(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Messaging and meritocracy [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2025-03-20
I was reading comments under a diary here yesterday and came across one that I think illustrates a trap progressive messaging too often falls into. I think it has to do with how poorly academic analysis translates into Political messaging. Ironically, it was a critique of Democratic messaging, and but for the choice of words, it was otherwise spot on.
The diary it was under was about how the focus on the Orange Bumbler is misguided. The focus needs to be on that which created fertile ground for him. It strikes me the latter is pretty much what Democrats have been trying to do, but have failed at for a number of reasons, the principal one being short tenures in power. The reason for that becomes a circular argument I've had with progressives for decades, and described on this site on numerous occassions, so no recap here.
My only bone to pick with the point of the diary was making is now that the Bumbler is here, we have to do both. That requires across the board mobilization, divisions of labor, and an end to finger pointing.
To me, addressing the central point of thr diary, i.e., getting the progressive message out, is best done by skilled members of the Progressive caucus in Congress, not the leadership. People like AOC, Sanders, Murphy, Warren, etc, should be out in the hinterland at small venues meeting with people to explain how the progressive approach can help their communities in plain English. No fanfare, big media presence just them and their audience. Nothing of consequence is going to happen in Congress on that front until Democrats are back in power anyway, so there's no need to be in DC.
The job of the Democratic caucus in Congress is to focus on the Bumbler, and Republican complicity with his corruption, wholesale destruction of our standing globally, our system of governance, and Federal functions. That's right, the dry stuff that doesn't have an immediate impact on people. When the impact starts being felt, those progressives in the field will have already laid the ground for explaining what to do about it. The vanguard in DC have to be members of Caucus like Crockett, not the leadership. They are already doing a fairly good job at hearings peeling the bark off Republicans.
The Democratic Caucus is otherwise pretty much powerless at the current time, Schumer having blown the only tool at their disposal. Right or wrong on the merits, he betrayed the caucus and should go. The caucus had decided upon a strategy, and at the last minute he shivved them. He's got to go.
The only ones with any power right now are Governors, mayors, States attorneys, civil society organizations, and individuals. That aspect has been going fairly well too. Courts have enjoined the Bumbler in case after case, and townhalls have become hell for Republicans.
At anyrate, the comment that caught my eye talked about disabusing Gen Zers of their belief in the myths of meritocracy, and that they will be among the meritorious, in order to make the argument for universal, as opposed to needs based assistance. The goal is to increase support for things like Medicare For All, universal school lunches, etc, as opposed to Medicaid and needs based lunch programs. My problem with this idea is I can quickly see how the right can twist it into the left opposing merit, and compare it to participation trophies. I get what the comment was driving at, but attacking meritocracy in any way shape or form is a dead bang loser. Instead attack what constitutes merit.
The message should be this. Money is not the measure of merit; a job well done is the measure of merit. In certain fields money is a measure of success, in others it is a reward for success, and in still others it is a fringe benefit. None the less, in all cases it is not the measure of merit; a job well done is.
So ask them do they really want to live in a world where money is the measure of merit, not a job well done? Is that the only measure they want for firefighters, police officers, teachers, bus drivers, government employess, construction workers, etc? Aren't people who do those jobs well meritorious regardless of their pay? Don't they merit a secure retirement, access to healthcare and higher education for themselves and their kids regardless of whether they make as much money as a banker or broker? Do they want to create a disincentive for meritorious people to take those jobs due to insufficient recognition of merit? Do they want a world in which firefighters dicker in front of their burning house for more merit before doing their job so they can afford those things, or a building inspector demands the same for an approval?
Extortion you say? Fa! It's just a demand for merit pay.
In other words, argue within meritocracy, not against it, by changing the terms of the debate. School lunches are about kids, not their parents. Kids merit lunch regardless of their parents' choices, etc. I also think the merit paradigm for Medicaid versus Medicare For All misses the key problem with MFA's appeal, choice. Step one is Medicaid as a public option. People will quickly learn how good Medicaid coverage is, and Medicare For All will follow.
Unrelated musical coda.…
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/3/20/2311453/-Messaging-and-meritocracy?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
