Why Republicans should watch their language
By Frank Luntz,
Jan 11, 2013 07:02 PM ESTThe Washington Post
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-republicans-should-watch-their-language/2013/01/11/0f6f41fa-5
6ce-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html?hpid=z2#license-0f6f41fa-56ce-11e2-bf3
e-76c0a789346f) Friday, January 11, 2013
Frank Luntz, a pollster, is the author of _“Win: The Key Principles to Take
Your Business From Ordinary to Extraordinary.”_
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1401323995?ie=UTF8&tag=washpost-opinions-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&cr
eativeASIN=1401323995)
This coming week, House Republicans will gather in Williamsburg, Va., to
discuss _what went wrong in 2012_
(http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-09/opinions/35504587_1_gay-marriage-marriage-issue-gop-leadership)
. I’ve
attended more than a dozen such congressional retreats since 1993, and I can
already imagine how the conversations will go. Someone will undoubtedly
come to the microphone to declare that what the GOP needs is a better brand,
missing the essential point that candidates and political parties are about
reputation, trust and ideas. You can’t sell them like soap or detergent.
But what you say in defense of those ideas matters, and what people hear
matters even more.
Congressional Republicans are currently defined as nothing more than
opponents of the president and friends of the powerful. This isn’t my opinion —
it’s America’s opinion. My polling firm asked voters nationwide on
election night to identify who or what the GOP was fighting for. Twice as many
said “the wealthy” and “big business” than “hardworking taxpayers” or “
small business.”
Their image is even worse today. The congressional Republicans’ message
during the “fiscal cliff” debate last month was confused and chaotic. _The
debt-ceiling vote next month_
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/27/the-dangerous-fiscal-deadline-isnt-dec-31-its-february-2013/)
and the budget debate after that promise more of the same — unless House and
Senate Republicans stop bickering and start coordinating and talking
differently.
Just saying “no” to the president has its limits. House Republicans, since
they have a megaphone that Senate Republicans don’t , will continue to be
diminished until they start defining and stop being defined.
Talk is cheap, of course, but bad language is costly. While the new GOP
House majority is the second-largest since World War II, more people cast
votes for Democratic House candidates than for Republican candidates. On the
Senate side, the Democratic advantage was even larger. The GOP paid a price
for its out-of-touch language in November and could pay again in 2014, just
as it did in 2006, unless the party changes course.
Changing course starts with a values-based approach, and that means talking
to Americans about accountability, personal responsibility and freedom —
and linking those values to GOP policies. For example, in 1994,
congressional Republican candidates developed the Contract With America to
announce “a
detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine
print . . . to make us all proud again of the way free people govern
themselves.”
It was a response to voters who were fed up with politicians who said one
thing in their districts and then voted differently in Washington. In 2013,
House Republicans need a similar tone that starts with the value of
listening, not speaking. When people feel they’re heard and understood,
they’ll
listen.
The next step is to be more empathetic. Voters will not give you a chance
to solve their problems if they think you don’t understand them, especially
at a time when Americans feel no one is fighting for them. For example,
among 2012 voters who wanted their president to “care about people like me,”
President Obama crushed Mitt Romney 81 percent to 18 percent. In part, that’
s because the president’s rhetoric is always couched in the language of
fairness and justice. He asks the “wealthiest 2 percent” to “pay their fair
share” — without defining what “fair share” means. He doesn’t have to;
voters ascribe their own definitions.
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
