Choosing your words wisely - a lesson from #Dream14

The cover of new survey
by Reason-Rupe.

One of the things emphasized during social media panels at the Americans for Prosperity Defending the American Dream Summit was the choice of words.

Liberal, conservative, progressive, limited government, big government, socialism, capitalism, fair share, greater good, individual responsibility...

When you hear these words you immediately have an image of something - either good or bad depending upon if you believe in the concept or if you're going by what you've heard or associate with the term.

The other thing was the difference between preaching to the choir and trying to persuade or influence others.

Too often on the right side of the political spectrum, we are preaching to the choir and using terms they like, or ones that appealed to us as we formed our political opinions.

That's okay - and something we need.

But if we're trying to persuade others, we have to understand how they interpret words and messages and then use the phrases that will resonate with them.

So this post is definitely preaching to the choir about how to change our language and our phrases in order to appeal to those who might be receptive to a conservative philosophy if we weren't using words that immediately turned them away.

A recent Reason-Rupe survey on millennials is a good place to start.

Millennials are 18-29 years old and, according to the survey, "trust neither political party, are social liberals and fiscal centrists, and are supportive of both business and government. They favor free markets, but aren’t sure whether markets or government best drive income mobility."

They're less partisan and more receptive to a non-traditional candidate. They don't trust either party, especially when it comes to issues of privacy. They overwhelmingly (78 percent) think the budget deficit and national debt are are major problems and a majority believe that businesses pay too much or just the right amount of taxes.

As the Daily Signal explains:

Millennials say they prefer a “larger government” that provides more services. They don’t tend to think of “big government” leading to higher taxes and heavier regulation. Once the possibility of higher taxes to support a larger government is mentioned, though, millennials’ support shifts.

The survey also says "millennials believe in self-determination and endorse the values underpinning the free market system."

If you ask them to choose between capitalism and socialism, only 52 percent will pick capitalism. But if you ask them to choose between a free-market economy and a government managed economy, the support for free-markets jumps to 64 percent.

The survey shows two critical things:

1. They either don't know or don't care about various terms and what they mean, which is scary in and of itself.

2. They do understand concepts and are more likely to align with conservative economic principles so long as they are phrased to reflect the concept.

Another important fact from the survey: they vote.

As the Daily Signal explains:

"The 18- to 29-year-old demographic played a crucial role in the 2008 and 2012 elections. These millennials were instrumental in electing Barack Obama to the presidency not once, but twice. In 2008, Obama won 66 percent of voting millennials; in 2012, he captured 67 percent.

Emily Ekins, polling director for Reason Foundation, says that had those ages 18 to 29 not voted in 2012, Republican nominee Mitt Romney would be in the White House."

This is good news for those of us on the conservative side, but it means we have to change how we characterize our positions if we expect to reach this key demographic.

But it's not just the millennials. Too many of our friends and neighbors are just not into politics. It's something they think about only in passing or when they go to vote. They often have the same reaction as millennials - or they tune out when they hear certain words or phrases and never get to hear the message behind the language.

Bottom line: if we are going to share the message, we have to change our words.

Catching up

Now that I've caught up on the news and activities of the last two week, here are some thoughts on what I found....

* Reg Henry had an op-ed piece in the paper, advocating the value of newspapers. He's right that we do need the media and that includes newspapers. However, he misses the point as to why there is a decline in readership and, therefore, profitability. It's not because of partisanship - it's because many of the 'watchdogs' have stopped their watching - or watch only those with whom they disagree.

Newspapers used to be objective when it came to the news, but many no longer even pretend - whether in the bias about labels (using 'conservative' to describe right-leaning think tanks, but not using the term 'liberal' for the left-leaning ones), the use of adjectives and adverbs designed to promote negative connotations, or the more subtle elimination of certain facts or comments that put a story in a different light.

The newspaper business is in decline for several reasons, including the new competition available through the Internet. But a big reason is because they no longer do the things Henry claims they're known for. And when you have such obviously poor reporting as what happened at Maumee Valley Country Day School, it should come as no surprise that people will eventually become aware of this and stop their subscriptions.

* I've read several media and blog reports about Connecting Point and the financial troubles that caused the closing of that facility. Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop was a board member of the agency, leaving that position in June 2008. Each time Konop has commented on the problems, he's said pretty much the same thing: "the agency was guilty only of trying to serve more needy youth than for whom it had resources." (source)

Isn't this a typical response? Don't blame us for the fiscal problems, we were just trying to help ... never mind our financial failure, it was our intent that was important.

I get so tired of hearing this type of excuse: that intentions are more important than outcomes or results. And when the outcomes or results indicate failure of the program, we shouldn't 'blame' the people who were just trying to help.

The fact is, it doesn't 'help' people to set up an organization without proper fiscal controls and oversight and then, when it fails, to leave clients without service. Some might actually say it hurts them more to do this than if they went without service in the first place.

* I love art. I have plenty of it on my walls and around my house. My tastes lean toward the nautical and shades of blue. I have John Mecray, Ben Richmond and various Rosenfeld Collection prints throughout...

But all these are 'art' pieces I purchased because I liked them. And these are successful 'artists' because their work appealed to enough people that they've been able to support themselves with their art. It's this point that appears to be missing from a letter to the editor on March 10, 'For many, art is their sole income'

In regard to the letter writer who criticized Rep. Marcy Kaptur for getting federal money set aside to support local artists:

For shame? With all due respect, for some local artists, funding is their only income source. Their job is to be an artist, just as yours may be to be a plumber, office worker, or retail salesman. Not everyone has the talent, skill, or resources to do noncreative jobs. Some are gifted only with creative talents, and they need to eat and pay the rent too.

Without the arts, Toledo would be just another gritty factory town. Art brings in culture, inspires minds, documents history, and provides relief from the mundanity of "normal" life. Children who participate in artistic pursuits do better in math and science than those who do not.

Art is involved in almost everything around us, though some people may only associate it with "frivolous activities" such as those of painters and sculptors. Quite the contrary. Graphic designers, textile designers, fashion designers, product designers, engineers, authors, musicians, actors - all of these fall under the loose category of "artist."

Without art, there would be no photographs, television shows, gift wrapping paper, greeting cards, corporate letterheads or business cards, technology (because all technology begins with a design, which is a form of art), product containers, team sports logos, paint for your walls, upholstery for your couch, sheets, towels, clothing, books, or music to listen to. Have I made my point yet?

You believe that funding for the arts is an absurd move. For shame.
Jeanne Berry
Bowling Green

What Ms. Berry fails to recognize is that just because you are an artist, it doesn't mean you get to live at the expense of others. And if you have a profession that doesn't support you and your family, it's not 'fair' to expect others to support you just so you can continue to do something you enjoy - especially while those others are foregoing such luxuries in order to afford their necessities - like the taxes that are being re-distributed to support these 'artists.'

Furthermore, perhaps Ms. Berry should actually read the Constitution and let all of us know where it gives the federal government the authority to tax everyone in order to give money to artists...

* There were several reports about how much three public agency chiefs are paid - and all the hand wringing over the fact that they got raises in these tough economic times. First of all, compensation for a director should be based upon many factors, including their performance and the ability of the agency to support such a wage. The concern about the pay increases this year seems to be because so many local people are suffering economically.

The condition of local residents is NOT a valid factor to consider when determining compensation. However, the ability of local residents to pay a property tax during difficult economic times is.

The hypocrisy is when all these elected officials and complainers bemoan the pay now when they supported the increase in the taxes all these agencies requested at the ballot box. Now that the money is being collected in taxes, the funding is clearly there to provide pay increases - and some might even say that the directors' success at getting the tax levy increases is deserving of a pay increase.

Again we're back to intentions and emotions rather than facts and logic. It doesn't 'feel' right for public servants to get pay increases when the populace is facing layoffs. And that may be true - but 'feelings' are not valid when determining compensation for employees. Do you want your pay determined by whether or not your neighbor has a job?

Personally, I haven't reviewed the pay scale for these positions since I was in office. I know I did, and continue to, take exception to car allowances for such employees - especially when many of them get such a large amount ($600/month) in addition to mileage. But the entire discussion relating to the pay revolved around the empathy we're supposed to feel for those who've lost jobs while ignoring the true basis of compensation decisions and the complicity of the complainers in the real burden which was the tax levies previously passed.

I also object to The Blade editorial position that 'people won't understand.' Of course not - not if you play upon their emotions rather than inform them as newspapers are supposed to do. (see above)

Also - did you note that the Commissioners didn't feel the same way about their own pay increases?

* Did anyone else think it was absolutely ridiculous for an attorney to ask an elected official to ignore a court order? Again, here we are with the emotion - the Sheriff shouldn't kick people out of their homes - despite the fact that the houses have been sold and the new owners would like to move in. That Comm. Ben Konop thinks this is a good idea goes back to the feelings of the situation while ignoring, again, the logic, common sense, and due process already granted to the individuals so affected.

But it got some nice headlines and Konop can go around claiming 'I tried to help' even though he, as an attorney, should be perfectly aware of the inability of the Sheriff to ignore court orders.

* Finally, there was this letter to the editor about the Dog Warden, in which the author asks for an apology by The Blade:

As an elected official in Ottawa Hills, which is served ably and well by the Lucas County Dog Warden, I believe that the editorial board should begin reading their own newspaper. They should then apologize to the readers of the editorial page for not having based their opinion on facts but, rather, on a personal attack ostensibly mounted only because of Mr. Skeldon's family lineage.

This time, it's facts and logic rather than emotion - how refreshing!

Check it out!

As you'll notice, in the left-hand column, I've added a link to my WSPD Eye on Toledo web page. I'll be making regular posts there about show topics and my "thoughts" on various issues that come up in the 6-7 p.m. hour.

My recent post, Emotion vs. Reason, expands upon a thought I had in response to a caller.

I hope you'll make it a regular stop as you cruise the blog-o-sphere!