I am but am amateur at this political game. I am what they call a support facilitator. I go into other teacher’s classrooms and work directly with students with disabilities. They could include learning disabilities or developmental disabilities. Occasionally, we deal with students with behavioral issues, but the other two kinds represent the bulk of what I do. So, when asked to come up with a national platform for the Democratic party I can only offer my best guess.

My platform is labeled, “let freedom ring.” Beyond the obvious what exactly does this mean? One of the things we have done as a party is cede way too many arguments to the right. I’ve mentioned these before and I won’t belabor them here. What we are in danger of doing is ceding freedom and liberty to them as well. There is nothing remotely freeing about what the Moms for Liberty are proposing. The so-called Freedom Caucus is anything but about freedom. This needs to be highlighted over and over again.

So, how do we do this? Simply put, take the words from their platform and simply use them against them and their group. Take what Moms for Liberty has to offer and completely tear it apart. At the same time you offer an alternative view of freedom and liberty. I think most of us here (with notable exceptions) would agree that it is the real version of freedom and liberty. Hell, you can bust out a dictionary to prove your point. How does your platform differ from those specific groups and from the Republican party in general? How is our platform closer to the vision of actual freedom and liberty?

One of the things I have talked about in the past is the idea of issue framing. I can’t take credit for it. It came from the book “Cracking the Code” by Thom Hartmann. Essentially, the idea is that rooted in every issue is a common story. Conservatives have just been better at this than we have. Get to the root of every one of their stances and you will see this story. It usually is centered on the idea of rugged individualism. You too can succeed if the damn government will just get out of your way and let you do it.

We need our own competing story. Our story has to have the true definitions of freedom and liberty at its core. Sure, live and let live is a simple offshoot of that. The idea that someone can be religious or not is basic. The idea that someone can be gay or not is basic. The idea that someone can live an alternative lifestyle or not is basic. We need to expand this outward. We need to describe how our health care system actually limits freedom. If the vast majority of bankruptcies in this country are caused by medical costs and debt then that system is antithetical to freedom. We need to free people from the anxiety related to crippling medical care costs.

That’s just one example. You essentially take this model and expand it outwards. It means simplifying issues and making it all about freedom. How does our plan make you more free? How does their plan make you less free? Millions of voters simply don’t understand how they become less free if they vote GOP. They think to themselves that they aren’t immigrants, women, people of color, or LGTBQ+, so why does it matter if those people have less freedom? In fact, wouldn’t that mean that I have more? Life is a zero sum game to them. You won’t catch them all, but you have to repeat the notion that less freedom for them means less freedom for all. Keep repeating that over and over again and give them examples. Then, we have a fighting chance.

Years ago, I read a book that made things make sense. It was a book by Thom Hartmann where he took a look at the complex world of issue framing. In the case of American politics, it is the difference between the way conservatives and progressives see the world.

There are things that conservatives and progressives do well. English teachers teach students about ethos, pathos, and logos. Progressives are really good with facts. They can logically break down any issue where their solution is the only one that makes sense.

Conservatives have mastered the emotional appeal. One could easily poke holes in the efficacy of that kind of argument, but in terms of messaging it has been ingenious. They attach a feeling to being an American in general. Americans feel a certain way about things. Therefore, if you feel differently you are not really American.

The concept behind this is one of rugged individualism. This concept is so engrained that it is taught to our students in history classes. Therefore, every time someone proposes anything that helps ordinary people it immediately bumps against that concept.

This is where liberals and progressives get themselves in trouble. They present ideas like a minimum wage hike or universal health care and think those issues stand on their own. They don’t. They are a part of a web of issues that ask government to look out for the needs of its citizens.

I’ve quoted it a few times before, but it goes back to the Shel Silverstein line that “I can be someone’s and still be my own.” Liberals and progressives have to present an alternative view of the world. We have to present a world where we are dependent on one another. We have to present a world we actually do better when the least among us does better. We have to present a world where when the least of us gets our needs met then the rest of us see our boats rise in the tide.

What conservatives have done is find a way to convince people in a very general way that when someone else gets something that is something that they cannot get. We usually call that a zero sum game. Life becomes a tit for tat game where we are conditioned to resent others for getting things we had to work for.

So, the web of rugged individualism and the zero sum game are tied together in neat story based on a fairy tale. I was born in the wilderness and left to my own devices. I worked hard, studied hard, and played by the rules so that I earned every scrap of stuff I now call my own. It is a powerful tale. It is a powerful image that pulls us all in.

Therefore, they don’t deserve those things. They did not work hard, study hard, or play by the rules. Giving them anything is unfair. It takes away from me and gives to them. Why should they get it for free when I had to work hard for it? These images are nearly impossible to defeat. Yet, they are all a lie. I did not get there through hard work alone. Someone came before me that worked hard and gave me a solid footing to get my start. Some people call it privaledge.

In many ways we are trying to sail into an overwhelming head wind. Any idea where we get there together has become verboten and heresy. Yet, it is firmly embedded in the philosophies we have grown up listening to and reading. It is just as compelling a story as the story of rugged individualism if not more so. It is the story we must start selling with the same zeal and enthusiasm as conservatives spin their story. We can’t win these issues one at a time. They all flow together.

Those of you that have been reading these regularly have probably deciphered a pattern. I tend to hover around the same topics like a moth rushing to the flame. That means I hover between issues of faith, education, and issue framing. While I appreciate that not everyone wants to hear about faith, that issue is paramount to me in terms of reaching a bigger audience.

The simplest way to consider this is to consider it as a form of language. It’s more like a regional dialect. It’s like those raging debates about how “coke” is labeled in speech or how someone says “y’all.” In this case, it isn’t regional but spiritual (or not spiritual).

People speak in a particular way when they come from a Christian tradition. They speak in a certain way when they don’t. They also speak in a specific way when they used to be Christian and have decided to go in a different direction they speak in a specific way. A large part of keeping a big tent in politics is finding ways to communicate to a variety of groups. Those groups all have languages of their own.

The Democratic party has slowly developed an advantage over time of communicating with people of color. They have developed an advantage of communicating with women. They have developed an advantage of communicating with the LGTBQ+ community. They have developed an advantage in communicating with those that have shunned the church.

That leaves one group out. Those are the people that the party is having an increasingly difficult time reaching. Those are the people that many progressives are becoming increasingly hostile towards. These are the folks that share political values even when they are still members of the flock. They can be reached if you simply speak the language.

This concept is easy to understand when we look at the other side. Think of how many times we have watched a conservative think they are trying to reach disaffected groups of their own only to come off sounding more offensive. They belittle women. They somehow harbor racists and spew racist language even when they seem to be trying to be inclusive. It’s awe inspiring in a way.

It is all well and good not to be interested in the church itself, but it is paramount to understand the politics going on inside it. There is a divide throughout Christianity between what we might classify as the legalistic group of Christians and those that we might classify as the social justice group of Christians.

The Bible obviously can be split into various parts, but the two biggest dichotomies exist between all of the rules and regulations that people of faith are supposed to follow and the mission of Christ. That mission involves feeding the poor, clothing the naked, and healing the sick. That is the very heart of the progressive platform.

The problem comes when you insult believers. I understand it. Many believers are insulting themselves. They don’t respect non-believers and deride them unmercifully. We all get that. Yet, there are a group of good and decent believers that believe in our values that are there to be courted. I know because I’m one of them.

The current strategy forces those that we might label “the Christian left” to choose between Christian and left. When you force people to choose you never end up liking their choice. When you are forced to choose you usually choose against those forcing you to make the choice. Stop making them choose.

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”–Yoda

Quoting fiction and popular fiction at that is not necessarily the most high brow way to diagnose a problem, but occasionally it fits. I have been interested in the concept of issue framing ever since I read a book by Thom Hartmann called Cracking the Code. Admittedly, his book didn’t address this absolutely on the nose, but he danced around it plenty.

Parental politics is simply the name I’ve given it, but the concept is clearly not mine and unlike certain ex presidents, I refuse to take credit for things that came decades before me. Parental politics refers to which stereotypical parent dominates our political point of view. Daddies tend to worry about certain issues and mommies tend to worry about certain issues. If you can cause people to worry about the daddy issues you get them to vote conservative. If you can get them to worry more about the mommy issues then they tend to vote more liberal.

Obviously, this assumes certain gender roles and it assumes personality archetypes that are likely outdated. Of course, that by itself is a hot button issue. So, I will simply highlight the subtle difference between the word fear and the word worry. They sound the same, but they are just different enough to make all the difference.

I worry about having a roof over my head. I worry about whether I can feed my family. I worry about what might happen if I lose my job or suddenly get sick again. If I don’t worry about those things then I worry about those around me. What happens to people that don’t have a warm bed at night or a hot meal at the end of the day. Worrying and being afraid can sound similar, but they aren’t the same.

People who fear, fear the other. They fear black people coming into their neighborhood and ruining their way of life. They fear people south of the border from coming up and stealing their job. They fear those same people bringing drugs that will enslave their children. They fear terrorists that don’t look like them bombing their kids schools, a shopping mall, or some other public building.

They fear transgender kids coming into their bathroom or putting on a dress and joining their daughter’s basketball team. They fear teachers indoctrinating their children with silly notions about racism or inclusion. They may even fear that all of this will spread to their children and they may be turned gay. As Yoda said, fear leads to hate. Everyone worries. It’s what makes us human. Some of us hate and that is much worse.

Daddy is the protector. At least that’s the moving stereotype. He protects us from intruders. He protects us from those that would do us harm. He protects us from those we would hate. So, if you can get people to fear and you can get them to hate then you can get them to vote conservative. So, the active game for conservatives is two-fold. First, you convince people that there is something to fear. Then, you convince them that you alone can protect them from it.

That’s why we promise to build walls. That’s why we promise to protect our children from predators in the bathroom. That’s why we blow up the issue of human trafficking. That’s why we demagogue immigrants, people of color, and members of the LGTBQ+ community. If there were nothing to fear then there would be nothing to hate. If there was nothing to fear or hate then we wouldn’t need excessive protection.

Moms care. Obviously not all moms care, but if we are to giving into stereotypes then they do. Moms worry. Moms nurture us. Moms take care of us. So, therefore moms care about the government programs that do those things. They care about how we do in school. They care about our health. They care that we are eating right and taking good care of ourselves. If we give into the stereotypes than they also care more about the people around us. They realize that we are only as good and as safe as the people around us allow us to be.

If the whole idea of the moms and dads doesn’t make sense to you then simply think of the difference between worrying and being fearful. What are we worried about? What are we afraid of? If we focus on our worries we tend to be more progressive. If we focus on what we are afraid of we tend to be more conservative. Remember, fear leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. Yoda taught us that one.

You’ve seen this before. Someone complains about working hard and seemingly not making it while others get to sit on their duff and collect a government paycheck. I have to admit, it’s a tempting thought process. I allowed myself to go down that road one or two times. It can be a comforting place to be when you are struggling personally. It is a thought process built on two intricate cons.

First and foremost, life is not a zero sum game. My success or lack of success has little to do with anyone else. Sure, we have direct competitors for the jobs we want but most of the vitriol being spewed is spewed at people that have nothing to do with us. So, when I don’t succeed, that has nothing to do with 99 percent of the people around me.

The trouble is that the conservative con has made us believe that this is the case. So, when I don’t succeed there is usually someone (or a group) I can immediately blame for my lack of success. This is where the xenophobia comes from. Immigrants are coming to take your job. Of course, we all know that’s not true, but the con is an emotional con. We don’t think well when we’re angry and scared.

The second con is essentially a con of conflation. Look at all the free stuff people get. This con has been going on since the Reagan years with his Welfare Queens that are almost certainly black and driving around in their Cadillac. It’s a complex web they weave. It’s built on a number of lies and half truths but it focuses on misdirection more than anything.

Even if we consider ourselves enlightened enough to see through one of the major lies, we find ourselves vulnerable to the others. Sure, many of us know that most people on welfare are white. Congratulations. You saw through one of the major lies. The second question we have to ask ourselves is how good do they have it really?

Notice how few details you see. There are always stories of people buying Air Jordans, T-bone steaks, and lobster on their Lonestar card. Yet. there is rarely any hard and fast data about how much someone actually gets on government assistance. They really don’t want you to know. The dirty little secret is that it’s not much. It’s certainly not the kind of life 99 percent of us would want to lead.

It doesn’t mean there isn’t waste or people that game the system, but we really have to ask ourselves what that all matters. If that money goes away and returns to the government coffers does my life become any better? If we make their life miserable and force them to fend for themselves am I any better off? We really need to ask ourselves why we think denying others the basics of human life makes our lot in life any better.

A large part of the con is that this money has never made it back to us. That is unless you are in the top one percent financially. If you are then I’d kindly accept a donation to keep this blog up and running. Otherwise, it’s not going to you and me. So, when we find ourselves struggling to get by it is fair to ask what’s in it for me. It’s at this point that we have to remember both parts of the con.

First, this is not a zero sum game. You can help the vast majority of people all at the same time. That of course brings us to the second part of the con. When we are struggling it makes no sense to ask why they get help and we don’t. That diverts our attention away from us and onto them. It is more productive to simply ask why we don’t get help. Who is it that isn’t helping us? Who is it that actually is actively making our lives harder than it needs to be? The answer is usually related to those pushing the con.

Every once in awhile you learn something new. Of course, the reality is that we rarely ever learn anything truly new. It simply is that we learn something that reinforces something we already knew in a unique way. In this case, another commentator stumbled on an idea that illustrates something we all have known for most of our lives.

I peruse a number of sites every day just to keep up with the times and to check out other writers I enjoy reading. I am a regular at John Pavlovitz’s site, I am a regular reader at Heather Cox Richardson’s site. I also go over to the Bulwark. It is a center-right blog that features a group of never Trumpers that used to be establishment conservative thinkers. Yeah, I know what you’re thinking. Yet, reading them has given me insight into the conservative mindset. One of their writers passed along an interesting nugget about Red Bull and Elon Musk.

Last (the author) pointed out something I didn’t know. Red Bull doesn’t actually manufacture Red Bull. In fact, the company doesn’t manufacturer anything. They outsource it to someone else and just handle the marketing. Their YouTube page and other social media are revolutionary. They are highly successful and they don’t make a damn thing.

The four largest car manufacturers sold more than 25 million cars last year alone combined. Musk’s Tesla made just over 500 thousand. Who made more? If you guessed Tesla you’d guess right. It is truly the triumph of style over substance and we are seeing the same in our politics.

This really isn’t anything new. Literature experts tell us that there are really only about 100 original stories in literature. Everything else is a riff on one of those original stories. Plato described this phenomenon in his “Allegory of a cave” in the Republic. Perception is reality and no amount of facts are really going to change that.

The book “Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus” described the differences between the sexes back in 1992. I haven’t read the book admittedly, but the general idea is that men and women are wired differently. Well duh. Yet, the same notion would probably best describe Republicans and Democrats. I hate to paint people with such a broad brush, but the two groups just don’t process the same way.

Progressives and conservatives by and large think differently. I could make value judgments, but suffice it to say that when you want systemic changes your mind goes to policy initiatives. Policy initiatives require facts and specific aims. When your goal is to say no to more government you don’t need the specifics. You think in generalities.

The aforementioned book is actually pretty relevant here. We mistakenly thought that relevant facts and trusted sources of information were persuasive. They certainly are to people that speak the same language, but some people honestly distrust all of that stuff. Conservatives are great at communicating simple points in quick bursts. They frame issues quickly and convincingly. Progressives usually shoot themselves in the foot when they try to frame issues.

The long and short of it is that we cannot get through to most people by citing facts and discussing policy aims. They just aren’t wired that way. Trump never had a specific policy and never made good on virtually any of his campaign promises. That didn’t seem to matter. So, pointing those things out really won’t work. We need something else. The alternative is to continue to bang our head against the wall.