I just want us thinking about this from a marketing point of view. I think som of our research outfits ought to do some market research too -- not by way of New Democrat triangulation, but how we can sell the points we want rather than adopting the other side's. My friend thinks that negativity isn't going to work. That's speculation if you like. But it is also a testible hypothesis. jks
--- Gar Lipow <the.typo.boy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/29/05, andie nachgeborenen
> <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > My friend suggests that the key thread in the
> right
> > wing catalog I've rattled off is that "some people
> are
> > better than others," including you, playing off
> > American individualism and pride in pulling
> oneself up
> > by one's bootstraps (in the eyes of God of course,
> but
> > he sanctions the hierarchy too -- doesn't he
> divide us
> > into the damned and the saved?) Is that right, do
> you
> > think? And what thread might we seize on to try to
> > enhance to get our favored audience, the working
> class
> > that doesn't even acknowledge that it is a working
> > class, to start on the long trek left? My friend
> is
> > absolutely certainly that Thomas Franks type
> populism,
> > them and us, is the wrong place to start, that
> > Americans are not going to respond to seeing
> > themselves as downtrodden.
>
> Taking the last point first - the right certainly
> seems to have
> suceeded with a them vs. us viewpoint. In point of
> fact when there
> was an actual left movement (as opposed to
> individual leftists) I
> think it succeeded by portraying the owning class as
> useless
> parasites, and workers as the people who actually
> got things done. So
> I think the point here is that a us vs. them
> attitude might be
> successful - it is the "downtrodden" part that is
> the loser here. Just
> speculating, but so is your friend and so are you.
>
> I will note that in the single payer movements I've
> been involved in,
> it always seemed to me that exessive emphasis was
> place on the plight
> of the uninsured, and not enough on the fact that
> people with health
> insurance can't get care. I always thought that the
> way to win would
> have been to focus more on the fact most people have
> to reason to be
> certain they would get care if really sick -
> regardless of whether or
> not they are insured, that this is because of the
> insurance companies
> who essentially play the role of preventing people
> from getting health
> care. Demonize the insurance companies; them vs.
> us. useless
> parasites living at the expense of hard working
> ordinary folk. Would
> it have been any more successful than what was
> actually used? Who the
> hell the knows. But I think that should at least be
> considered before
> we start throwing "us vs. them" out of our tool box.
>
> --
> Please note: Personal messages should be sent to
> [garlpublic]
> followed by the [at] sign with isp of [comcast],
> then [dot] and then
> an extension of net
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html