I came across an interesting idea about framing, choosing battles and "immigration or the economy". The notion was to prioritize framing the discussion that helps resolve substantial parts of both. It's not choosing to address two things at one time, but choosing to focus on the substantial turf where they overlap as one in the same challenge. Addressing that reality means recognizing that the U.S. has a severe labor crisis. "Labor crisis" is discussed in many contexts, but I think it could be more useful here too if the left can manage to rethink some core assumptions for how Americans tend to think about issues.
Just the term "labor crisis" opens new pathways in the public's minds that actually focus on where we can choose a favorable battle, but also importantly choose the terminology and framing of the battleground. It obviously isn't the comprehensive solution that is needed, but it might open a way to have consensus on a very large part of the solution. Or we can continue to use the same tired framing that the MSM pumps out endlessly and maybe results will be different this time.
Which is why calling "a spade a spade" rather than talking about process, precedence, institutions, consistency (hypocrisy), etc. are less effective in moving public opinion than speaking DIRECTLY to people's moral/belief systems.
“If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought” ~George Orwell
And, since the words we use matter, we should say what MAGA Repubs are ACTUALLY doing in this moment (and plan to do, if they can can).
"Public opinion can change based on new information and engagement from party leaders!"
And there you have it..."public opinion" is not some immovable object (or more accurately, a wild animal incapable of understanding speech and arguments).
Public opinion is something WE shape (including change) based on 1) effective framing and 2) repetition.
And WE is certainly not exclusive to 'party leaders,' but the signal to noise ratio does depend on how effective (impactful, coordinated and sustained) those arguments are over time.
Democrats ought to be able to focus on both immigration and the economy. But only if they can come up with a much better approach (use subject experts to help develop plans with schedules and costs, use communications experts to help develop a plan to communicate with all voters, not just Democrats). It is better to show the public that you have a better plan rather than just pointing out problems with the Republican's approaches. Nobody likes a whiner,
I feel like “defending the Constitution” has been what people like Mr. Romney, Ms. Cheney and Mr. Kinzinger have been trying since the Very Perfect Phone Call and the Fake Elector Plot to steal the 2020 election. Both attempts were total failures and maybe even made President Trump MORE popular with his own supporters. I think it’s been very fully tried at this point. Maybe a new approach will work, but I suspect it will not.
Re: point 2 --- I imagine that the most effective strategy is to raise multiple issues simultaneously. At a certain point, incremental effort in hammering a single issue results in diminishing returns.
To borrow from the marketing world (where I work), it might be interesting if someone with access to messaging media spend adopts a media-mix model framework for evaluating which issues to focus on. At least in marketing, it's generally optimal to spread spend across many channels, not just the most effective channel. One could model latent net approval as an outcome and optimize the media strategy that minimizes net approval.
To me this is not about immigration but about the rule of law, and in particular due process. The 14th amendment states:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It is obvious that the Trump administration is grossly in violation of this. The democrats should continue to hammer that in.
I think this is one reason that the immigration issue has a different kick to it this time around. It is neither simply an issue of a particular interest group, or one that activates voters' sympathies (as family-separation policy did), but one about whether we still live in a democracy, and "whether you too, good citizen, might end up in a gulag" for your political opinions.
Your answer looks like mine when I read the question: "Yes." Trump is a failure on the economy and a tyrant in terms of ICE overreach. Both are bad, and I don't see why it should be so hard to make both points at once.
But if "immigration" is a third rail for Democrats, do we still believe in due process? Whether Abrego Garcia should be returned to freedom, deported, or incarcerated is something that a court should determine. Disappearing him to a foreign prison where even his wife, a US citizen, has to rely on her senator stepping in find out he's alive is something that we associate with totalitarian regimes, not the US. Or... I know... I may just be too naive. I think many Americans have been primed to believe the world is too dangerous for due process.
On immigration itself, how can anyone look at the travesty of Kseniia Petrova, languishing in prison for failure to fill out a customs form and not see that Trump's policy has taken a disturbing turn. It's hard to imagine a more sympathetic victim of the clumsy "mass deportation" push: a hard-working, brilliant researcher, with a sunny outlook on life shown in numerous photographs. Do people really want her returned to Russia, where she'll surely be in danger?
The problem is less about chewing gum and walking than how it is portrayed in the media and social media seen by most Americans. I'm not saying any of this is easy, though I believe the Democratic party must take a principled stance, both because it is the only right thing to do, and because splitting the difference has almost always failed.
Focus on the economy but also quietly work on a fair immigration policy and equal rights for all. Everyone wants a better economy on both sides. But not everyone wants immigration, LGBTQ rights, etc. and will fight us on that. People want what will make THEIR lives better first and others lives second. Having a job, paying the bills, health care, education and protecting their family consumes a person’s thoughts. When those things are taken care of, then they will want the same for others. If we want to get the government back we have to focus the message so we can really work on the other things too.
One could focus on paying a foreign country to establish and run a gulag on your behalf, with no legal rights for anyone being exported. Kind of the equivalent of the French oubliette.
Thank you for your analyses.
I came across an interesting idea about framing, choosing battles and "immigration or the economy". The notion was to prioritize framing the discussion that helps resolve substantial parts of both. It's not choosing to address two things at one time, but choosing to focus on the substantial turf where they overlap as one in the same challenge. Addressing that reality means recognizing that the U.S. has a severe labor crisis. "Labor crisis" is discussed in many contexts, but I think it could be more useful here too if the left can manage to rethink some core assumptions for how Americans tend to think about issues.
Just the term "labor crisis" opens new pathways in the public's minds that actually focus on where we can choose a favorable battle, but also importantly choose the terminology and framing of the battleground. It obviously isn't the comprehensive solution that is needed, but it might open a way to have consensus on a very large part of the solution. Or we can continue to use the same tired framing that the MSM pumps out endlessly and maybe results will be different this time.
"Politics is about values"
Which is why calling "a spade a spade" rather than talking about process, precedence, institutions, consistency (hypocrisy), etc. are less effective in moving public opinion than speaking DIRECTLY to people's moral/belief systems.
“If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought” ~George Orwell
And, since the words we use matter, we should say what MAGA Repubs are ACTUALLY doing in this moment (and plan to do, if they can can).
For those interested in the full import of this:
https://bsky.app/profile/contrariannews.org/post/3lmx4wjk6ts2e
"Public opinion can change based on new information and engagement from party leaders!"
And there you have it..."public opinion" is not some immovable object (or more accurately, a wild animal incapable of understanding speech and arguments).
Public opinion is something WE shape (including change) based on 1) effective framing and 2) repetition.
And WE is certainly not exclusive to 'party leaders,' but the signal to noise ratio does depend on how effective (impactful, coordinated and sustained) those arguments are over time.
Democrats ought to be able to focus on both immigration and the economy. But only if they can come up with a much better approach (use subject experts to help develop plans with schedules and costs, use communications experts to help develop a plan to communicate with all voters, not just Democrats). It is better to show the public that you have a better plan rather than just pointing out problems with the Republican's approaches. Nobody likes a whiner,
OUTSTANDING!! Love a great bonus issue!! Have a wonderful weekend!
"It's the economy, stupid" ~ James Carville
Just a heads-up: the link embedded in “COTW” goes to nowhere.
I feel like “defending the Constitution” has been what people like Mr. Romney, Ms. Cheney and Mr. Kinzinger have been trying since the Very Perfect Phone Call and the Fake Elector Plot to steal the 2020 election. Both attempts were total failures and maybe even made President Trump MORE popular with his own supporters. I think it’s been very fully tried at this point. Maybe a new approach will work, but I suspect it will not.
Check out Adrian Carrasquillo in the Bulwark for some past political history that supports your thesis
Re: point 2 --- I imagine that the most effective strategy is to raise multiple issues simultaneously. At a certain point, incremental effort in hammering a single issue results in diminishing returns.
To borrow from the marketing world (where I work), it might be interesting if someone with access to messaging media spend adopts a media-mix model framework for evaluating which issues to focus on. At least in marketing, it's generally optimal to spread spend across many channels, not just the most effective channel. One could model latent net approval as an outcome and optimize the media strategy that minimizes net approval.
A couple useful papers in this area:
https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-research2023-media/pubtools/3806.pdf
https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-research2023-media/pubtools/3804.pdf
I agree with you. Voters have the bandwidth to take in more than one issue, particularly if they are related. I believe that's the case here.
To me this is not about immigration but about the rule of law, and in particular due process. The 14th amendment states:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It is obvious that the Trump administration is grossly in violation of this. The democrats should continue to hammer that in.
I think this is one reason that the immigration issue has a different kick to it this time around. It is neither simply an issue of a particular interest group, or one that activates voters' sympathies (as family-separation policy did), but one about whether we still live in a democracy, and "whether you too, good citizen, might end up in a gulag" for your political opinions.
Your answer looks like mine when I read the question: "Yes." Trump is a failure on the economy and a tyrant in terms of ICE overreach. Both are bad, and I don't see why it should be so hard to make both points at once.
But if "immigration" is a third rail for Democrats, do we still believe in due process? Whether Abrego Garcia should be returned to freedom, deported, or incarcerated is something that a court should determine. Disappearing him to a foreign prison where even his wife, a US citizen, has to rely on her senator stepping in find out he's alive is something that we associate with totalitarian regimes, not the US. Or... I know... I may just be too naive. I think many Americans have been primed to believe the world is too dangerous for due process.
On immigration itself, how can anyone look at the travesty of Kseniia Petrova, languishing in prison for failure to fill out a customs form and not see that Trump's policy has taken a disturbing turn. It's hard to imagine a more sympathetic victim of the clumsy "mass deportation" push: a hard-working, brilliant researcher, with a sunny outlook on life shown in numerous photographs. Do people really want her returned to Russia, where she'll surely be in danger?
The problem is less about chewing gum and walking than how it is portrayed in the media and social media seen by most Americans. I'm not saying any of this is easy, though I believe the Democratic party must take a principled stance, both because it is the only right thing to do, and because splitting the difference has almost always failed.
Focus on the economy but also quietly work on a fair immigration policy and equal rights for all. Everyone wants a better economy on both sides. But not everyone wants immigration, LGBTQ rights, etc. and will fight us on that. People want what will make THEIR lives better first and others lives second. Having a job, paying the bills, health care, education and protecting their family consumes a person’s thoughts. When those things are taken care of, then they will want the same for others. If we want to get the government back we have to focus the message so we can really work on the other things too.
One could focus on paying a foreign country to establish and run a gulag on your behalf, with no legal rights for anyone being exported. Kind of the equivalent of the French oubliette.
We are paying 6 million for that.