First in a series on disentangling messaging challenges on the left: Can we use framing and marketing techniques without losing connection to the truth?
"come up with at least one story for every data point."
--Tim Wise
There is a long-running struggle among Democrats: do we want politicians to stick to the truth or start marketing?
In Why Trump, George Lakoff divides the Republican party into White Evangelicals, Pragmatic Conservatives, and Laissez-faire free-market proponents. All three flavors of conservatism think about government using a strict father metaphor.
This week Trump is fat-shaming  —  and now other people are fat-shaming Trump back, pointing out his hypocrisy. Unfortunately, calling out hypocrisy doesn't undermine shame-based politics. Historically hypocrisy seems to be nearly a requirement for using shame to build political movements:
Money is handed to a charity, and the donor gets a few more minutes to talk with a politician. Money changes hands, and an investigation is called off. Which is the bigger story? Obviously, the one with Hillary Clinton in it. Why? It’s not about bias — this happens even on tv stations where the reporters’ personal biases are in her favor. What’s wrong with the Clinton campaign's messaging on corruption? What are the promises and moral foundations of each campaign, and why does corruption stick to with Clinton’s campaign more?
