Thoughts on Political Messaging

[aurum]

Leo's latest blog post featured a video about the realities political messaging. It's quite disturbing in some ways, and I wanted to lay down some thoughts about it.

First, let's start by acknowledging the obvious truth that Rick Wilson is right. Politics is largely about optics and messaging, not policy and truthfulness. Just watching the ads for The Lincoln Project is like a masterclass in how to persuade voters. It works. 

Second, it's great that Rick is using his skills of messaging and persuasion to help democrats push back against right-wing bullshit. I agree that's what is definitely needed, and democrats tend to be bad at this.

But at what cost?

What is the cost of this "they go low, we go low" strategy?

For example, Rick argues that if Republicans start accusing you of supporting something crazy like critical race theory, then you should punch back by accusing them of being racist. Don't go into the facts. Don't stick to the issue. Just score points.

Again, this does work. And when you're dealing with someone like Trump, that is probably the best strategy.

But at the same time, this constantly manipulation of people's perspective in many ways IS the deeper problem. Deeper than any single political position or policy. It's the degradation of the epistemic commons. Our shared, collective sense-making

Even when you degrade the commons for the "good guys", you're still degrading the commons. People become dumber and less able to make sense of the world in an accurate way.

How can we possibly ever expect to have intelligent political discourse as a society when people act this way?

How can we expect to have conscious leaders when what is incentivized is manipulation?

I suppose in my fantasy world, I would love for people to be able to just talk like mature adults about policy without having to resort to flinging mud at each other. I would love if being the best politician wasn't about who could manipulate the best but who was actually able to best lead. But obviously we are not mature, developed or intelligent enough for that.

So here we are.

[Danioover9000]

@aurum

12 hours ago, aurum said:

Leo's latest blog post featured a video about the realities political messaging. It's quite disturbing in some ways, and I wanted to lay down some thoughts about it.

First, let's start by acknowledging the obvious truth that Rick Wilson is right. Politics is largely about optics and messaging, not policy and truthfulness. Just watching the ads for The Lincoln Project is like a masterclass in how to persuade voters. It works. 

Second, it's great that Rick is using his skills of messaging and persuasion to help democrats push back against right-wing bullshit. I agree that's what is definitely needed, and democrats tend to be bad at this.

But at what cost?

What is the cost of this "they go low, we go low" strategy?

For example, Rick argues that if Republicans start accusing you of supporting something crazy like critical race theory, then you should punch back by accusing them of being racist. Don't go into the facts. Don't stick to the issue. Just score points.

Again, this does work. And when you're dealing with someone like Trump, that is probably the best strategy.

But at the same time, this constantly manipulation of people's perspective in many ways IS the deeper problem. Deeper than any single political position or policy. It's the degradation of the epistemic commons. Our shared, collective sense-making

Even when you degrade the commons for the "good guys", you're still degrading the commons. People become dumber and less able to make sense of the world in an accurate way.

How can we possibly ever expect to have intelligent political discourse as a society when people act this way?

How can we expect to have conscious leaders when what is incentivized is manipulation?

I suppose in my fantasy world, I would love for people to be able to just talk like mature adults about policy without having to resort to flinging mud at each other. I would love if being the best politician wasn't about who could manipulate the best but who was actually able to best lead. But obviously we are not mature, developed or intelligent enough for that.

So here we are.

   This is tier 1 cognition versus tier 2 cognition. Based on developmental factors this is to be expected. Game A is more realistic to survival than Game B idealism and systems thinking.

   Even @Leo Gura's conscious politics has a few flaws to it. One example is his suggestion to mask and make politicians anonymous to the masses, remove the human persona and personality, the body language and tone and human communications and relatability between masses and potential leaders, only stick to the policy points they offer. Main gripe with this is in practice this make the deep state FAR MORE obvious and nefarious depending on which group is in power, also if they do a face reveal after elections and voting, and more than half the population hates it and feel a collective swindle has just happened they'll get into mass hysteria and demand another election. IMO this is his socialism/progressivism bias that is clouding and distorting his vision of a more conscious politics. The system is too corrupt to make it more conscious going forward.

[Hardkill]

This is actually the kind of stuff that both Cenk and James Carville have been advocating for for a long time now.

I hear what you're saying @aurum but I feel like we have no choice but to do whatever it takes to stop the radical right wing as long as it's legal.

[aurum]

44 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

I hear what you're saying @aurum but I feel like we have no choice but to do whatever it takes to stop the radical right wing as long as it's legal.

I get it. It just bothers me at times because I also understand the cost.

[Hardkill]

16 minutes ago, aurum said:

I get it. It just bothers me at times because I also understand the cost.

Maybe when Trumpism and MAGA go away or maybe when our country becomes greatly depolarized then we can go back to having much more substantive discussion about policies.

Btw, do you think that the progressives and Democrats are still losing the messaging war? Or do you think that they have made real progress with fighting back against the Republicans and the extreme right-wing?

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Hardkill said:

Maybe when Trumpism and MAGA go away or maybe when our country becomes greatly depolarized then we can go back to having much more substantive discussion about policies.

Btw, do you think that the progressives and Democrats are still losing the messaging war? Or do you think that they have made real progress with fighting back against the Republicans and the extreme right-wing?

Dems are winning.

[Hardkill]

26 minutes ago, aurum said:

Dems are winning.

Well, they've definitely winning big elections since 2018.

But it's so maddening how close many of these elections have been in recent years and how much political power the Republicans still have even though they are so unpopular.

[aurum]

9 hours ago, Hardkill said:

But it's so maddening how close many of these elections have been in recent years and how much political power the Republicans still have even though they are so unpopular.

Sure, I don’t particularly want the repubs to win either.

But also let’s not forget that we want political rivals. We want competition of ideas. We want people who disagree with us.

That is democracy.

A political monopoly of dems is not ideal. 

That is my biggest issue with Trump and repubs right now. They want to undermine democracy to enforce their agenda. Which leads to the kind of war Rick Wilson is talking about.

Both sides have to be mature enough to allow for things not going their way.

[Hardkill]

58 minutes ago, aurum said:

Sure, I don’t particularly want the repubs to win either.

But also let’s not forget that we want political rivals. We want competition of ideas. We want people who disagree with us.

That is democracy.

A political monopoly of dems is not ideal. 

That is my biggest issue with Trump and repubs right now. They want to undermine democracy to enforce their agenda. Which leads to the kind of war Rick Wilson is talking about.

Both sides have to be mature enough to allow for things not going their way.

But we need a supermajority of Dems to pass real major progressive policies like during the New Deal era and the Great Society era. Otherwise, we are going to have to get rid of the filibuster in Senate.

The Republicans no longer want anything good to pass Congress.

Btw, what do you think about progressive media like TYT and Secular Talk? Do you think that their messaging has helped pushed our country forward towards progressivism or has their rhetoric only made things worse by further increasing the political polarization in our country?

Edited August 18 by Hardkill

[aurum]

17 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

But we need a supermajority of Dems to pass real major progressive policies like during the New Deal era and the Great Society era. Otherwise, we are going to have to get rid of the filibuster in Senate.

The Republicans no longer want anything good to pass Congress.

Btw, what do you think about progressive media like TYT and Secular Talk? Do you think that their messaging has helped pushed our country forward towards progressivism or has their rhetoric only made things worse by further increasing the political polarization in our country?

You're probably right about needing a supermajority to get certain policies passed.

But the meta point I'm making still stands: no one gets to monopolize the political process. If that happens to mean sacrificing certain progressive policies, then so be it. 

As far as TYT and Secular Talk, I think they are a net force for good. The progressive voice deserves representation. And someone has to fight the culture war against Blue / Orange.

[Emerald]

I don't really look at it as, "You go low, we go low."

It's more like... integrating the ability and willingness to take the offensive stance in order to serve the greater good. 

When you're appealing to reason and higher nature, you HAVE TO take a defensive stance because it takes a long time to explain those things. And it requires a lot of brain power that the average voter either doesn't have or doesn't value engaging with. And that is just how people are.

And the desire to give a whole powerpoint presentation and explain and appeal to reason and truth comes across as waffling and weakness.

But if you take the offensive stance and you're able to be short, punchy, and sharp with clear repeatable meme-able talking points that highlights the weakness and ridiculousness of the opposing team... this reads as strength and certainty.

And you then put your "enemy" on the defensive where they have to explain themselves, which makes them look weak and bothered. 

So, the willingness to take the offensive stance isn't negative. It's understanding human nature and working with it to serve the greater good... as opposed to naively expecting the majority of human beings to be rational, educated, highly informed, and highly consciousness beings.

The fact of the matter is that, politics is a boxing game when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of the average person. And we need those that are serving the greater good to become adept at boxing... instead of nobly losing and being above it. 

Like, I don't want to lose any more of my reproductive rights or have my husband deported because some Far Right wannabe autocrat get into office and wants to turn me into a brood mare for the state and rip away the Green Cards of documented immigrants,  because those on the "Noble" Left were too moral to be on the offense and fighting the good the fight.

There tends to be a naive liberal fantasy of appeal to logic, reason, and ethics to best the enemy. And it's in every single movie ever made where the protagonist puts the antagonist in his place with some "mic drop" moment where he comes back with the most reasonable and ethical argument. 

But this doesn't work in real life. And the reason why is because in a political debate in hopes of getting votes "If you're explaining, you're losing." And that's because explaining means going on the defensive. 

But if you're on the offensive and you keep it short, punchy, and memorable to showcase the weakness of your opponent, that sticks in people's minds.

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

When you're appealing to reason and higher nature, you HAVE TO take a defensive stance because it takes a long time to explain those things. And it requires a lot of brain power that the average voter either doesn't have or doesn't value engaging with. And that is just how people are.

And the desire to give a whole powerpoint presentation and explain and appeal to reason and truth comes across as waffling and weakness.

But if you take the offensive stance and you're able to be short, punchy, and sharp with clear repeatable meme-able talking points that highlights the weakness and ridiculousness of the opposing team... this reads as strength and certainty.

And you then put your "enemy" on the defensive where they have to explain themselves, which makes them look weak and bothered. 

So, the willingness to take the offensive stance isn't negative. It's understanding human nature and working with it to serve the greater good... as opposed to naively expecting the majority of human beings to be rational, educated, highly informed, and highly consciousness beings.

The fact of the matter is that, politics is a boxing game when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of the average person. And we need those that are serving the greater good to become adept at boxing... instead of nobly losing and being above it. 

I agree. Especially if your rival is just going to hurl nonsense at you, there is no point trying to defend it all. That is a trap.

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

Like, I don't want to lose any more of my reproductive rights or have my husband deported because some Far Right wannabe autocrat get into office and wants to turn me into a brood mare for the state and rip away the Green Cards of documented immigrants,  because those on the "Noble" Left were too moral to be on the offense and fighting the good the fight.

And that's the whole issue.

No one is prioritizing sense-making. Everyone is prioritizing their particular agenda. Which in your case is protecting your husband, immigrants and your reproductive rights.

"Fighting the good fight" in practice ends up looking like extreme degradation of the epistemic commons, political polarization and psychological warfare.

Watch the Lincoln Project videos if you haven't. They are essentially pure psychological manipulation, without any attempt at serious political sense-making. Top-tier devilry. 

And I'm not even saying we shouldn't do it. We are essentially at war, so warfare is appropriate. 

But for those of us attempting to engage in a higher level of political thinking, I want us to be clear about what is happening and the costs.

Edited August 20 by aurum

[Emerald]

12 minutes ago, aurum said:

And that's the whole issue.

No one is prioritizing sense-making. Everyone is prioritizing their particular agenda. Which in your case is protecting your husband, immigrants and your reproductive rights.

"Fighting the good fight" in practice ends up looks like extreme degradation of the epistemic commons, political polarization and psychological warfare.

Watch the Lincoln Project videos if you haven't. They are essentially pure psychological manipulation, without any attempt at serious political sense-making. Top-tier devilry. 

And I'm not even saying we shouldn't do it. We are essentially at war, so warfare is appropriate. 

But for those of us attempting to engage in a higher level of political thinking, I want us to be clear about what is happening and the costs.

You're a bit too detached from these dangers because you're not directly impacted by them.

And you can afford to think about these things in more detached philosophical ways and worry about "Oh no! What if epistemic commons degrade!" because you haven't been on the chopping block... not yet anyway.

It's different for me and my husband because we are impacted by them. And that makes us MORE objective about this topic and not less... not in spite of our conflicts of interest, but because of them.

And I am glad that Democrats are winning the messaging war. And they aren't even needing to lie or play dirty to do it. They're just pointing out and crystallizing into words, indicting truths about how out of touch and strange the far right views espoused by Vance and that would be supported in policy by Trump via Project 2025 is in the eyes of most American people.

So, it's fine to play angel's advocate (with the angel in question being Lucifer) when you're not directly impacted by these patterns.

But this is just devilry in a philosophical guise. 

[aurum]

51 minutes ago, Emerald said:

You're a bit too detached from these dangers because you're not directly impacted by them.

And you can afford to think about these things in more detached philosophical ways and worry about "Oh no! What if epistemic commons degrade!" because you haven't been on the chopping block... not yet anyway.

It's different for me and my husband because we are impacted by them. And that makes us MORE objective about this topic and not less... not in spite of our conflicts of interest, but because of them.

And I am glad that Democrats are winning the messaging war. And they aren't even needing to lie or play dirty to do it. They're just pointing out and crystallizing into words, indicting truths about how out of touch and strange the far right views espoused by Vance and that would be supported in policy by Trump via Project 2025 is in the eyes of most American people.

So, it's fine to play angel's advocate (with the angel in question being Lucifer) when you're not directly impacted by these patterns.

But this is just devilry in a philosophical guise. 

If you want to engage in manipulation to get your political agenda across, fine. I get it.

But you're not going to convince me that truth and deep sense-making is driving this process for most people.

The political sphere is filled with bullshitting and pragmatism. And that includes the democrats / leftists.

Edited August 20 by aurum

[Emerald]

11 hours ago, aurum said:

If you want to engage in manipulation to get your political agenda across, fine. I get it.

But you're not going to convince me that truth and deep sense-making is driving this process for most people.

The political sphere is filled with bullshitting and pragmatism. And that includes the democrats / leftists.

I don't even see it as particularly manipulative. It's wrapping a truth up in an offensive attack format that the average disengaged voter can digest quickly and easily. So, it's values-neutral and can be practiced in positive and negative ways.

So, instead of being eggheads and using million dollar words and giving a powerpoint presentation that explains in depth all the problems that can arise if Project 2025 gets enacted, it's summing it up in a short punchy offensive package like "Mind your own damn business!" and "No one's asking for this crazy stuff!" and "We're not going back!"

And this cuts through all the noise. And it's true because VERY FEW people in America actually agree with these extremist positions.

And while like 20% of people are politically engaged and philosophical and intellectual and can have these types of philosophical discussions about politics, it's always been the case that like 80% of people don't view politics beyond the impressions and vibes. 

And short punchy offensive attacks are the way to win the vibes war. And that just is what it is.

[UnbornTao]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

I don't even see it as particularly manipulative. It's wrapping a truth up in an offensive attack format that the average disengaged voter can digest quickly and easily. So, it's values-neutral and can be practiced in positive and negative ways.

So, instead of being eggheads and using million dollar words and giving a powerpoint presentation that explains in depth all the problems that can arise if Project 2025 gets enacted, it's summing it up in a short punchy offensive package like "Mind your own damn business!" and "No one's asking for this crazy stuff!" and "We're not going back!"

And this cuts through all the noise. And it's true because VERY FEW people in America actually agree with these extremist positions.

And while like 20% of people are politically engaged and philosophical and intellectual and can have these types of philosophical discussions about politics, it's always been the case that like 80% of people don't view politics beyond the impressions and vibes. 

And short punchy offensive attacks are the way to win the vibes war. And that just is what it is.

"Not on my watch!!"

Edited August 20 by UnbornTao

[zurew]

Of course there is such a thing as empty or misleading rhetoric, but I don't think that good rhetoric is necessarily mutually exclusive with truth or with facts.

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

I don't even see it as particularly manipulative. It's wrapping a truth up in an offensive attack format that the average disengaged voter can digest quickly and easily. So, it's values-neutral and can be practiced in positive and negative ways.

So, instead of being eggheads and using million dollar words and giving a powerpoint presentation that explains in depth all the problems that can arise if Project 2025 gets enacted, it's summing it up in a short punchy offensive package like "Mind your own damn business!" and "No one's asking for this crazy stuff!" and "We're not going back!"

And this cuts through all the noise. And it's true because VERY FEW people in America actually agree with these extremist positions.

And while like 20% of people are politically engaged and philosophical and intellectual and can have these types of philosophical discussions about politics, it's always been the case that like 80% of people don't view politics beyond the impressions and vibes. 

And short punchy offensive attacks are the way to win the vibes war. And that just is what it is.

Right, because you and everyone else values winning and pragmatism over sense-making.

If you agree to that, we can move on to discussing the pros and cons of that prioritization. You’ve made some good points in favor.

[aurum]

16 minutes ago, zurew said:

Of course there is such a thing as empty or misleading rhetoric, but I don't think that good rhetoric is necessarily mutually exclusive with truth or with facts.

This is true. But in practice, much of our political rhetoric looks like a bunch of bullshit with some facts mixed in.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

Not on my watch!!

?