your example, is about when you would prefer to think life begins--at the union of egg and sperm, or some later point of no return which varies from person to person? Should the government say, or science, or religion, or is it up to the individual?
Actually, I think abortion is really a proxy debate about sex; whether sex for fun should be allowed, or whether sex should only be to make babies.
But getting back to framing, I would say framing is a way of avoiding a debate on an issue by substituting that debate for a battle over semantics.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Or anyone who's birth was an accident or a mistake.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Good luck penetrating this poor bugger's wall of cynicism. I mean, really: the man thinks that we're just like he is. Kind of cruel to break him of that, nu? :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
He seems to be trying to function rationally.
If anyone wanted to penalize recreational sex, they would restrict prophylactics. With the crop of STDs running around that should be more than enough.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Of course this is happening already. But mainly I was talking about framing issues rather than debating them. Also-I have a book about Tom Paine. He was quite a bit too liberal for his time and I daresay too liberal for ours. You must be quoting one of his urgent calls to help fight the British.
I don't see it happening already. Can you find me a bill that has even been filed in any legislature to prohibit or restrict contraceptives? Are there any special interest groups fighting for one? Some people may not want to give them more promotion than they've ever had before, but that's not even remotely close to wanting to restrict them.
I suppose I can't speak for what is going on in others' minds, but I can tell you for sure that my opposition to abortion is based on nothing more than scientific fact and simple observation of the unborn child at the time abortions are done.
The only reasons anyone could define human life as beginning at a later point are ignorance or justification of abortion.
Of prophylactics, concerns underage children. Even then the restrictions are on the state doing the distributing.
If you feel the state has the right to act in loco parentis and provide them to 12 and 13 year old children you're just out of your mind. This is a parental responsibility and decision.
As to the quote, its referenced. American Crisis vol 4. If you don't have it WOWIO will provide you a copy gratis.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I assume you are being tongue in cheek. But if you are not, I am not cynical, I am in fact reaching out to establish common ground. I read posts both here and at liberal/progressive blogs and they are remarkably similar in their rage, satire, cynicism, and paranoia but from opposite viewpoints. See if I'm right.
"Actually, I think abortion is really a proxy debate about sex; whether sex for fun should be allowed, or whether sex should only be to make babies."
Because it's just too hard to believe that religious conservatives would be so human as to care for the life of a child. All that talk about caring and the sanctity of life ... it's impossible, their coldblooded lizard hearts don't understand things like sympathy, compassion or understanding. They disagree with us liberals, and we know we're the ones with the monopoly on goodness, warmth, and cupcakes. If they were only human like us, they'd be able to admit to themselves that what really matters in the debate is how much sex we can get, and not the worthless life of a preborn child.
Wait, did my mask just slip?
-
NARF
blogosphere and if we all want to become as irrelevant as possible then let's give this story as much play as possible.
Two things, first the operative is absolutely right. The best way to win politically is to appeal to the most base emotions. Second of all, who cares.
Let me let you all in on some facts. The Reps are getting crushed on SCHIP, and everyone on the right blogosphere is cheering on the leadership with an atta boy as though they are doing a good job. They AREN'T DOING A GOOD JOB. I am all for opposing this disaster of a bill, however I will not accept the leadership allowing itself to be outflanked by a bunch of incompetents, who used the oldest trick in the political book, poor little kids.
The polling is clear and the Reps are being beaten two to one. What is worse when there is polling on specific policy the Reps actually win which means that they are not effectively getting their message out.
If that is the case, why is the right blogosphere cheering them on like they are doing a good job. This site, Ed Morrissey, Michelle Malkin have each covered this story, AND IT IS TRIVIAL AND UNIMPORTANT! If you all want to cover it fine, but you make yourselves irrelevant when you become fascinated with a funny sounding word for a part of the brain while at the same time totally ignoring the reality that the Reps are getting crushed politically on this.
When the right blogosphere wakes up to the fact that outside our echo chamber there is a totally different narrative a narrative that paints the Reps as heartless war mongers who have no problem paying for an endless war but don't have the heart to give poor little kids health insurance, then maybe we can all start to constructively help the Reps resolve this issue poltically.
On the other hand, if you all want the right blogosphere to be as irrelevant as possible then continue to fascinate yourselves with a funny sounding word that describes a part of the brain.
Proprietor Nation