Spencer Critchley

politics

What the Feinstein-Kids Video Teaches About Effective—And Ineffective—Advocacy

by

About the kids and Dianne Feinstein. I understand why some people feel outraged by what they think they’re seeing in the video, but I’d like to ask them to step back for a moment and try something that may feel unnatural: exercise some empathy for a politician.
 
Feinstein could have expressed it better, but if the group, especially the adults who organized it, had been able to listen to what she was saying, they might have learned some things about being effective in advocating for change.
 
Like not starting off by attacking an ally, in public. The full video, which provides much more context than the widely circulated two-minute edit, is here:

 

Senator Dianne Feinstein with a delegation of schoolchildren. Video by Sunrise Movement Bay Area via Storyful and the Sacramento Bee

 

Feinstein has a 100% 2017 rating from the League of Conservation Voters, and a 90% lifetime rating. She probably doesn’t need to be lectured about the danger of inaction on climate change. And, as a powerful ally, she just might be able to help move solutions forward.
 
Also: if an elected official who’s already on your side isn’t giving you everything you want right away, it may not be because that hasn’t occurred to them, or because they don’t want to do it. It may be because they can’t. They have to try to make things work in a democracy, where one person or group doesn’t have all the power.
 
Instead, people who disagree with you have power too — sometimes more than you, like when you’re in the minority in the Senate. So you’re forced to try to find paths forward other than the obvious one of just telling people what to do.
 
And that’s the hard part, which people in Feinstein’s position have to wrestle with every day: not what to do, but how to get it done.
 
So she could have been more polite, but her visitors could have been a little less focused on making demands, and a little more focused on making progress.

Arguing Over Their New Slogan Is Why Democrats Lose

by

Man straightening tie photo illustration
iStock

Democrats, being Democrats, are having a big argument right now about their new slogan, “A Better Deal.”

Is it on point? Does it suck? What do the polls say?

It doesn’t freaking matter.

Quick, now. What was Barack Obama’s slogan in 2012? George W. Bush’s in 2000 and 2004? Bill Clinton’s in ’92 and ’96?

You don’t remember. And it doesn’t matter.

Ah, but I bet you think you remember the Obama ‘08 slogan. “Hope and Change,” right? Actually he had at least four: “Hope,” Change,” “Change We Can Believe In,” and “Change We Need.”* They didn’t matter — until Obama made them matter.

You know what else doesn’t matter? Logos. Obama didn’t even like his now-iconic ’08 logo when he first saw it.

“It’ll do,” he said. And he was right. So would have lots of others.

People don’t vote for slogans. They don’t vote for logos. They vote for strong leaders who share their values.

Who fights over a slogan? Not leaders.

Fighting over the slogan — and all the related fussing over polls, focus groups, policy details — only signals voters that Democrats are obsessed with little stuff. Leaders are not obsessed with little stuff.

Leaders are focused on their vision of a better future, and they have the personal presence to inspire us with that vision.

It’s in that presence that leaders make their case. Democrats trying to figure out how to win need to stop trying to figure it out. They need to discover the world below their necks.

Then they might stumble across why Kentucky Congressional candidate Amy McGrath has exploded onto the national stage with her first campaign commercial. Holy smokes, there’s a leader.

Quick quiz: What’s her slogan?

Answer: Who cares?

*Want more presidential campaign slogan trivia? Here’s a list.