How to talk politics at Thanksgiving - Aaron Murphy, Team Busse email

This is the text from a recent email, designed to equip leftists on how to deal with conservative family members.

We will find that the author doesn't want them to actually talk with conservatives. He wants them to spew scripted talking points, diversions, and reframes so as to completely avoid answering questions or explaining positions. 

We are not surprised, but we are curious. The Left has been using these bumper sticker slogans for years if not decades. Do they really believe them? Do they think people are persuaded by brainless talking points? Or perhaps, leftists are just cynically repeating what they read on leftist websites?

We don't know, but  Mr. Busse comes off as evasive and slickly fake.

------------------------

Hello from Team Busse!

This isn’t a typical political email begging for campaign cash. Instead, as we approach the holidays, we’re sharing some practical messaging advice for Democrats from Ryan Busse as he runs to become Montana’s next governor.

I’ve coached candidates and elected leaders on political messaging for more than 17 years, and Ryan is one of the strongest communicators I’ve ever worked with. 

That means I was listening carefully when Ryan appeared live on a conservative talk radio call-in show the other day. He spent an hour taking tough questions from callers who regularly listen to conservative talk radio.

His thoughtful, clear answers, (Actually, semi-clever evasions.)

and the respectful way he handled questions, (With pompous, presumptive retorts.)

was so effective that we want to pass along some of his messaging tips for talking politics with your feisty, conservative relatives who may be sitting around your dining room table this holiday season. (This is the third time the author has mentioned "messaging." "Messaging" isn't conversation, discussion, or debate, it is manipulative rhetoric designed to marginalize or silence.

"Messaging" is a technique, part of what we have deemed The Narrative. The Narrative is the daily talking points that simultaneously appear all over the media landscape, the slogans and terminology utilized by Leftists to supply the marching orders to further The Agenda. The Agenda is the overthrow of The System, which is the traditions, institutions, and values of the American way of life.

So, rather than fostering dialogue, the author is going to instruct his fellow leftists on "messaging.")

Don’t Take Their Bait.


This caller wants to lure Ryan into a debate over identity politics. (Which was the reason Mr. Busse appeared on the radio show, correct?)

When Democrats play defense on identity politics, we often lose sight of the bigger political picture: winning elections. (Notice this telling statement. This is not about defending rights, fostering equality, or helping the disenfranchised. The singular goal is winning elections. Power. Nothing is more important than power, so the issues the Left claims to want to solve are merely excuses to add to The Narrative in pursuit of The Agenda.)

The caller asks about a transgender woman who wears a dress.

“This is the stuff that’s being taught in public schools,” the caller falsely claims, then adds: “Is this individual a man or a woman?” 

Of course Ryan believes in the freedom for all people to be themselves, with respect and dignity. But note how Ryan turns the focus back on the caller’s mean-spirited intent:

RYAN: I really don’t appreciate you taking cheap shots at people, trying to stoke some culture war hatred. (Asking if someone is a man or a woman is not attacking anyone. Mr. Busse is the one taking the cheap shot. Then he piles on by accusing the caller of hatred.)

Ryan’s response is firm but respectful. But rather than keep the focus on identity politics, (That is, divert from the question.)

Ryan sees an opening to correct the caller’s false claim about what’s being taught in public schools:

RYAN: My kids have been in public school. I still have a sophomore in public school. They’re not reaching this stuff. (They're not teaching what "stuff?" The "stuff" from the caller's point of view, or the "stuff" from Mr. Busse's point of view?

Further, having one child in one school means Mr. Busse's experience is anecdotal. He is not equipped to make determinations about what might or might not be taught in other public schools.)  

They are teaching people to help people instead of hurt people, (So Mr. Busse contradicts his earlier claim. They are indeed teaching "stuff" about transgenderism, but Mr. Busse simply rebrands it as innocuously "helping people.") 

 

and I’m unclear what decent, reasonable Montanan thinks that it’s a bad idea to be decent and respectful to people. (Another snotty cheap shot, with an additional reframe. The diversion has progressed to the point where it is now disrespectful and indecent to oppose what Mr. Busse favors.

At some point we are certain that Mr. Busse will accuse the caller of being a Nazi.) 

 It should be a pretty dang low bar. That’s what I stand for. If you want to take up your day by worrying about these made-up culture wars, (Now Mr. Busse denies the caller's presumed frame of reference. The caller did not bring up "culture wars," but Mr. Busse previously affirmed it before summarily denying it.) 

 

go for it. But I’m just not down with that.

See what happened there? (Well, that's easy. Mr. Busse inelegantly avoided answering a legitimate question by bringing it back against his interlocuter with accusations and moral indignation.)

What was supposed to be a question and an answer about identity politics ended as a correction… and a scolding. (Exactly. Mr. Busse has no intention of answering difficult questions.)

Wedge Issues? Wedge Back!


This caller feels strongly about the issue of abortion. Her strategy is to wedge her anti-abortion perspective of this complex issue by using hyperbolic, graphic language (Hmm, hyperbolic? That means the caller's language will be an over-the-top exaggeration bordering on prevarication. And graphic, meaning that describing the actual procedure is impermissible. 

We'll see how hyperbolic and graphic the caller is.)

—a tactic many on the Right use to put anyone who believes in the freedom of choice on defense. ("Freedom of choice." Another time-worn bumper sticker slogan. 

Obviously there is no freedom of choice unless the choice is abortion. If Mr. Busse believed in freedom of choice, he would insist that all choices would be held in equal esteem. But since his desire is to negate the pro-life position, he cannot be truly pro-choice.)

First, note how Ryan reframes the issue right off the top, (This is his only technique, to reframe, redefine, obfuscate, and divert.)

without falling into the trap of answering the caller’s wedge-issue question: (Notice that it is a trap to actually answer a question.)

CALLER: Where’s your limit on killing babies? 

 

RYAN: So you asked a question about women’s health care… (No, the caller asked a question about what point in the pregnancy that Mr. Busse would no longer permit an abortion.)

Then Ryan uses equally effective language to wedge the issue back, harnessing the power of his new frame: women and their health care:

RYAN:I believe that the Governor of Montana has no right to be in the doctor’s office with the women of this state, creepily looking at them, telling them what they can and can’t do with their health care decisions. (Another time-worn slogan. 

 

Based on this sort of characterization, then anything that happens in a Doctor's office would be permissible, including prostitution, drug dealing, rape, poisoning, and of course, murder. 

 

Does the Governor have any authority to creepily look into a doctor's office to prevent a murder?

Mr. Busse employs a clumsy reframe, but we have found that attempting to refute this kind of bobbing and weaving solves nothing, since the Left just goes right on parroting the same talking points day after day after month after year.) 

It’s not my decision. (Is robbery your decision? Is public sex your decision? Is corporate corruption your decision? Is climate change your decision? Tell us Mr. Busse, what things ought to come under the purview of the law, and what things are off limits?)

It should be a doctor’s, and a woman’s, and their god’s decision, between all of them (Well. Mr. Busse brings god [lower case] into the mix, and wants it to be a three-way decision. Apparently this is the unique, unicorn, absolute situation where the law must never intervene. 

It's a three-way [doctor, patient, and god], never a four-way [the law]. Abortion, which involves a medical procedure, can never be subject regulation, laws, or even standards. Nope, what happens in a doctor's office, no matter what it is, is off-limits to the law.

Why? Well, we don't know. Leftists never say why abortion must be 100% unregulated. They never tell us why the government must stay clear. Such a principle is unprecedented, and in fact contrary to the Left's philosophy on everything else regarding government intervention.) 

—it’s not mine. And it’s definitely not Greg Gianforte’s. (A summary statement. Why is it not in the interest of government to legislate or regulate abortions?) 

And this weirdness—that he wants to get into doctors’ offices with women and tell them what they can and can’t do? (Doesn't every law tell a women [or a man] what they can and cannot do? Why is this so selectively offensive to Mr. Busse?)

Sorry, I’m not down with that either.  

Note how Ryan flips the script, (And avoids answering a perfectly legitimate question.)

accurately framing his opponent, billionaire Greg Gianforte, as a creepy, anti-choice religious zealot who has plans to invade women’s privacy. (It was Mr. Busse who brought up god.)

Pivot, Then Play Offense


We all know people like this caller, who tries to shame Ryan into applying for a property tax rebate from the State of Montana. Though this particular issue is specific to Montana, the wider pivot-then-play-offense strategy is important for progressives and Democrats to use everywhere. (In other words, never be pinned down, never answer a question, and never let the issue be the issue. A lot of people wonder why we can't have an honest debate anymore. This is why. The Left never wants one.)

First, some context: Gianforte purposely made it difficult for Montana homeowners to apply for their property tax rebates this year, (By the way, who wrote the overall tax code? How about at the federal level? Who resists amending the tax code to make it simpler? If you guessed the Left, you are correct.)

after the governor and his Republican supermajority in our state legislature jacked up property taxes—something most Republicans claim they oppose. Applying for this year’s rebate was such a difficult process (requiring homeowners to track down their “geocodes”) that tens of thousands of Montanans didn’t even bother.

This caller persistently tries to embarrass Ryan for claiming his rebate, absurdly suggesting that Ryan should have given his money back to the government because he objects to Gianforte’s rebate process. But note how Ryan changes the subject, or pivots:

CALLER: Did you send [your rebate] back to the revenue department or did you take it to the food bank to donate it?

RYAN: There were 64,500 people in the State of Montana that were due that rebate and they did not get it… (Clearly the standard tactic is to never answer any question.)

Pivoting, though, is only half the strategy. Watch how Ryan once again turns the tables. Instead of playing defense on a caller’s half-baked quest to make Ryan feel guilty, Ryan plays offense—which we believe Democrats don’t do often enough.

RYAN: …And the reason they didn't get [their rebates] is because there was all of this red tape that was placed on that rebate by the Republicans and the Governor. (Leftists love red tape).

They know what your geocode is. They know what your address is. They know where you live. Why? Because they send you tax bills. So why are we penalizing all of these people in this state who are owed that rebate? (The rebate program was inelegantly constructed, no doubt about it. But Mr. Busse's objections are nothing more than a smoke screen, which is a deeper question than the mechanics of the rebate program. 

And that deeper issue is the Leftist philosophy that money is better spent by government than the person who earned it. Based on this Leftist precept, Mr. Busse should let the government keep the rebate money.)

Now watch how Ryan keeps playing defense, (sic, offense) respectfully (The author of this email keeps using this word. We don't think he knows what it means.)

redirecting the shame back onto the caller for defending a Republican tax increase:

RYAN: I don’t know why you would want to defend a system that makes it harder on people to get the money they’re owed, and then pick on people when they take the money they’re owed. This is their money. Now if you’re so worried about people being owed money then I think you ought be plenty worried about this property tax increase being laid over the top of everybody very purposefully. (Directly ignoring the long history of Leftists in Montana government increasing taxes at every opportunity.

More to the point, we are not sure that Republicans did increase property taxes, since Leftists cannot be trusted to tell the truth.)  

See how much more effective this strategy is? Just ask the University of Montana Grizzlies: You score more touchdowns playing offense!

If you’re interested in listening to Ryan’s full radio interview, we invite you to do so here: https://youtu.be/Bg41KukR3kw.

Put these tips to work when you find yourself debating politics in the weeks ahead. And from all of us at Team Busse, have a safe and happy Thanksgiving!

Aaron Murphy
Advisor, Busse for Montana