Well put!! I get so tired of the solution being subsidies. What if people got paid a wage that lets them live in a modern society. And if everyone paid their fair share of taxes - it's not "handouts", its citizens deciding what to support for the common good, including daycare, healthcare, utilities and housing. The richest among us aren't getting richer by accident. They created a world perfectly designed for themselves. Democrats need to start educating itself and us on the current design, how it helps the wealthy class and how we can design a system that helps average Americans.
There is certainly lots of room for —and a need for —fresh voices! I also happen to think we have at least a few movement elders who have not just paved the path, but are still walking the walk….
Oh absolutely, Jamie Raskin is one of those "elders" I would not want to lose. He is absolutely one of the smartest and most effective of all representatives. I wish there were many more like him!
I fully agree, but as long as so many of the old fogy Democrats in congress get their "subsidies" directly from the robber barons, nothing will change. We need more young, hungry and loud Democratic reps.
There is no doubt that we not only need campaign finance reform, but also to oust the lobbyists who bribe legislators for favorable treatment for their corporate masters.
Writing from Montreal in 'socialist' Canada....a part of making the cost of living manageable for the 95%ers here is paying more taxes, at most levels of income. This is done to spread the bounty across to all but mostly to those that need it more. To balance the benefits as well as the relative costs.
These taxes pay for many things but the important ones I would say are universal healthcare (never having to choose between rent and visiting a doctor or worse being bankrupted by a health crisis), higher education for all through very low cost university fees, low cost childcare (so deciding to stay home becomes a choice not a requirement), lengthy parental leave for both parents, and what we call employment insurance which pays more than 50% of one's salary for many months if you are suddenly out of work through no fault of your own.
The common denominator through these is 'peace of mind', that almost every Canadian resident knows they have a fair shot to succeed, even when hit with serious setbacks. We don't call it socialism like some right wing politicians tend to do, we call it a progressive liberalism where the goal is a healthy society. Is it perfect? No but it works well for most. Are there cheaters? Yes, but not enough to negate the benefits to the majority.
Great point. Don’t get me started on the rhetorical misses and missteps when it comes to how we talk about taxes. (Or maybe, do get me started? My next post topic? 🤔)
FDR called it "freedom from want", as one of the four freedoms in a speech delivered on January 6, 1941. Greed and unfettered capitalism has damaged the care for humanity that he envisioned and espoused.
There are many good points here, but you have to be clear about how the system is rigged, and it has been getting more lopsided every year. The entire Trump administration is run by billionaires and for billionaires. They spend millions preaching racism and fear of socialism to cover for what has become the most corrupt government in American history.
This government has NO policies that will enhance the lives of working families. Everything is to protect the wealth of the wealthiest.
The message has to include things such as "The Trump family has made over $4 BILLION in bribes and scams since DJT took office. What has he done for you?
50 billionaires own the Republican Party. They have changed the rules so that they don't pay any taxes. Their goal is to own 50% of America, and then hire AI to take your job. VOTE THEM OUT!
Part of how it’s rigged is we give more political power and influence to people with more money. Just because someone has a larger bank account doesn’t mean their opinions should matter more. They should matter the same or less when it comes to creating more well-being for the children of the planet because they lack the lived experience of the challenges those with less are facing. 10x-millionaires should not be serving in Congress for example because they don’t represent the community they are supposed to serve.
Imagine a world where decisions are made based on what most mothers want for their children instead of what the wealthy and well connected want for themselves.
As to "rigging," the Democrats need to take the narrative back to 1980 and Reaganomics. While Republicans filled the airwaves with culture wars--the welfare queen in the pink Cadillac"--they quietly implemented their agenda: kill labor unions,and enact tax cuts for the wealthy, They were outrageously successful in that gambit. Every Republican president thereafter pushed through additional tax cuts for the rich, added heat to the culture wars, and moved employment into a gig economy--where workers were only paid when the CEO's needed their work.
And the fallout from each and every Republican president was economic disaster that had to be fixed by the next elected Democrat: Reagan and his V.P. George HW Bush, followed by Bill Clinton and his tech awakening; George W Bush, followed by Barak Obama who shepherded the country through the Great Recession. Donald Trump, for whom Joe Biden picked up the pieces. Our messaging should be that the struggling Americans were not architects of their own difficulty (except insofar as they bought into the culture wars) but rather the system was rigged against them. Democrats have always fixed the problem as much as possible, but, with a veto and filibuster proof majority in both houses, they can finally begin correcting the rigged structure.
As for framing/messaging (which is what i work on) our research has found that bringing up history can work if done well. The through line matters, as does a matter-of-fact approach. (Partisan takes on history land badly more often than not.)
I hope this didn't come across as partisan. I'm pushing 90 years of age, and I'm fortunate to be able to recall most of those years. I watched the change in America when the top marginal tax rate went from 92% to 37%. And of course there are the liberal deductions for those high earners . When the rate was 92%, businesses would put income into development, worker salaries and benefits, and growth, , since the highly paid individual would just have to pay.the excess income to the government in taxes. there were full time jobs with benefits and sufficient income on average that a single wage earner could support a family. That is not true today, and it is a function of the tax structure. And that structure can (and, in my opinion) should be changed.
"“Voters don’t sit around their kitchen tables and talk about ‘affordability metrics.’ They talk about being cheated. They talk about how the system is set up to squeeze them dry... We don’t need to ‘make life affordable’; we need to stop the price-gouging by design.”" Sherrod Brown
He hit the nail on the head. 'Affordability' is a term like thoughts and prayers. Standing alone, it accomplishes, explains, and corrects nothing. We must address the 'how' as to, in clear terms, how we are going to raise people up, restore support and actually do things that will change policies and conditions for the better. And then carry through.
We need to invest in human infrastructure. Would that kind of language inspire voters? No one has any problem with the idea of society building bridges, roads, electric grids for the common good. If we reframed universal healthcare, public education that extends from daycare through college, and a universal basic income as "human infrastructure" would that get past the weird claims about socialism and handouts?
To me, you're still talking jargon by using such phrases as “economy as designed.” To me, the point you should be making is to stop using any jargon and use plain language. Talk like real people do. Real people do not use a phrase such as "economy by design."
Thanks, Lois! I actually agree with you, and relying less on jargon is one of the points I was trying to make. Clearly I needed one more round of edits! Thanks for reading.
As I read Dr. Sweetland's article, I kept thinking, "I agree, but Democrats often talk so grandly that they fail to communicate." That's not a criticism of Dr. Sweetland, it's a criticism of political messaging. Scott Johnson, in his comment, hit this point hard. Dr. Sweetland did not see it as her purpose to suggest something pithy, though I hoped she would. Here's a suggestion: Fairness and Freedom 4 US? FF4US. Fits on a bumper sticker or hat AND frames policy initiatives and goals.
The marketing industry (radio, TV, newspapers, Internet) pushes us towards more. This enriches the few owners of that industry and impoverishes the rest of us — and nature.
So true. Did you ever read the classic sci-fi novel Ecotopia? It always stayed with me that one way they built an ecologically sound and economically egalitarian society was to ban advertising.
I agree that we need a better way to describe what we want to do than just banging on about "affordability." A long time ago, David Sirota defined the distinction between "liberal" and "progressive" as: Liberals want to direct government resources to benefit the most people, and Progressives want to design government systems to benefit the most people. (I.e., increasing social security benefits is liberal, creating the social security system in the first place is progressive.) I don't know if most people go by those definitions anymore, but I've always considered myself a progressive for that reason. Which sounds to me like - or at least adjacent - to what you're getting at with this piece.
I'm not sure what the best way to talk about it is, but we definitely need to come up with a way to describe the *systems* we want to put in place rather than just the money.
I think that distinction is useful right now! Our research at FrameWorks is showing that Americans want major change. If the left falls into the old trap of trying to sound more moderate for fear of scaring folks off…we’re missing our moment. Especially when the other side is offering pretty radical change —just not of the type or direction I want!
Agree. Notice how societies designed to be fair to all citizens, I am thinking about Nordic countries here, are routinely described as socialist. They’re allies (or they used to be) so we only label them as pink and not red. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are fundamental but over looked because of their leftward leanings. Bring them back to our discourse.
I applaud the call for emphasizing the agency of the citizenry and for creating policy visions that can help bring about real improvements in peoples' lives. However, the notion that "the economy is designed by deliberate policy choices" is misleading -- I believe it is more accurate to posit something like "the economy is an outcome of policies and policy implementation." It matters what policies are adopted, and it also matters how skillfully they are administered and finally the integrity of the administration also matters. These are the reasons, in the end, that voting matters.
A party, or a politician, has a big problem if they’re devoted to ‘affordability’. There is little a government can do, in the short run, to cut prices or increase wages. Programs like Biden’s infrastructure subsidies help in the long run, but the time horizon is far longer than the interval between elections. On the other hand, a politician, like Trump, can make life less affordable, and he seems to be trying very hard to do that quickly enough to help in November. Once the Democrats take control, however, they will be hard pressed to make good on promises to make life more affordable by 2028.
Well put!! I get so tired of the solution being subsidies. What if people got paid a wage that lets them live in a modern society. And if everyone paid their fair share of taxes - it's not "handouts", its citizens deciding what to support for the common good, including daycare, healthcare, utilities and housing. The richest among us aren't getting richer by accident. They created a world perfectly designed for themselves. Democrats need to start educating itself and us on the current design, how it helps the wealthy class and how we can design a system that helps average Americans.
There is certainly lots of room for —and a need for —fresh voices! I also happen to think we have at least a few movement elders who have not just paved the path, but are still walking the walk….
Oh absolutely, Jamie Raskin is one of those "elders" I would not want to lose. He is absolutely one of the smartest and most effective of all representatives. I wish there were many more like him!
I couldn’t agree more, Nadine!
I fully agree, but as long as so many of the old fogy Democrats in congress get their "subsidies" directly from the robber barons, nothing will change. We need more young, hungry and loud Democratic reps.
I am 77 yo.
There is no doubt that we not only need campaign finance reform, but also to oust the lobbyists who bribe legislators for favorable treatment for their corporate masters.
What a fantastic post - and must read.
Thank you.
Writing from Montreal in 'socialist' Canada....a part of making the cost of living manageable for the 95%ers here is paying more taxes, at most levels of income. This is done to spread the bounty across to all but mostly to those that need it more. To balance the benefits as well as the relative costs.
These taxes pay for many things but the important ones I would say are universal healthcare (never having to choose between rent and visiting a doctor or worse being bankrupted by a health crisis), higher education for all through very low cost university fees, low cost childcare (so deciding to stay home becomes a choice not a requirement), lengthy parental leave for both parents, and what we call employment insurance which pays more than 50% of one's salary for many months if you are suddenly out of work through no fault of your own.
The common denominator through these is 'peace of mind', that almost every Canadian resident knows they have a fair shot to succeed, even when hit with serious setbacks. We don't call it socialism like some right wing politicians tend to do, we call it a progressive liberalism where the goal is a healthy society. Is it perfect? No but it works well for most. Are there cheaters? Yes, but not enough to negate the benefits to the majority.
Great point. Don’t get me started on the rhetorical misses and missteps when it comes to how we talk about taxes. (Or maybe, do get me started? My next post topic? 🤔)
FDR called it "freedom from want", as one of the four freedoms in a speech delivered on January 6, 1941. Greed and unfettered capitalism has damaged the care for humanity that he envisioned and espoused.
Oh, that’s a great callback!
There are many good points here, but you have to be clear about how the system is rigged, and it has been getting more lopsided every year. The entire Trump administration is run by billionaires and for billionaires. They spend millions preaching racism and fear of socialism to cover for what has become the most corrupt government in American history.
This government has NO policies that will enhance the lives of working families. Everything is to protect the wealth of the wealthiest.
The message has to include things such as "The Trump family has made over $4 BILLION in bribes and scams since DJT took office. What has he done for you?
50 billionaires own the Republican Party. They have changed the rules so that they don't pay any taxes. Their goal is to own 50% of America, and then hire AI to take your job. VOTE THEM OUT!
Yes, yes, yes to “have to say how it’s rigged.” All our research (linked in my shout-out to Nat Kendall-Taylor) supports exactly. this.
Part of how it’s rigged is we give more political power and influence to people with more money. Just because someone has a larger bank account doesn’t mean their opinions should matter more. They should matter the same or less when it comes to creating more well-being for the children of the planet because they lack the lived experience of the challenges those with less are facing. 10x-millionaires should not be serving in Congress for example because they don’t represent the community they are supposed to serve.
Imagine a world where decisions are made based on what most mothers want for their children instead of what the wealthy and well connected want for themselves.
I hope you have a better record. Check out my recent Substack post.
I found the Republican Congresspeople!
not gonna lie: thinking of stealing your profile flex - “supporting losing candidates since forever”
Amen.
As to "rigging," the Democrats need to take the narrative back to 1980 and Reaganomics. While Republicans filled the airwaves with culture wars--the welfare queen in the pink Cadillac"--they quietly implemented their agenda: kill labor unions,and enact tax cuts for the wealthy, They were outrageously successful in that gambit. Every Republican president thereafter pushed through additional tax cuts for the rich, added heat to the culture wars, and moved employment into a gig economy--where workers were only paid when the CEO's needed their work.
And the fallout from each and every Republican president was economic disaster that had to be fixed by the next elected Democrat: Reagan and his V.P. George HW Bush, followed by Bill Clinton and his tech awakening; George W Bush, followed by Barak Obama who shepherded the country through the Great Recession. Donald Trump, for whom Joe Biden picked up the pieces. Our messaging should be that the struggling Americans were not architects of their own difficulty (except insofar as they bought into the culture wars) but rather the system was rigged against them. Democrats have always fixed the problem as much as possible, but, with a veto and filibuster proof majority in both houses, they can finally begin correcting the rigged structure.
Hard to disagree with your analysis here!
As for framing/messaging (which is what i work on) our research has found that bringing up history can work if done well. The through line matters, as does a matter-of-fact approach. (Partisan takes on history land badly more often than not.)
I hope this didn't come across as partisan. I'm pushing 90 years of age, and I'm fortunate to be able to recall most of those years. I watched the change in America when the top marginal tax rate went from 92% to 37%. And of course there are the liberal deductions for those high earners . When the rate was 92%, businesses would put income into development, worker salaries and benefits, and growth, , since the highly paid individual would just have to pay.the excess income to the government in taxes. there were full time jobs with benefits and sufficient income on average that a single wage earner could support a family. That is not true today, and it is a function of the tax structure. And that structure can (and, in my opinion) should be changed.
"“Voters don’t sit around their kitchen tables and talk about ‘affordability metrics.’ They talk about being cheated. They talk about how the system is set up to squeeze them dry... We don’t need to ‘make life affordable’; we need to stop the price-gouging by design.”" Sherrod Brown
He hit the nail on the head. 'Affordability' is a term like thoughts and prayers. Standing alone, it accomplishes, explains, and corrects nothing. We must address the 'how' as to, in clear terms, how we are going to raise people up, restore support and actually do things that will change policies and conditions for the better. And then carry through.
We need to invest in human infrastructure. Would that kind of language inspire voters? No one has any problem with the idea of society building bridges, roads, electric grids for the common good. If we reframed universal healthcare, public education that extends from daycare through college, and a universal basic income as "human infrastructure" would that get past the weird claims about socialism and handouts?
Defining affordability and what it means for average people. Breaking it down is paramount to avoiding the trap.
Exactly! Now once more for the Dem leaders in the back!
To me, you're still talking jargon by using such phrases as “economy as designed.” To me, the point you should be making is to stop using any jargon and use plain language. Talk like real people do. Real people do not use a phrase such as "economy by design."
Thanks, Lois! I actually agree with you, and relying less on jargon is one of the points I was trying to make. Clearly I needed one more round of edits! Thanks for reading.
As I read Dr. Sweetland's article, I kept thinking, "I agree, but Democrats often talk so grandly that they fail to communicate." That's not a criticism of Dr. Sweetland, it's a criticism of political messaging. Scott Johnson, in his comment, hit this point hard. Dr. Sweetland did not see it as her purpose to suggest something pithy, though I hoped she would. Here's a suggestion: Fairness and Freedom 4 US? FF4US. Fits on a bumper sticker or hat AND frames policy initiatives and goals.
The marketing industry (radio, TV, newspapers, Internet) pushes us towards more. This enriches the few owners of that industry and impoverishes the rest of us — and nature.
So true. Did you ever read the classic sci-fi novel Ecotopia? It always stayed with me that one way they built an ecologically sound and economically egalitarian society was to ban advertising.
I agree that we need a better way to describe what we want to do than just banging on about "affordability." A long time ago, David Sirota defined the distinction between "liberal" and "progressive" as: Liberals want to direct government resources to benefit the most people, and Progressives want to design government systems to benefit the most people. (I.e., increasing social security benefits is liberal, creating the social security system in the first place is progressive.) I don't know if most people go by those definitions anymore, but I've always considered myself a progressive for that reason. Which sounds to me like - or at least adjacent - to what you're getting at with this piece.
I'm not sure what the best way to talk about it is, but we definitely need to come up with a way to describe the *systems* we want to put in place rather than just the money.
I think that distinction is useful right now! Our research at FrameWorks is showing that Americans want major change. If the left falls into the old trap of trying to sound more moderate for fear of scaring folks off…we’re missing our moment. Especially when the other side is offering pretty radical change —just not of the type or direction I want!
Agree. Notice how societies designed to be fair to all citizens, I am thinking about Nordic countries here, are routinely described as socialist. They’re allies (or they used to be) so we only label them as pink and not red. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are fundamental but over looked because of their leftward leanings. Bring them back to our discourse.
I applaud the call for emphasizing the agency of the citizenry and for creating policy visions that can help bring about real improvements in peoples' lives. However, the notion that "the economy is designed by deliberate policy choices" is misleading -- I believe it is more accurate to posit something like "the economy is an outcome of policies and policy implementation." It matters what policies are adopted, and it also matters how skillfully they are administered and finally the integrity of the administration also matters. These are the reasons, in the end, that voting matters.
That’s a helpful distinction! Good catch.
A party, or a politician, has a big problem if they’re devoted to ‘affordability’. There is little a government can do, in the short run, to cut prices or increase wages. Programs like Biden’s infrastructure subsidies help in the long run, but the time horizon is far longer than the interval between elections. On the other hand, a politician, like Trump, can make life less affordable, and he seems to be trying very hard to do that quickly enough to help in November. Once the Democrats take control, however, they will be hard pressed to make good on promises to make life more affordable by 2028.
Get this out to the anti-MAGA forces. It's well-framed and clear and should be spread far and wide.
haha that’s literally what we are here for ❤️