Conservatives contend that the “mainstream media” is liberal, but even if true, liberals are exceptionally bad at using that media to sell their message. Pop quiz: give me a liberal aphorism or quote from past years that helps set the political agenda today. Compare whatever you remember with these: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” “Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.” “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” “The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would steal them away.” “The problem is not that people are taxed too little; the problem is that government spends too much.” “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

These are all the words of Ronald Reagan, and this still-resonating rhetoric starts many political policy discussions today. For example, a right-leaning acquaintance recently posted, “You either understand history or you can trust the government. You can’t do both.” I am fairly confident that he, a few years younger than I, and many of those who support his perspective expect Social Security and Medicare benefits to come to them from that very government.

These slogans are not founded on the thought that government does good things or that taxation can lead to a better society. Instead, the basic premises are that government is dangerous; government is too big; government is inept; government is incompetent; taxes are bad; taxation is too high; regulations destroy jobs. Reagan remains influential because he re-shaped the political dialog even though his actual policies often confirmed that conservative ideology was ineffective. So, for example, conservatives continue to maintain that economic growth spurred by tax cuts will cut the federal deficit and reduce unemployment. Reagan engineered a major tax cut, but the federal deficit and debt ballooned. Reagan then went on to support specific tax increases–on gasoline, for instance–in a failed attempt to lower the debt. Part of the deficit problem, in spite of his aphorisms, was that Reagan did not cut government spending; instead, the size of the federal government and its deficit increased significantly under his watch.

The liberals have lost out on the political starting point for what should be an essential discussion: What is the role of government? Their answer should be that government can address a wide range of problems that markets alone are ill-equipped to tackle. Liberals and anti-conservatives, however, have not been good at producing a debate about the basic roles of government and, instead, seem able only to respond to conservative claims.

Al Franken in his book Giant of the Senate explains why: “Democrats always have a disadvantage in messaging—not because we’re idiots, but because we have complex ideas and, sometimes, a hard time explaining them succinctly. Our bumper stickers always end with ‘continued on next bumper sticker.’” For example, it is easier to proclaim simply that immigrants take jobs and commit crimes than it is to discuss with more nuance that our economy is not a zero-sum game where a job for one is not simply the loss of work for another; how immigrants help grow the economy by buying goods and services; how immigrants pay payroll and incomes taxes; how, as our birthrate declines, immigration is a force for necessary workforce expansion. Yes, no bumper sticker can do that. Democrats are not sparkling sloganeers.

While conservatives had successfully turned those scary big-government slogans to pithy soundbites, Trump has shattered that shibboleth by expanding the reach of the federal government. Trump’s trade wars are not small government nor is the attempt to run Venezuela’s oil industry. Taking government stakes in corporations is a new form of socialism, not small government. Promoting monetary giveaways for votes is not small government. Government interference with doctor-patient relationships is not small government. Nationalizing elections is not small government. New geographic names are not small government. Nor is a ballroom. Nor an arch. Wars are not small government. Sinking boats and killing people in international waters are not small government. Using the FCC and other government tools to stifle speech is not small government. And so on. Trump and his allies want something like an omnipresent government, but they want it run solely by the president. Reagan’s small government slogans have mostly been ruptured because Ronald Reagan is no longer part of this new “conservative” movement.

The current conservatives do use some old stuff. They still wave the law-and-order flag. Perhaps that can still engender fears that turn into votes, but it is hard to focus on that when Trump continues to talk about how we live in a crime-filled world but also takes credit for a decrease in crime. Can both of those positions simultaneously work for conservatives? Don’t people easily see through this inconsistency?

Conservatives have also tried to resurrect a fear of the “Communist” or “Socialist” label while ignoring the president’s forays into something like socialism. It is not clear whether the epithets will have meaningful traction. In any event, only a handful of the Democratic candidates running for Congress consider themselves Democratic Socialists, and most of the other candidates steer quite clear of the DSA.

Although Republicans have derided Democrats for culture wars, the conservatives most effective sloganeering has its own form of wokeism. It centers on our tiny transgender population. In what is a big government position, they want the government to prevent medical care for people seeking gender-affirming care. And their slogan, one that tries to strike fear in the hearts of fathers everywhere, has been, “No men in women sports.” That has been a dominant message of recent years. Politico reported on June 1 of this year: “Trump, in the closing days of his presidential campaign, spent more on ads criticizing Vice President Kamala Harris for supporting rights for transgender people than on any other subject,” [and in 2024,] “House and Senate Republican and their affiliated campaign arms unleashed over $110 million [emphasis added] in ads on issues such as rejecting gender-affirming care for minors and banning transgender women from participating in women’s and girls’ sports, according to AdImpact data.” Perhaps this approach will still have traction, but it also might seem to be a tired approach that ignores important issues more on the minds of voters–issues such as affordability, healthcare, and housing.

Meanwhile, while Democratic Socialists have some stupid, self-defeating slogans (“Abolish the Senate” comes to mind), they have some good ones, or at least ones that are better than what other Democrats have been producing. Here’s one: “Medicare for all.” Not sure that they can accomplish that, but it evokes the egalitarianism that America proclaims to stand for. Another example is advocating for livable wages. Who can be against that? Even JD Vance in his recent book Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith (2026) favors livable wages, but few, I think, would argue that he or his party are working towards policies that further that goal.

C’mon, publicists, come up with some snappy slogans that tell people that the world is on fire, that we are about to jettison our democracy, that we have lost our way, and that electing Democrats just might be a way out of the morass.