Who would have thought that in 2011, we would be closer to discovering the Higgs boson "God particle" than we are to discovering a coherent elevator pitch for the Democratic Party.
Last week, the Republican National Committee mocked President Obama's ever-changing slogans. Changing messaging during a campaign is certainly no sin and is not always a sign of disorientation, especially since campaigns tinker with messaging in response to focus groups and changing news narratives. While the RNC's predictably catty attack had all of the trademark GOP hyperbole, it did have as its foundation one small kernel of truth.
The Obama campaign hasn't yet found its campaign rallying cry. On MSNBC's Daily Rundown last week, David Axelrod explained the team's 2012 messaging. The Hill's Niall Stanage reports:
When Todd asked whether the aide could give “the elevator pitch” for an Obama second term, Axelrod first replied, “Well, I don’t know how tall your building is.”
He continued: “The short one is: let’s restore the economic security that Americans have lost — not just recover from a recession, but rebuild the economic security that Americans have lost. Let’s make work pay again, reward responsibility, restore those values that have made this country great,” he said.
“And, you know, that is going to involve a series of things that are more than a bumper sticker — it’s going to be educating our kids, it’s going to be research and development, and innovation. There are a lot of things that go into it. But that is the goal, that is the north star that is going to drive him.”
In terms of policy, that may sound like a good enough agenda to many Democrats. But in terms of a crystallized election message — something which is Axelrod’s speciality — it lacks both precision and magnetism.
The RNC takes Axelrod's response and paints it as indicative of some major, fatal flaw in Team Obama's 2012 approach. The beltway press has been all too eager, of course, to jump on the "has Obama lost his messaging touch?" bandwagon that's been making its teetering journey over the cobbly road of assumptions and speculation.
Yes, the Obama team has yet to find a theme that resonates. It has bounced around from "a new foundation" to "win the future" to "we can't wait" to "giving everyone a fair shake," all to the delight of Republicans and press folks everywhere who are hanging around with Regis Philbin-like anticipation to demand "is that your final answer?"
And yes, this is what happens when messaging is imposed rather than organically grown out of a library of policy that speaks with a clear, progressive voice.
But the lack of a good elevator pitch isn't evidence of some unique flaw in the Obama campaign this cycle. It's proof of the long-standing disease that has plagued our party as a whole for decades: our inability to unite our policy and politics under a common theme that can be easily understood and appreciated by the American people. The clarity of 2008 was a messaging aberration. Cloudiness and confusion are the Democratic branding normal.
Nearly seven years ago, Markos wrote the following:
The American Prospect defines the GOP elevator pitch as:
We believe in freedom and liberty, and we're for low taxes, less government, traditional values, and a strong national defense.
Nevermind the ways the Bush agenda has strayed from that pitch. This is how they have branded themselves and it has been spectacularly effective. The editors at the Prospect are looking for suggestions for the Democratic pitch. I'm stealing their idea so we can riff about it here. So here's the rules: Define what we stand for in a sentence no longer than 30 words.
Over 600 comments later, it was clear that members of this community were far better at capturing the soul of the Democratic Party than most D.C. consultants.
Those running President Obama's campaign, of course, are themselves far better at messaging than your average political consultant. There's no question that the 2008 theme of "hope and change" was absolutely brilliant. It was stunningly effective. However, it was generated from and anchored upon a single man, not an entire party. The flood of new voters didn't go to the polls simply because they were suddenly enamored with the Democratic Party. They voted because they were inspired by Barack Obama. "Hope and change" were a natural extension of the candidate and his historic candidacy.
The 2010 elections brought us back into the suffocatingly familiar embrace of incompetent Democratic messaging. "Moving forward" was the mantra from the White House on down. It was a dull, meaningless branding effort that was destined to fail at inception. After all, the Democratic Party never managed to answer the question: "moving forward to what?" It was an electoral massacre in races coast to coast.
And here we are again on the cusp of another election cycle, with the same question before us: what does the Democratic Party stand for? How do we best communicate that to voters?
Back in that elevator pitch thread (when I was still just a commentor named "georgia10"), I responded to the challenge:
The problem with this exercise is the "we believe" parts, folks. If we start with "we believe" half the country will ignore us, because they don't care what we believe. The right has too perfectly cast what "we believe" in a negative light. So let's start this off the right way.
America values freedom, empowerment, dignity and equality. The Democratic Party sustains that very soul of America by honoring and protecting these ideals; it always has, and it always will. The result is true progress towards a more perfect union.
Way too wordy, to be sure, and far more suited for a leisurely escalator ride than an elevator one.
A lot has happened since 2005, and I think it would be interesting to see how this site's response has changed.
I'm going to take Markos's seven-year-old challenge and take it to the next level. Let's not use 30 words. Let's use 3.
If you could choose three words that last beyond an election cycle and that form an enduring identity for our party, what would they be? And why do you think those three words define us and what we can do for the nation as a whole?