Today’s Edition: The wisdom of crowds.

December 1, 2021

          The response to yesterday’s call for ideas regarding better messaging from the Democratic Party was overwhelming. Readers posted 340 comments (and counting), which you can read at my Substack website, here: “Open microphone night” on Democratic messaging.” (Scroll to the bottom of the newsletter to see the comments.) I received over a hundred suggestions via email, as well. It is impossible to fairly describe the hundreds of valuable suggestions, but I will do my best.

          First, the good news. Readers believe in the Democratic Party. They believe that it is a force for good and that it is delivering on promises to the American people as never before. It could be otherwise, so let’s not take that fact for granted. The less good news is that readers are frustrated by the perception that Democratic leaders have been caught flat-footed and lack assertiveness, discipline, and creativity. Many are resentful that Republicans are creating negative narratives around Democratic victories while Democrats act like “it’s business as usual.”

          Readers addressed several broad categories of concerns: Content, Platform, Consistency, and Delivery. I will address each briefly.

          Content. A consistent theme was the need for brevity, clarity, and “catchiness.” Suggestions by reader Bill Alstrom received the most “likes” for effectiveness. His suggestions are all three-word slogans to be accompanied by photographs. “Get the lead out” with a photo of kids drinking water, or “Save our bridges” with a photo of a crumbling bridge, or “Feed our kids.” There are hundreds of other suggestions in the posts, most which follow form to Bill’s compact style.

          Other readers noted that volunteers and campaign workers must have content readily available that does not require them to recreate the wheel. Reader Britta Lee Shain wrote,

          We need timely, ready to share memes, Facebook and Twitter posts, sound bites, and Radio and TV ads proclaiming the successes of the Biden Administration and calling out the lies on the other side in pithy language with striking visuals that will have an impact on people with short attention spans and describes what’s in the bills, not how hard they are to pass or how much they cost.

          Readers frequently mentioned the need for creativity, humor, and authenticity. One of the most frequently mentioned suggestions was to use real people discussing how Democrats have made their lives better. Dozens of readers suggested hiring The Lincoln Project to help Democrats go on the offensive. The need for compelling “visuals” was also frequently mentioned.

          Platform. Readers made the point that we must reach voters through the platforms they use. Rural America and older voters may respond better to newspaper content, letters to the editor, and mailings. Younger voters are on TikTok, Snap, YouTube, and Instagram. Readers repeatedly made the point that we must advertise in Spanish on platforms that will reach Spanish-speaking voters.

          Consistency. Readers bemoaned the fact that Democrats do not stay “on message,” thereby failing to project a coherent and memorable set of goals and accomplishments. It is still true that “All politics is local.” But with the advent of social media and 24-hour cable news, it is also true that “All politics is national.” We must give Democratic candidates the messaging tools they need to succeed.

          Delivery. Readers debated the effectiveness of Joe Biden in delivering the Democratic topline messages. Several readers suggested deputizing a core group of articulate and energetic Democrats to do the heavy lifting of delivering a consistent set of messages that will serve as the Democratic “brand.”

          There is much more in the comments, and I invite you to peruse them at your leisure. Because readers are still commenting 24-hours after yesterday’s newsletter was published, I am going to open the comments to this newsletter to all subscribers (free and paid). To leave a comment, go to the top of this newsletter, find the (bad) picture of me, and look to the right for a “dialog / chat” icon. Click on that to leave a comment. Let’s continue the discussion. I believe that people who can make a difference in the Democratic Party are reading your comments.

          Finally, a reader sent a link to a timely and excellent article in The Daily Kos, Messaging Monday: How to get better message discipline in the Democratic party.” The article contains an excellent summary that mirrors input from readers of this newsletter. Per The Daily Kos,

Good message discipline has five parts:

·       Craft a simple, memorable message with an emotional hook voters feel drawn to

·       Repeat the message at EVERY opportunity.

·       Avoid the opponent’s messaging and framing at all costs.

·       Reframe the opponent’s message to your benefit whenever possible.

·       Reward people who stay on message.

          The unfortunate truth is that the Republican Party is substantially better at message discipline than Democrats. Here is a case in point from Monday: GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is in a UGLY fight with GOP Rep. Nancy Mace over hateful comments made by GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert about Muslims. The fight devolved into Mace calling Greene “batsh*t crazy” for believing that “9/11 is a hoax” and Greene running to Trump to tattle on Mace. See The Hill, “Mace fires back at Greene: 'Bat---- crazy'.” When the GOP House Conference Chair Elise Stefanik was asked to comment on the fight, Stefanik said,

          We are unified on the issues that matter to the American people, on making sure that we're reining in our spending, to tackle inflation, on investing in border security. The issues that people care about are not the Twitter infighting. They care about issues that impact their daily lives. And that's what Republicans are focused on.

          Although everything Stefanik said about Republican priorities is a lie, she said it with a straight face and managed to be quoted in a reputable outlet that published her falsehoods without comment or analysis. There is a lesson in Stefanik’s discipline for Democrats.  

          As I said, let’s keep the discussion going and hope that Democratic leaders are listening. On issues like messaging, there is wisdom in crowds.

The House Select Committee Investigation of January 6th.

          The House Select Committee continues to make headway in its investigation of the insurrection on January 6th. After convincing the DOJ to indict Steve Bannon for refusing to appear before the Committee, former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows is reportedly cooperating by testifying and producing documents. See CNN, “Mark Meadows cooperating with January 6 investigators.”

In another positive development, a panel of judges in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dumped cold water over Trump’s claims that he could invoke executive privilege to prevent the Committee from obtaining presidential communications relating to January 6th. As one judge said during the hearing, “We have one president at a time under our constitution.” That does not bode well for Trump’s claim. Next stop: The Supreme Court, whose current composition was designed to insulate Trump from liability for his high crimes and misdemeanors as president.

 The Supreme Court’s docket, Part 2.

          As noted yesterday, the Supreme Court is considering major cases that may alter the landscape of the right to privacy, abortion, and the ability to regulate concealed carry of handguns. But the Court will also consider a judicial doctrine that underlays much of the government’s ability to regulate commerce in the U.S. through federal agencies. The doctrine and background are a bit complicated, so let me address the topline takeaway, then discuss a bit of background.

          A current Republican objective is to dismantle the “administrative state” that allows the federal government to manage the world’s largest economy. It does so through federal agencies that have rulemaking authority delegated from Congress. To make those rules, federal agencies hire and rely on experts in areas as diverse as aviation, food purity, toxic emissions, capital markets, trucking, and fishery management. In making those rules, federal agencies are sometimes called upon to interpret the statutes that grant rulemaking authority. The ability of federal agencies to make rules and interpret ambiguous statutes drives Republicans to distraction because they believe that corporations should be free to operate without interference from the federal government.

          In 1984, the Supreme Court adopted a doctrine that grants deference to federal agencies when they interpret statutes in the rulemaking process (called “Chevron deference”). Huge swaths of federal regulations developed over the last four decades depends on judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes. If that doctrine of deference is abolished, it will go a long way towards “dismantling the administrative state.” It will also lead to chaos in the economy and widespread injury and fraud inflicted on consumers. It appears that the Supreme Court is poised to allow that result. See The New Republic, “The Supreme Court Takes Aim at the Administrative State in American Hospital Association v. Becerra.” Justice Gorsuch is already on record as calling for the end of the Chevron deference doctrine.

          If the Court invalidates thousands of federal regulations, Congress will be forced to fill the void with new legislation, which will then be subject to challenge by businesses and interpretation by courts. The role of industry experts at federal agencies will devolve to federal judges. That is an unpredictable, inefficient, and ignorant way to manage the world’s largest economy and protect the health and safety of the American public.

Concluding Thoughts.

          In reading through the responses about messaging, I was struck by the number of Democrats who are toiling in red states to help elect Democrats. As I sit in California and write this newsletter, it is easy to dismiss “red states” as a problem that we must work around. But even in the reddest of red states, there are hundreds of thousands (or millions) of Democrats who are fighting the good fight. Frankly, it is humbling to hear from them. How many of us would work to elect Democrats in a state where having an “R” after your name on the ballot is all it takes to get elected? We owe Democrats in red states our support, gratitude, and resources. We cannot abandon them or write them off. Rather, we should look to them for inspiration and guidance. So, to all Democrats everywhere who are fighting the good fight against long odds, thank you. We will not let you down. Keep the faith and stay strong! We will win; it is just a matter of time.

          Talk to you tomorrow!