Last week, I wrote a piece criticizing political hyperbole, focusing mainly on the euphemism “economic freedom.” However, I also expressed my disdain for the phrase “war on women” that Democrats used throughout the 2014 cycle. Apparently, I offended a lot of people with whom I generally agree.
I agree that Republican policies that restrict access to abortions harm women who need them. I believe that women deserve equal pay for equal work. I believe that women should have easy and affordable access to birth control. I don’t agree that opposing my point of view constitutes a war on women–and neither do a lot of women.
According to exit polls, Hagan won 96% of Black voters, including 97% of Black women. So to win the election, she needed to win white women. She lost them by almost 20 points, 57% to 38%. While she won younger voters, those under 40, by a healthy margin, they didn’t vote in significant numbers. So the “war on women” battle cry neither convinced the women Democrats needed to persuade nor motivated the ones they needed to vote.
I understand that campaigns and political organizations need rhetoric that keeps their supporters engaged and that trite phrases and hyperbole are part of that rhetoric. However, too many campaigns and organizations fail to connect their messages to the lives of the voters who determine elections. To win elections in a state like North Carolina, campaigns still need to win the argument with swing voters as much as they need to motivate the base.
In a world where data rules, messages should increasingly be tailored to individual voters. Campaigns and affiliated organizations have the ability to understand the likes and dislikes of the people they need to persuade or motivate. Falling back on phrases like “the war on women” or “the socialist agenda” is lazy, silly and out of date. Candidates, campaigns and affiliated organizations need to listen more to voters and address their concerns, instead of trying to cause their concerns.
Thomas Mills is the founder and publisher of PoliticsNC.com. Before beginning PoliticsNC, Thomas spent twenty years as a political and public affairs consultant. Learn more >
Lex, sorry but I don’t see James’ comments as misogynistic. There are plenty of religions out there that preach often and loudly against abortion, and a good many women who don’t want it to be legal. Same with the other things you mentioned. That doesn’t make it true, but it makes it convincing to all too many religious people. Although it may well be the case that all of these religions are not worthy of being called religions, they are still out there, still recognized as religions, and still have a lot of clout.
As I said in a comment on the “Economic Freedom” thread, the main point about the “war on women” rhetoric is that it implies that, for example, Republicans are doing things related to abortion that wrongly disadvantage women because they are out to get women.
I agree that they are doing things that wrongly disadvantage women, but not because of misogyny, but for other reasons, such as silly religious beliefs about ensoulment. And Republicans have lots of support for these things from women.
Hey James, just curious. You are familiar I assume with one of the primary law of physics, that being that matter (energy) can neither be created or destroyed. So, in your enlightened secular view, how are we and everything in the universe even here? Or to use a sports analogy, is this a secular humanist “player to be named later”?
James, if they’re trying to make contraception harder to get, that’s misogynistic, pure and simple. There are good public-health reasons why we want women to have reproductive freedom, reasons so compelling that no religion worth the name can sincerely claim that opposition to it is well-intentioned. Ditto abortion. Ditto refusal to pay women comparable wages. And on and on. The fact that they say it doesn’t make it true.
Republicans also have lots of support from middle-class and poor people for policies that screw middle-class and poor people. That support doesn’t mean we have to believe them when they say the reasons for those policies are to make life better for middle-class and poor people.
To start with women are not paid less than men, you know, if you were actually interested in the facts. Plus support for the working class (of which I am a proud member) from the liberal perspective seems to be limited to food-stamp and welfare support when what they want and need are jobs!
Face it Lex, you and you ilk are all out of ideas. It’s time to step aside and let the grownups take over. And then, when the economy is back humming with good, well paying jobs, including most especially the middle-class, and when everybody has forgotten how lousy and destructive leftist governance is, THEN you can swoop back in with a “change” agenda (what young idiot has ever NOT wanted change?) and start the cycle all over again. That is of course assuming we aren’t nuked by the Mullahs or turned into Mexico El Norte Grande in the mean time.
But the death panels are real.
#bringbackourgirls
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Thomas.
Yes. overuse of political buzzwords/buzzphrases doesn’t do much for the quality of discourse nor raise the decorum of discussion. Such soundbites are crutches for lazy or thoughtless advocates, and just polarize people on issues. I am as tired of having people called out as “libtards” or “commies” as I am about their being referred to as “rePUGlicans” or “teabillies.” And there are a few contributors to these comment threads who can’t seem to post without calling others here “leftists” or “rednecks.”
Well I certainly hope you’re not referring to me, as I am a proud Redneck. But since when is “leftist” a derogation? Would you not describe yourself as a proud leftist or liberal?
Please give us a list of nouns you find offensive so when you take over the world we’ll all be prepared.
By the way I don’t use “liberal” a lot as I consider myself a TRUE liberal (in the classic sense) and most leftists are anything but. The word has been misappropriated by you people and I refuse to cooperate.