Conservative gains on four issues
A look at DEI, “rigged” elections, immigration, and vaccines
Conservatives build their own media ecosystem. They define issues early, frame them in emotionally resonant terms, and push the narrative they want out there relentlessly. Conservative streamers are in their heyday.
Meanwhile, the progressive and center left— at a structural disadvantage in the media and perennially on defense—too often respond late, not at all, or not with enough brute force to be heard.
Here are three issue areas where the left—and at times the mainstream position— has lost the narrative. (Note: I’m only talking about the storyline itself—not policy positions.)
On DEI
Trump and his acolytes have made it a mission to get rid of diversity, equity, and inclusion in government and corporate America. For years, conservative influencers like Robby Starbuck and Christopher Rufo on Substack have negatively branded DEI as “woke”—a proxy for fairness and inclusive policies. Both of these guys have created toxic vibes in the business world around DEI, even before President Trump’s anti-DEI executive order. The end result of this work has been a roll back of DEI policies in the federal government and some major companies– or a more quiet approach to pursuing such policies. In one way or another, a silence has fallen in many–though not all- quarters.
On Democracy
MAGA has successfully raised doubts about the integrity of our election system. This is a shining example of completely making something up and spoon feeding it to people enough that huge chunks of voters, about a third of the country, believe it. Painting free and fair elections in the U.S. as not free or not fair – generally fraudulent– is one of those most successful campaigns to move public opinion from zero people believing something to tens of millions, in the Republican Party. Most Americans don’t believe the ‘20 election was stolen, but a striking number do.
On Vaccines
The campaign against science and scientists isn’t new. But in recent years a pocket of the right wing, including Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, and Elon Musk, targeted Dr. Peter Hotez, the renowned pediatrician in Houston. The anti-vaxxers political movement has grown and begun to shift a slice of public opinion against vaccines. The percentage of Americans who believed childhood vaccinations was important plummeted by 18 points in five years—from 2019 to 2024.
Make your voice not just heard but effective.
Emotions, like anger, can work against you sometimes.
We live in a world where everyone is able to express their opinions publicly every nanosecond. Freely expressing yourself is America’s DNA. But personal expression is different than political and civic engagement.
Too often, voters take to social media as an emotional release, says Tufts professor Eitan Hersch. They drop rage on X, or perform on TikTok. It’s often about them — a “me” world instead of a civic-minded “we” world.
Anger or any number of other emotions can, in some cases backfire, step on your message and turn people off from the political point you’re trying to make.
I can’t imagine how much time and energy is spent on expressing political feelings as opposed to doing concrete actions that have an impact.
Politics is an emotional enterprise. Visceral emotions fuel participation and engagement. But wearing anger or finger-wagging moralizing publicly on your sleeve, i.e., on social media, isn’t always helpful.
Make your voice heard, sure. But also make it effective.
The Trump administration's mass deportation of undocumented immigrants turned into something else entirely in Minneapolis, Minn. earlier this year. Federal ICE agents —armed with guns, masks, and legal immunity—wreaked havoc on American citizens and immigrants alike. ICE agents murdered two, law-abiding and unthreatening U.S. citizens. The people of Minneapolis fought back at the brutal tactics.
What happened in Minnesota is a vibrant example of civic bond renewal, largely missing across the U.S. since the 20th century. But before I get to what we can learn from Minnesotans, I want to zoom in on an essay by the New York Times’ Tom Friedman, who traveled to his home state. I have, somewhat exhaustively, included chunks of his essay to illustrate the history made.
…I spent time in my native state, Minnesota, after something else that I’d never seen in nearly 50 years: a spontaneous uprising of civic activism propelled by a single idea — I am my neighbor’s keeper, whoever he or she is and however he or she got here.
It was one of the most courageous battles ever fought by American men and women not in uniform. It was led by moms ready to donate their breast milk to strangers and dads ready to drive someone else’s kids to school because the parents, terrified of ICE agents, were too afraid to go out outdoors… good Samaritans of all colors and creeds acted without fanfare…Black and brown residents, many less likely to be as confrontational in their interactions with ICE, told their white neighbors: This is what we’ve been dealing with forever!
He went on:
After the Minnesota-based Target Corporation refused to speak out against ICE operations, no doubt for fear of retaliation by the Trump administration, Minnesotans went into local Target stores by the dozens and each bought a single container of salt — “to melt ICE” — and then immediately returned it, over and over again, to clog up checkout lines and drive away customers.
A Few Lessons Learned
Public pressure, done right, works. I’ve put together an initial list for what worked in Minneapolis.
1. Don’t take the bait.
During the numerous protests in the street and online, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey repeated his advice over and over: Don’t let federal provocation dictate your response. “Don’t take the bait” he would say.
Be strategic, not reactive. Outfox them, don’t outshout them or become outlaws yourself. When violence, brute force, or constitutional violations enter the picture, it’s a political problem for the aggressor. The more the Trump regime is caught up in physical violence, the more it’s losing.
2. Call out misinformation early.
The White House instantly led with false narratives after Renee Good and Alex Pretti’s deaths—well before investigations even started, much less were complete. Reporters and a portion of the public fell for it initially. Next time, there’s no excuse for being gullible or “both-sides-ing” an ICE-related death.
3. Put the power of “neighborism” front and center.
Adam Serwer of The Atlantic coined the term “neighborism.” Jelani Cobb, Dean of Columbia Journalism School, noted that “in a democracy, the fundamental civic unit is the neighbor.” Civic bonds strengthened, giving people power. Residents spent hours outdoors on one of the coldest days in 25 years to protest ICE’s lawlessness. They delivered food to strangers after long workdays so families didn’t risk trips to stores where ICE agents waited. These efforts brought a new sense of collective power. Robert Putnam’s formula for civic revival applies: Increase social capital by going moral, going local, and going young.
4. Mobilize beyond the usual suspects.
Large rallies—including a general “economic blackout” protest in bitter cold—drew ordinary residents: clergy, nurses, parents, neighbors. These weren’t far-left organizers. They were community members outraged by deaths and federal overreach, defending neighbors and constitutional rights rather than advancing partisan platforms.
60%+ of the country said ICE’s methods went overboard (Pew, Ipsos, Fox News surveys). Almost half of “non-MAGA Republicans” in the Fox poll said ICE has been too aggressive. Even 15% of MAGA supporters agreed. Frame resistance as defending constitutional norms and community safety, not partisan politics.
5. Know the law and stick to it.
Community organizations and civil-rights attorneys ran crash courses on constitutional rights and basic civics. Nonviolent movements that can articulate their actions in constitutional terms are harder to brand as disorderly or extremist.
Violence and constitutional violations damage the movement. When anti-ICE protesters interrupted a church service in St. Paul, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) clarified: a worship service is not a public forum. The First Amendment protects you from government suppression—it doesn’t compel private institutions to host your protest. Be smart. Learn the law, stick to it firmly and courageously. Keep ICE in the villain box where they belong.
6. Film everything.
Bystander video has been vital to winning the message war. When federal agents operate in masks without identification, citizen documentation becomes the primary accountability mechanism. Video evidence contradicts official narratives, exposes tactical overreach, and provides legal protection for protesters. The ubiquity of smartphones transformed every Minneapolis resident into a potential witness. This distributed surveillance system—citizens filming agents who refuse to be identified—shifted power dynamics and made it harder for federal forces to control the story.
7. Investigative journalism—the professional kind—remains vital
The Minnesota Star Tribune identified the masked agent who shot Good as Jonathan Ross—the Trump Administration wouldn’t release his name. ProPublica also identified agents via records when the federal government stonewalled. The Star Tribune reported on the unprecedented challenge of prosecuting federal agents and the possibility of “John Doe” warrants when names aren’t provided. In a closed regime and a social media ecosystem full of total misinformation and bunk, investigative journalism is one of the few levers the public has.
Photo credit: Photo by Fibonacci Blue, CC BY 4.0 (via Wikimedia Commons)
The Democratic Party still has a lot of work to do on its own house
Obvious notes to the Democratic Party
Just because Trump is unpopular by a majority of voters does not mean that automatically redounds to Democrats’ benefit.
The Democratic Party still has a lot of work to do on its own house.
Democrats have made in-roads on the affordability narrative, slowly making the economy the priority. But too many people still perceive the party as weak.
The entire Democratic strategy debate — “moderate” or move left? fight or compromise? — is based on a misreading of data. Voters don’t think Dems are too progressive; they think Dems are weak. The actual math on what to do about this isn’t even close!
New: https://t.co/6HKn218bPJ pic.twitter.com/KUIBfK2bSk
— G Elliott Morris (@gelliottmorris) February 27, 2026
Let’s be real: There are good reasons people think the party is weak.
A brand, defined
Any entity needs a strong brand, which is about a feeling and an impression. Coca-Cola sells happiness, not just a beverage. Apple is about cool innovation, not just phones.
Trust and credibility – in this era of rank distrust– is vital. Democrats can say all the right things but are people believing, and feeling good about, them?
This gets to what plenty of others have said about what the Democratic vision for America is and what the party is for, not just against.
When he was running for Democratic National Committee chair, a position he ultimately won, Ken Martin released a memo calling for a national rebrand of the party.
Where is it? It’s still non-existent.
A suggestion
Democrats have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to recast themselves in such a way to potentially win elections for years to come. And it’s not rocket science.
In this era of extreme corruption and incompetence, the party is about leading America out of darkness with a new moral compass and economic GPS.
Sub-messages: (1) tough on the rule of law and checks and balances; (2) a vibrant economy re-designed for 90% of us; (3) the Golden Rule — a shared sense of morality, equality, and the importance of family.
Convey stability and competence and get rid of the whiff of elitism that many progressives do have. Snooty isn’t just a Republican talking point.
Building a new pipeline of civic talent
The right has been doing this for decades with its Leadership Institute.
The U.S. has long underperformed when it comes to sufficient and accurate knowledge about how politics works and how to influence it.
Numerous surveys reveal a large civics blackout, including a 2024 report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation showing 70% of Americans fail a basic civic literacy quiz. The foundation called their report a “five-alarm fire drill for the civic health of the nation.” Liberals and some conservatives see the dire need to rebuild civic confidence through our education system.
The president of Johns Hopkins University, Ron Daniels, believes universities are the natural place to give students from all walks of life a democracy education. He thinks a democracy curriculum should be required at the university level.
“The citizen is at the heart of the democratic project, but the capacities of good citizenship are not innate,” wrote Daniels in What Universities Owe Democracy.
The good news is that several universities are putting more emphasis on civic engagement and public service.
When it comes to a political and civic workforce, jobs in the public sector don’t require an advanced degree like medicine and law do. That reduces the barriers to entry, but I think a new emphasis on cultivating and equipping new civic and political leaders is paramount.
Outside of the university, accelerator courses can ensure a higher level of strategic thinking and skill to meet the moment and fill consequential gaps in knowledge and skills. This goes for Gen Z but also leaders in their 50s and 60s who have little political experience.
Specific topics for the accelerators could include:
- Purpose: Believing in civic agency and the power to make change through some form of political or public service.
- Leadership: A strategic vs. activist mindset; the art of compromise; relationship building; and emotional intelligence. (For instance, leaders have to keep in mind that anger can sometimes backfire, step on their message, and turn people off from the political message.)
- Strategic communications. How to win people over with the right message. (Don’t cancel them.) Meet people where they are.
- Research. The increasingly valuable role of research, qualitative and quantitative, to get a more accurate picture than what’s on social media or in movement circles.
- Fundraising. How to raise substantial money will always be a vital skill to bring in low-dollar and major donors.
The political right has been providing a version of a professional education in movement building and politics through its Leadership Institute, which opened its doors in 1979.
“[D]onors on the right have long understood the payoff from such investments,” writes David Callahan, the founder and Editor-in-Chief of Inside Philanthropy. “The conservative Leadership Institute has trained more than 300,000 people, including movement leaders, students and politicians. It pulled in $43 million in contributions in 2023. But despite its well-documented impact over more than four decades, this institution still has no analog on the left.”
Build the left-of-center equivalent, beyond candidate training programs that are geared on running for office. Educating a new talent pool of civic leaders, young and older, is vital to moving the U.S. out of our toxic paralysis and reimagining democracy after the authoritarian threat recedes. Architectural blueprints and construction crews will need to be at the ready to build new things for a renovated republic.
Quick notes on Talarico/Crocket U.S. Senate race in Texas
A campaign about the basics
Every campaign, winning ones and those that come up short, should, of course, do an after-action report. A few quick points from my perch in Houston.
Point 1: Talarico had a message. It was this: The biggest divide in America is not left/right but top versus bottom. It’s an economic populist message that takes on the billionaire class. There was a moral thread, something missing in politics for years. U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett had a strong brand--tough and savvy fighter against Trump– but I didn’t hear a clear message that had to do with Texas. Her launch ad was all about Trump. Both candidates were social media stars. (Talarico went from 0 to 60 in a few short months when it came to his name ID statewide. He was an unknown six months ago.)
Point 2: Crockett didn’t invest in a full-fledged campaign. She had little serious fundraising or grassroots operation. It felt like she was winging it. The core campaign basics weren’t there.
Point 3: CBS News’ attempt to censor people they don’t like on their own air backfired. Had the network not been worried about Trump’s FCC, CBS wouldn’t have ordered Stephen Colbert to shelve his Talarico interview. The interview, posted instead to YouTube, received much more attention (9 million views) because of the controversy. That helped his fundraising and brand.
Point 4: The national media framed the race as Talarico the moderate versus Jasmine Crockett the progressive. That was the media’s laziness. Both held similar policy positions on the mainstream left. Pundits confused political strategy, which did define the candidates, with ideology.
Point 5: There are plenty of examples in politics where money isn’t everything, meaning the candidate who raised the most money (by far) didn’t win. But, in this case, Talarico outspent Crockett $25 million to $5 million on ads, per AdImpact. In this race, money mattered. Talarico was a first-time candidate few had heard of. Crockett was a better known quantity because of her national media exposure and MAGA take-downs and clap backs.
I have taken large chunks of an interview World 50 did with Sally Susman, the former Executive Vice President and Chief Corporate Affairs Officer at Pfizer, in 2023. The original story is on LinkedIn.
Communications is often mistaken as a soft skill
Susman believes that stakeholder activism today, coupled with the ubiquitous nature of digital and social media, means there is no longer a “back room” safe space for companies. Virtually every corporate interaction is public and open to interpretation. Communication skills are no longer a soft skill; they are a “rock hard competency as important to an executive’s success as finance, sales, or accounting expertise,” she says.
Knowing when to speak out is another core competency. To help her CEO and team navigate the nuances of when and how to take a public stand, Susman developed her own framework—a set of five questions to help determine appropriate action.
- Does it relate to our purpose? If a company speaks out on everything, it loses its agency, Susman believes. Take a stand on issues that are most aligned with your company’s values.
- How does it impact our most important stakeholders? This can involve both internal and external actions, depending on how personal, or political, the issue is, says Susman. For example, in the June 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade, Pfizer chose to speak directly to colleagues, providing increased health care benefits, coupled with a safe space for colleague conversations. However, in response to the recent debate over the abortion pill ruling in Texas, Pfizer took a public stance, joining 400 of the pharmaceutical industry’s most prominent companies in issuing a statement condemning the ruling as a threat to the critical independence of the FDA.
- How does the question at hand intersect with our values? For Pfizer, whose values are courage, excellence, equity, and joy, Susman says that an event that incites any of these can stir the company to action.
- What are my choices here? As public companies, we are often too reactive, Susman believes. An effective way to get ahead of a story is to proactively craft the company’s narrative on a topic and circulate it externally (more on this below).
- What is the price of silence? Increasingly, “the cost of saying nothing can be too deafening,” says Susman. George Floyd’s murder and the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, were situations where Pfizer felt compelled to condemn the violence and racism affecting our communities.
Own your own narrative
A mistake many leaders make is allowing a reporter on deadline, or government pressure, to force a rushed, defensive response. Susman’s favorite tool for going on the offensive is to post a letter from the CEO or a top leader on the company website, stating the company’s stand, in its own words, on its own timetable.
Susman used this approach effectively during the 2020 U.S. elections, when the company was receiving political pressure to discover a vaccine. When President Trump used the presidential debates to claim that Pfizer was going to deliver a vaccine by Election Day, Susman and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla crafted a letter explaining that the company “would move at the speed of science” and not politics. Though Susman initially tried to pitch the letter to traditional media, no one was interested. She ended up posting a letter to employees on Pfizer’s website. It went viral, and all the major media outlets covered it.
Don’t be passive consumers of news. Even with the NYT.
That includes the New York Times.
Years ago, I had the unique fanboy honor to sit in on a “Front Page” meeting at the New York Times’ Manhattan headquarters. This is where editors assembled the all-powerful page A1 for the next day. I was in awe the whole time.
The paper of record is the gold standard for journalism, with countless Pulitzers to show for it. It still sets much of the news agenda for the country. I read it daily.
But it's getting bogged down in editorial contortions, writing around the truth at times.
Some variation of describing President Trump as “busting norms” or “challenging precedent” are favorites at the New York Times (news pages, not opinion) and on NPR. They are the ultimate understatement to describe the Trump Administration’s autocratic governing style. Press Watch calls these editorial decisions “weasel words.”
David Lit, a former Obama speechwriter, noticed that “one CBS article about Trump’s immigration crackdown said he ‘invoked muscular presidential powers,’ which is a bit like saying Jeffrey Dahmer, ‘displayed omnivorous taste.’”
Facts and truth are two different things. Many mainstream news outlets get the facts right but are unable to call a spade a spade. Defending democracy, and not downplaying autocracy, is the responsibility of the press in a republic. Doing so does not mean taking partisan sides.
Taking your attention and money elsewhere, whether to Substack or nonprofit newsrooms, is the clearest message you can send if you’re frustrated by corporate journalism.
The other thing you can do is let your favorite outlet know your complaints about their product. NYT subscribers bring in more than $1 billion in subscription revenue annually. Take a minute and provide constructive criticism on social media and directly to the company. (Don’t nitpick. Be polite.) You can fill this standard NYT form out and/or drop a note on LinkedIn to the paper’s chief growth and customer officer, Hannah Yang.
AI in Message Development: A Practitioner's Guide
With the oversight of a messaging strategist, artificial intelligence can assist in the daily work of political and policy practitioners.
With the oversight of a messaging strategist, artificial intelligence can assist in the daily work of political and policy practitioners. The purpose of using one of the Big Three (Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini) AI platforms for communications work is to expand creative options, particularly when it comes to finding common narratives and talking points the broad public can identify with. For this issue brief, I am looking only at political (external) communications tasks—not other political tasks, like policy development or fundraising—both topics for another day.
The Craft of Persuasive Communications
Before getting into AI’s role, it’s worth being clear about the craft of persuasive or advocacy communications aimed at the general public. The craft is tech-agnostic. The same principles—logos, pathos, ethos—that Aristotle illuminated 2,000 years ago are generally the same today. With or without AI, with or without social media, the bedrock of public communications remains constant.
And that bedrock is this.
The well-educated brain is taught to make an argument and back it up with evidence. Professions in law, medicine, science, and business demand it. But public persuasion—which is a large part of civic sector work—requires a somewhat different approach. You can’t just dump data or evidence into the public domain and expect to win people over and mobilize them. You have to tell a story. The human brain is wired for stories.
(Worth watching: Stacey Abrams, a powerhouse communicator and novelist, on the power of storytelling. Or David Axelrod over at MasterClass on campaign storytelling.)
People need a narrative to connect with—one that resonates with emotion and simplicity.
Science and medicine are notoriously bad at communicating concepts to the public. Why? They’re too data-heavy. Sally Susman, executive vice president at Pfizer, was tasked with persuading 100 million Americans during the pandemic to take a new vaccine—and do so quickly. Her book, Breakthrough, details how Pfizer broke through to the public by, as she said on a podcast, ripping up the original playbook of scientific data and expert opinions.
“I was wrong,” Susman said. “It’s stories—like ‘I got to see my grandson at his wedding.’ Real stories, real people.”
A similar course correction happened with marriage equality. The LGBTQ movement initially focused its message on the 1,000-plus legal rights and benefits that come with marriage. That wasn’t working. The movement then shifted its message to one of love, commitment, and family—using real couples and their supportive parents, grandparents, and allies in the military and business world to humanize those values. The rest, as you know, is history.
Where AI Comes Into the Picture
With that foundation in place, here’s how the new tool of AI can help execute these principles in the public arena.
Purpose 1: Translating Policy Advocacy into Public Narrative
One of AI’s most reliable strengths is linguistic translation. Policy professionals operate in a world of technical vocabulary, industry shorthand, legal qualifiers, policy speak, and nuance—language that can obscure meaning for broader audiences. AI systems are unusually effective at converting dense policy material into plain English, but only when guided with human expertise. The quality of output is directly tied to the clarity of the instruction. AI prompts framed around audience, tone, and intent—specifying the audience level, voter profile, or emotional register, for example—yield far more useful results than broad direction.
Here’s a test I ran on voting rights messaging (a topic I don’t have deep expertise in, which is why I chose it). Showing my work: below are three of ChatGPT’s responses, which I have edited. AI can’t quite get the words right, at least for my ear.
- The Fairness Story: America works because we all play by the same rules. No matter your education level, race, or where you live, all eligible voters should have the same opportunity to cast a ballot. You can’t make voting harder for some and easier for others. Fairness and consistency are essential to the American system.
- The Civic Story: The Constitution established a system where power flows from citizens, not rulers. Over generations, Americans expanded that promise—eliminating property restrictions, guaranteeing women’s suffrage, dismantling racial barriers. Safeguarding voting rights today is simply the modern expression of that same constitutional commitment: equal protection.