Posted on by rjonakait

A Messaging Switch?

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.

Posted on by rjonakait

Three Modern Free Speech Issues

I was asked by a leader of a current events discussion group to comment on some present free speech issues. I briefly commented on several.

1 . The first is the issue of self-censorship by media and other entities because of a concern about retributive governmental actions. Jimmy Kimmel is a prime example. Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Kimmel made comments on his late-night show, which were not disrespectful of TurningPointUSA leader, but included some misinformation regarding the political affiliation of the killer. Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed Chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), responded by saying: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies [Kimmel’s employers] can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Kimmel was promptly suspended by ABC, a subsidiary of Disney. It was certainly reasonable for Disney to think it was being threatened by the Chair of the FCC. Over-the-air networks like ABC require licenses from the FCC. Moreover, two companies owning affiliates that air ABC programs were negotiating a merger that needed to be approved by the FCC. They could see the FCC Chair’s statement as a threat to that approval.

Though seemingly unrelated to free speech, these (not so) veiled threats have a direct impact on free speech. Sometimes even without a threat free speech is affected because of potential government action. We saw this dynamic in action with the $16 million settlement by Paramount Global (owner of CBS) of the Trump lawsuits against CBS. At the time of the settlement with Trump, Paramount had an $8 billion merger on the table that required government approval. What does this have to do with free speech, one might ask. Answer: Media companies (no company) should not be required to cave to the petulant posturing of a president in order to secure government approval for their business. And yet, Paramount Global felt, no doubt, that it had no choice but to cave to the political caprices of the president.

Perhaps there has always been a concern that free speech would result in government retribution. But it is more concerning now. First, the open vindictiveness of president Trump has changed things. In addition, the playing field has changed dramatically because the Supreme Court is consciously allowing the president more power that increases the possibility and feasibility of presidential retribution. Here’s how: Agencies like the FCC or the Federal Trade Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission were meant to be independent of the president. Ninety years ago, the Supreme Court held that commissioners on such agencies could not be removed at the whim of the president, but only “for cause.” The Supreme Court has not officially overruled that precedent, but it effectively has done so. The Supreme Court has now allowed Trump to “temporarily” remove commissioners while litigation goes on about whether the removals have been lawful. It is expected that the 1930s precedent will be formally overruled this year. In other words, the previously independent agencies will no longer be independent but must answer directly to the president. Thus, companies who need agency approval for something will naturally be concerned that they will be punished for actions that displease Trump. This is affecting free speech in ways it was not before.

An aside: Might conservatives have a point in the Jimmy Kimmel affair? Four over-the-air late- night hosts use the public airwaves: Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Fallon, Seth Myers, and Jimmy Kimmel. All can be characterized as anti-Trump. What if all were the comedy equivalent of Fox News? How would liberals react?

2. The second is another, non-Kimmel free-speech issue occurring in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

A recent newspaper article states that over 145 people have been fired or disciplined by their employers for comments about Charlie Kirk. These data are from public records, but there may be many more that haven’t been reported. Often the comments have been innocuous. For example, an employee of a public university commented on her private Facebook page, “If you think Charlie Kirk was a wonderful person, we can’t be friends.” She also said that she believed in the Resurrection and was praying for his soul. She was fired for these comments.

All the firings of employees for their comments while not on the job raise free speech issues, but not all raise First Amendment issues.  The First Amendment applies only when the government does something that limits speech. Thus, it comes into play when a public employer disciplines public employees for their speech. However, there are few legal restraints on private employers who often can fire for any reason.

But something new is also operating in this arena. Online armies are scanning for social media comments to get people fired. Those who have made comments critical of Kirk are often doxed and flooded with ugly and threatening messages scaring them and others into silence. The online scrollers want to punish and prevent speech they don’t like.

While the private firings and the doxxing may not raise First Amendment concerns, they do raise important free speech concerns. We need more discussion of how free workers should be to express their views while not on the job, and, further, how to prevent some of the terrible excesses of social media and the internet.

3. The new Pentagon leadership says it will require credentialed journalists at the military headquarters to sign a pledge to refrain from reporting information that has not been authorized for release — including unclassified information. Reporters, in effect, can publish only press releases. Journalists who don’t abide by the policy risk losing credentials that provide access to the Pentagon.

I asked a friend who had been a media attorney whether he knew of similar past directives. He says this appears to be unprecedented.

He did point out that this administration (and others) have cut off reporters who published stuff the president didn’t like. (Witness the AP and the “Gulf of America” controversy). But these restrictions on free speech were relatively mild. They only limited the access of individual reporters. They were not a blanket restriction on what can be reported.

The Hegseth directive for the first time tries to make those covering the Pentagon into something like state media. You may publish only what the government authorizes. We have not had this Pravda-like restriction before. If it stands up in court, it would be a titanic and dangerous change in how the government, the press, and the people interact with each other.