Just Say You'll Do The Thing

2015 should have been a gamechanger for progressive political communications in Aotearoa. (Anyone who’s heard me talk about comms strategy since that time knows where this is going.) Anat Shenker-Osorio, a strategic communications consultant from the good ol’ U S of A, had been brought to Australia by the Aussie Council of Trade Unions to advise them on political messaging and narrative, and the New Zealand CTU, led by Helen Kelly in her last year in the role, asked Anat to hop the Tasman and do the same for us.

I was there, on a two-day workshop for comms staffers from many of the big trade unions in Aotearoa, and it remains one of the most transformative experiences of my life. Anat has a wonderfully American way of presenting her data, which doesn’t always gel well with the very Pākehā New Zealand disdain for making a fuss or pushing back on criticism. We explored topics that now seem almost quaint, so diffused and obvious have these ideas become in the years since: ordinary people can and do hold self-contradicting opinions and views, and by priming their progressive values, you can motivate them to sign up and take action. Intrinsic values – like equality and justice and harmony with nature – are far more powerful and persuasive than extrinsic, selfish values like wealth, fame and power – no matter what we’re told to the contrary by the very people whose authority and privilege rely on them.

And we dealt with some real comms nitty-gritty, like erasing weasel words from your writing and media statements – words which are so easy to reach for because you don’t want to oversell, because we’re very culturally scared of saying things directly and hurting people’s feelings. My shibboleths for this are the words “ensure” and “aims” in any press release by a government minister: “We will work to ensure that every child is warm and fed” or “This programme aims to deliver”. (“We’ve taken steps towards reducing child poverty!”)

Just say you’ll do the thing, for fuck’s sake. 

This was a lesson I took into my work in Jan Logie’s office, when she served as Under-Secretary on Domestic and Sexual Violence Issues. Whenever we talked about our goal, we said: ending family violence and sexual violence. We got a bit of pushback; that seems unrealistic, you see. Can’t we say, aims to address the rates of family violence and sexual violence?

No. We can’t. That’s weaksauce. 

Anat’s big professional bugbear is how we talk about the economy – she has an entire book about it, which I thoroughly recommend. I’ve added so many post-it notes to the pages of mine that it’s about twice its original thiccness. It’s revelatory. (I also suggest co-reading it with Katrine Marçal’s Who Cooked Adam Smith’s Dinner if you want to get incredibly angry about economics.)

Anat addressed the CTU conference while she was there, and I’m not only linking this video because I’m mentioned in it, but I must note: I am mentioned in it and it’s another of the proudest moments in my life and you should watch it, albeit not really because I’m mentioned in it. 

Anat presents a set of research she did in the US about what makes a political message persuasive – not just appealing. What makes people change their vote and turn out to vote and – here’s another spoiler – it’s not about offering “free pie”. Sure, everyone loves free pie. But no one’s campaigning against free pie, so it’s an empty promise. It’s uncompelling. It’s not demonstrating a clear alternative to the other guy. (“Everyone deserves a fair shot!”)

Now, why am I digging up all this ancient history and humblebragging? Because to this day, I think Anat gave us the blueprint for brilliant, compelling communications in the progressive movement. We weren’t thinking about framing and narrative and how every individual issue we talk about can be connected through a coherent, incredibly effective set of innate values which an overwhelming majority of people hold dear.

We definitely weren’t thinking about how the dominant narrative of politics is a rightwing one, and that to succeed, we have to stand apart from it, not pander to it. 

The way we frame the economy as a separate, sacred force which must be sacrificed to, the way we talk about criminals as invaders who must be repelled, the constant othering of people on the benefit, people not in paid work, people who will never be in paid work or at least not “real” paid work. (“We’re backing the police to crack down on violent gangs!”)

We cannot buy into the Right’s framing, because it is the Right’s frame. If you’ve ever wondered why so many people – sensible, reasonable people – hold true to the idea that the National Party are good sensible fiscal managers and Labour are just tax-and-spend profligates, and therefore The Sacred Economy does better under National than Labour, despite decades of evidence to the contrary, congratulations: you’ve discovered the power of frames. 

And importantly, critically, inarguably, vitally, carved into the bedrock of the Earth-ly: we cannot win using the frames of the Right. We do not, in fact, have to hand it to them. We will never succeed if we try to suck up to the dominant narrative about tax, wealth, productivity, and the value of human life, promising ourselves that one day – any day now – we’ll turn on a dime and change the story.

We have to tell our own story underpinned by our own values using clear statements and tangible ideas. We have to demonstrate that the status quo is not only broken – most people get that – but that a new status quo is possible in which everyone thrives and has genuine freedom to live their best life. And it will take work. But there is a clear path ahead and the only thing stopping us from taking it is a lack of political will.

Labour and the Greens were offered time with Anat when she was in Aotearoa. The Greens took up the offer. 

Labour didn’t see any value in it.

I think about that a lot.

Stephanie Rodgers is a communications and campaigns specialist from Te Whanganui-a-Tara. She ran for the Green Party in 2023. She writes at bootstheory.nz