Reply #3: It's all about rhetoric vs. politics.

[calmblueocean]

I've been meaning to write a DU post about this somewhere, so I guess this thread is as good a place to sort out my thoughts on the subject.

I've been thinking for a long time now that conservatives get elected on rhetoric, not on their political positions. Voters across the heartland want a candidate who will talk in powerfully optimistic language and metaphor. They want to hear how strong and noble our nation is, how we're a force for freedom and justice in the world, how America has a tradition of self-reliance and hard work, how America is land where anyone can achieve their goals if they're just willing to strive long and hard for it.

Liberal politicians, to me, seem caught up rhetorically pointing out how often America doesn't live up these aspirations. Their speeches often not only don't rejuvenate their audience, but are sometimes downright depressing. They're right, of course, but what good is a pyrrhic victory?

What I think most liberal politicians have yet to realize is that most Americans, especially those in middle America, are voting based on their emotions. They're voting primarily for a leader that inspires them. The actual political policies that leader espouses come a distant second, if at all.

I have wondered lately if some of the rhetorical flourishes most exploited by conservatives could be turned on their ear, and harnessed for us. For instance, Bush's mantra about "hard work" is one that resonates among the conservatives I know. It's painfully ironic, given that the man has never done a day of "hard work" in his life, and has taken the most vacation time of any sitting president. But there you go -- it's the rhetoric, not the reality. It's how Bush makes them feel that's important; they couldn't tell you what he actually does.

You don't hear liberal politicians using the idea of "hard work" in the sense that Bush uses it. When most liberal politicians use the phrase, it's in the context that Americans are working too hard and getting too little for it. It's not that hard work is something good and fulfilling for every human being to do, and the best route to success. One of those is inspiring to many traditional Americans, the other is desperate and depressing. Is it any wonder we're not doing as well these days?

The irony is that liberals really do believe in hard work as a virtue, and conservatives don't. That's why we strive to create a country with a living wage, that's why we support a progressive income tax. We tax wealth instead of work. So why don't we hear more liberals talking about traditional, universal virtues like this? Liberal candidates have been completely focused on their role as policy wonk, but have totally ignored their role as preacher. By preacher, I simply mean as a voice for personal virtue and meaning. This is why Republicans keep getting elected, because they understand this.

Being this type of leader doesn't mean invoking God or Jesus every five minutes. It doesn't mean mindless flagwaving. But it does mean telling people stories about their lives in ways that make them feel proud, optimistic, and capable. Think about Barak Obama's 2004 Democratic convention speech. Remember how powerful that made everyone feel? All over the cable news networks afterward, I heard Republicans blustering in amazement, thinking that they had cornered the market on values-based messages. But Obama wasn't griping about his parents' struggle, he owned it and proudly claimed it as a badge of achievement. Why can't we all make voters feel the same way Barak Obama did that night? The answer is simply that we can. We just need to choose to.

I'll refine and amplify these thoughts in the future, but as I see it, the debate between whether we should choose moderates vs. hard liners really misses the essence of the problem. We need better rhetoric, not better politics.