Opinion: Progressives are Terrible at Framing

How do we talk about progressive issues without scaring off moderates and conservatives?

This is a question I've been thinking about for a long time. Framing. How do we frame radical progress in nonthreatening ways? Is that even possible?

Of course, it's immensely important to energize marginalized groups. Nothing will be achieved if we only engage in conciliation with the powers that be, but the same goes for only engaging in radical, revolutionary activism. Progress requires the push and pull of both radicalism and moderation. However, speaking as a young, middle class, college educated, Southern white woman, I want to be able to leverage my talents and privilege in the most productive, progressive way possible. Realizing this, I believe that my role ought to be largely (though not entirely) involved in communicating across the partisan gap. But how does one engage in bipartisan conversations in today's political climate?

Now, my personal views on the GOP are... negative, to say the least. But every liberal and progressive absolutely must recognize and accept the fact that at least 50% of Americans lean conservative. Within that 50% are decent, kind, intelligent folk (along with the Klan members and the NeoNazis and the racist soccer moms, of course). For the most part, they all want about the same things as we do. Maslow's hierarchy of needs applies to all of us. We all want to be able to live comfortably. We all want to root out corruption in government. We all want the world to be a better place for our children.

With this in mind, we must also acknowledge that America's political left is sorely lacking in the communications department. Democratic leadership at the moment feels like a remnant of another century, out of touch with the concerns of the present. On the other hand, we have the all-too-visible stereotype of the Tumblr-posting, snowflakey "Social Justice Warrior." I hate this stereotype, mostly because it's a hideous caricature of people who actually do good progressive work. We should all want to be Social Justice Warriors, right? That's what Martin Luther King was, and Fannie Lou Hamer, and literally every other civil rights icon. But I also hate the SJW stereotype because sometimes it rings true. There are some liberals (mostly on the Internet) who are so caught up in their own personal, radical social activism that they openly insult and shut down dialogue with people sitting across the political aisle. They scare off any possibility of finding common ground.

Respectability politics are a drag. They really are. Navigating the native spaces of your political opponents is exhausting and frustrating and hard. But it is necessary work.

So, how do we actually go about having dialogues and debates with our political opposition?

I have a few ideas:

1. Know your policy. You can't simply shut down other people's policy ideas (like Jill Stein or William F. Buckley, Jr.). You must provide viable, alternative policy proposals. You must provide supporting evidence from reliable sources. You must be confident in your knowledge, but not to the point of arrogance. And you must be ideologically consistent.
2. Be humble. Be willing to concede the small points in order to win the big ones. Acknowledge any verbal missteps you make, and patiently explain how you may have miscommunicated your point. And keep an open mind -- no one is right all the time.
3. Be unflappable. You will not be dragged down into the mud. You absolutely MUST remain polite and calm, because anything else will give the opposition a foothold. This is a sort of verbal militant nonviolence -- debate fiercely, but remain civil. Don't attack your opponent; attack their ideas. Don't throw around words like "bigot." If someone says something bigoted, explain to them why their statement is problematic without using oversimplified buzzwords.
4. Don't try to convince the opposition that they are wrong.  That is an impossible task. Instead, try to prove that, in fact, you've been in agreement all along. You have to deconstruct their argument, find the common ground, and show that while you both ultimately want the same outcome (peace, justice, equality, morality, etc.), your policy proposal is a more effective and practical solution than theirs.

As an aside, I believe that another necessary part of the solution is a progressive reclamation of patriotic rhetoric. Why should conservatives get to dictate what it means to be an American? Our country is great because of its diversity and potential for progress, not because of any inherent exceptionalism. Why shouldn't progressives reclaim nationalism and turn it into a positive force for change?

All of the above are personal opinions. I would love to hear alternate views. I know that for many people, my position is far too conciliatory. That's good -- we need that plurality of opinion. We need the push and pull of radicals and moderates.

Essentially, though, my argument boils down to the simple fact that progress will never occur without an active, dynamic political dialogue.

I'll leave y'all with this: A Q&A with Daryl Davis, a black musician most famous for befriending multiple white supremacists and ultimately deradicalizing many of them. He's a wise man who has actually walked the walk, as well as talked the talk: