Winning the middle ground: abortion, gun control, gay marriage and the death penalty
The discussion surrounding Klam's anti-death penalty argument reminds me of an anecdote about the American Revolution. Leading up to the revolution, a history teacher explained once, opinion seemed split with about a third of the population pro-revolution, a third Tories, and an an uncommitted middle.
Revolutionaries won the rhetorical battle for that middle group, and went on to military victory. It was an earth-shattering step forward for freedom and rational thought -- a complete rejection of the European tradition of monarchies and religious domination of politics.
Ignoring accuracy for a moment, there's a grain of truth in that pre-Revolutionary opinion split. It applies to nearly every "wedge" issue in play now: a passionate, unswayable group of people on one side, a second group on the other, and a swayable middle.
The rough numbers are the same today as well: 1/4 to 1/3 of the population on one side, same on the other, the rest in the middle. Each side is battling for that middle, the folks who might change their minds.
That battle is complex and nuanced, sometimes unconscious, and the actual mechanics are probably beyond our understanding. But as Klam articulates so well, one critical weapon is presenting vivid arguments to the people in the middle, the ones who can be convinced.
During the revolution, pamphleteers and thinkers like Paine or Jefferson persuaded that middle ground. They were vivid, compelling, and still readable today. They used passion and reason together, playing to the heart and the mind.
Today, reactionaries have an edge in the war of vivid arguments, and progressives are just starting to build momentum. People "identify" as conservative more often in polls. But really, that just means half the middle ground leans in that direction.
As progressives, we need to speak to that middle. When we weigh the merits of one progressive argument against another (as thousands of blog comments do every day), we don't have to worry about persuading the committed right wing. We can only speak to people who are open to changing their minds.
That's all we need in order to win.
Revolutionaries won the rhetorical battle for that middle group, and went on to military victory. It was an earth-shattering step forward for freedom and rational thought -- a complete rejection of the European tradition of monarchies and religious domination of politics.
Ignoring accuracy for a moment, there's a grain of truth in that pre-Revolutionary opinion split. It applies to nearly every "wedge" issue in play now: a passionate, unswayable group of people on one side, a second group on the other, and a swayable middle.
The rough numbers are the same today as well: 1/4 to 1/3 of the population on one side, same on the other, the rest in the middle. Each side is battling for that middle, the folks who might change their minds.
That battle is complex and nuanced, sometimes unconscious, and the actual mechanics are probably beyond our understanding. But as Klam articulates so well, one critical weapon is presenting vivid arguments to the people in the middle, the ones who can be convinced.
During the revolution, pamphleteers and thinkers like Paine or Jefferson persuaded that middle ground. They were vivid, compelling, and still readable today. They used passion and reason together, playing to the heart and the mind.
Today, reactionaries have an edge in the war of vivid arguments, and progressives are just starting to build momentum. People "identify" as conservative more often in polls. But really, that just means half the middle ground leans in that direction.
As progressives, we need to speak to that middle. When we weigh the merits of one progressive argument against another (as thousands of blog comments do every day), we don't have to worry about persuading the committed right wing. We can only speak to people who are open to changing their minds.
That's all we need in order to win.
posted by $!# at 4/06/2006 12:09:00 PM
2 Comments:
Personally, I'm entirely fascinated by this mythical "middle". Maybe it's because I'm college educated and grew up in the northeast. i have never met any of these opinion-less people waiting to be swayed. I know they exist; I've heard about them for years; I've just never met one. What is also interesting is that in a country where only 30-40% of the people vote period, what motivates these people to not only finally come up with an opinion, but then actually act upon it while the vast majority of opinionated and opinion-less are at home watching must-see TV.
Yeah, agreed, it's a totally fascinating group.
I bet you know a bunch of them and don't know it. It's not your peers and friends. Think... your landlord. Your grandmother. That aunt who lives in Florida. They're everywhere. And I think they're shy about it, too.
I think the group skews towards the conflicted. And that's a lot of people. I mean, there's a whole fucking national club for gays who vote republican.
Take my poor, sweet grandma: she didn't know that GWB doesn't like the gays, and voted for him. No idea. If she had, she would have gone the other way. It's probably my damn fault he won in 2000 because I didn't call her down in FL.
Anyway, Aaron's got some extensive stuff on this as well. We're off to a red state today to investigate further. Stay tuned.
Post a Comment
<< Home