Simple Talk

On Friday, Michigan Republicans passed a bill that is almost certain to fail, forbidding trans students in Michigan's colleges and universities to use the bathroom, which is exactly what you'd expect from a hate group like the Republican party.

I mentioned that the bill is almost certain to fail. In Michigan, Republicans hold a narrow majority in the state House, while the Democrats hold both the governor's mansion and a narrow majority in the Senate. This means that the bill is almost certain not to pass the Senate, or be signed into the law by the executive—and provided that remains true, it is to the credit of the Democrats involved that they won't let this thing progress. I mention this because there are Democrats who think that, in order to win, Democrats ought to let this sort of bill pass, or even to initiate this sort of bill. If they did, this would not be to their credit, but more on this sort of belief soon enough.

What the Republicans did—passing a doomed bill—is the sort of thing that we're often told expends political capital needlessly. We're told this by pragmatic-sounding people who like to fashion themselves "the adults in the room." This is usually the same sorts of people who tell us Democrats should be passing bigoted bathroom bills in order to win. Win what? They rarely say.

If the pragmatists are right, we might well ask why did the Republicans do this? Why pass a bill that's almost sure to fail? First of all, perhaps it won't fail, particularly if the pragmatists get their way. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take, as Michael Scott said Wayne Gretzky said. But let's allow the premise that the bill is doomed. That's not hard to do; it probably is doomed. Why would the Republicans needlessly expend political capital?

Well maybe they're idiots. This seems possible. They certainly sound like idiots a lot of the time, and say all sorts of things that are contradictory and hypocritical and sometimes outright antifactual or even bugfuck crazy.

But I think there is an obvious answer, and that is that this sort of thing doesn't expend political capital, but builds it. A bigoted anti-trans bathroom bill sends a very persuasive, very simple message of supremacy to people who like supremacy. It tells people who believe in supremacy's foundational lies that there are leaders who are deeply committed to those lies, who can be counted on to represent them even when they are out of power, but even more so when they are in power. It accomplishes this on the playing field of electoral politics. It uses the tactic of a simple principled action.

Now this bill is also a bigoted pile of horseshit, so people will take issue with me calling it "principled." This is understandable, because when most of us think of principle, we think of good principles of fairness or equality or kindness or justice or personal accountability. But supremacy is a principle. It's a principle that states that only some people in society matter, and all others can and should suffer and die, and a bigoted bathroom bill is very true to that atrocious and bigoted principle.

I write about supremacy's foundational lies all the time, but even at the risk of repetition it's probably best to identify them. First, there is the lie of individualism, which insists that society doesn't exist; that we have no relationship to one another, and bear no responsibility for one another. This first lie bolsters the second and greatest lie, which is that there are some people who matter and others who don't. The other supremacist lies involve the rights of the people who are deemed to matter to do whatever they want to the people deemed to not matter—to own or punish or kill them, for whatever reason they personally deem valid—and the right of people who are deemed to matter to consider the people who don't matter to be implied danger, implied violence, implied theft, which validates as redemptive any violence that might be done to people who don't matter.

These lies are extremely popular and traditional in my country, which is the United States, but you can find them all over the world, too. However, even though it is very popular to believe supremacist lies in the United States, it is not considered very popular to be a supremacist. One of the main benefits of supremacy is an implicit validation of the people it deems to matter; the insistence that they be considered good for what they have done to others, no matter how abusive and atrocious what they have done might be.

This means that supremacists tend to engage in a coverup of their own underlying lies, which can lead to some very complicated and very wonky language on academic and intellectualist playing fields about the naturally self-regulating nature of capitalism and the importance of law and order and the generative prosperity that billionaires naturally create for everyone and the natural tyranny that invariably attends socialism, which are all part of a set of propositions often referred to as classic conservatism—"classic" conservatism being the more respectable kind, that gets to differentiate itself from all of the overt supremacy and corruption it makes the case for.

And yes, this classic conservative stuff can be impenetrable and stuffy and theoretical, and none of it represents the way normal people talk, as is often the case with academic pursuits (and clever lies), but it does the hard work of establishing frameworks and definitions for its lies that set the scope of the argument, and usually winds up producing some real killer buzzwords like "the free market" and "trickle down theory" and "race science" that enter the public imagination. Sometimes academia fails, and that's when bugfuck conspiracy comes in; no less byzantine than the academic talk, and no less strange when compared to the way normal people talk, but still, while less reputable, a good way to introduce supremacist lies into common currency. Once you've seeded the lies to safe levels of respectability, you might want supremacy straight from the tap; in that case, you can go get yourself a fascist demagogue, who tends to spew unfiltered and undiluted hate, but who still remembers to insist that there exists a fundamentally decent rationale for the hate, and people who have believed the highfalutin' academic-sounding lies usually have little problem believing the more obvious and disreputable ones.

The lies don't have to be very good or consistent, because when somebody doesn't want to know the truth, that somebody usually manages to get the job done. All of this stuff creates room and permission for people who want to enjoy benefits of supremacy but don't want to think of themselves as supremacists.

Here's an example from the story about the Michigan trans bathroom bill.

“Like most Michiganders, I am discouraged by our low literacy rates, our low math scores and chronic absenteeism, but nothing weighs heavier on my heart, my mind, my spirit than the reality that our young people feel unsafe in spaces meant for privacy and dignity – restrooms, changing areas, locker rooms, even showers,” said bill sponsor state Rep. Joseph Fox, R-Fremont. “The Student Restroom Privacy Act ensures that multiple occupancy spaces in educational institutions are used only by individuals based on their sex. “No individual, especially a young person, should live in fear, especially when using a private space like a restroom, a changing area or a shower.”

So you can see, fear is only something that matters for those deemed to matter: namely, supremacist anti-trans bigots. Fear is not something that trans students get to feel, even though they are already being bullied to death by the federal government and now have to fear what will happen in their state if Republicans take over again, because what will happen if Republicans take over will be enforced genital inspections of trans kids and any cis kids who might not look suitably like their assigned-at-birth gender to satisfy the prejudices of whatever sort of turbo-creep would take a job as High School Bathroom Genital-Inspector-General. All in the name of privacy! All in the name of dignity! All in the name of safety!

The lie is obvious if you think it over even slightly, but the bathroom bill is saying, very clearly, to people who want to see trans people bullied to death, "if you bring us to power, we will bully trans people to death on your behalf and make you feel self-righteous about it." This sort of commitment to the principle of supremacist bigotry makes Republicans extremely popular with the sorts of people who like supremacist bigotry. And that is why Republicans in my home state of Michigan passed a bill that's almost certain to fail.

But so what? Republicans have been doing this sort of thing since at least the 90s. They made however-many doomed attempts to end Obamacare, for example. They passed who knows how many doomed "defense of marriage" bills, for example. None of this is new.

Well, I'm told that establishment centrist members of the Democratic Party want to send simple political messages, messaging that talks in the plain language of regular folks, so I wanted to begin with a story about a very simple and plain political message.

Let's think about plain and simple talk.

Quick interruption time. The Reframe is me, A.R. Moxon, an independent writer. Some readers voluntarily support my work with a paid subscription. They pay what they want—as little as $1/month, which is more than the nothing they have to pay. It really helps.

If you'd like to be a patron of my work, there's a Founding Member level that comes with a free signed copy of one of my books and thanks by name in the acknowledgement section of my upcoming book.

There is this prominent center-left think tank called Third Way, whose logo when shrunk to thumbnail size on their homepage banner looks a bit like a herniated asshole (it's a compass). Third Way recently issued a memo containing language rules for Democrats designed, per Matt Bennett, who is Third Way’s executive vice president of public affairs,  “to get Democrats to talk like normal people and stop talking like they’re leading a seminar at Antioch." Third Way also stated that Democrats should “think about conversations with persuadable voters in your own life — especially friends, family, and co-workers — and consider whether the use of the language above would help or hurt your case.”

The junior Senator from my state also weighed in.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) earlier this year called on Democrats to stop using the word “oligarchy” to attack Trump and his allies, because she said the term wouldn’t resonate beyond lefty coastal audiences. She advised they should instead say the party opposes “kings.” Slotkin also said the party needed to shed its image of being “weak and woke.”

So let me do the thing that these establishment Democrats say they want, which is to find points of agreement with people that I disagree with, by which I mean them. I do think that it can be useful to think about the playing field you're on and tailor your language accordingly to meet the realities of that playing field. A long discourse on white supremacy might not play the same at cocktail hour as it does in an essay. And I do think that maybe "kings" can play better in certain settings than "oligarchs." So these are tactical considerations, and depending on the setting they can be correct.

So there are my points of agreement with Third Way, and with politicians like Slotkin aligned with their message. Finding points of agreement seems like the big thing for Third Way type people. We can't just talk to people like you and I who agree, you might hear from them. We have to talk to people who disagree with us, too. Those aren't direct quotes, exactly, but I reckon we've all heard that sort of thing from many a Tom, Mike, and John out there. So out of deference to their beliefs, I have started by listing my agreements. Goodie for me!

OK, points of agreement over. Now for the points of disagreement.

Some of these problems with Third Way's approach are things I've seen widely covered already. It's been widely pointed out that this approach keeps white conservatives centered in the Democratic Party playbook, and tend to elide or ignore everyone that white conservatives are hurting. It's also been pointed out that this entire Third Way enterprise is drenched in the idea that the people we must persuade are too stupid to actually know what they actually want or believe, too childlike to have any agency about their choices, and too illiterate to understand precise terms, and thus can be fooled to our side by just moving to simpler talk. It's been widely pointed out that dumbing down your talk while styling yourself "the adult in the room" is actually far more elitist and off-putting than using a lot of academic jargon defining white supremacy.

It's also been pointed out that while no elected Democrats anywhere actually talk in the sort of academic way forbidden by the Third Way memo as too "woke," Democrats actually do talk in a totally different convoluted academic manner, a sort of corporate nothing-speak filled with policy-wonk jargon, means-testing, free markets, and the greatness of Ronald Reagan; stuffed with bountiful agreements with their opponents about the validity of their opponents' rationales and the reasonableness of their concerns: about crime and policing, about trans people, about immigrants, about vaccines, and gun rights, and socialism, and about woke speech being annoying. So it has been noted that the Third Way is not so much trying to solve a problem that really exists, but rather to solve a problem that only exists in Republican imagination. It's a good example of how making your main tactic a reflexive finding-of-common-ground agreement with supremacy tends to align you with the lies of supremacy far more than it aligns you with any truths that counter those lies.

It's also been pointed out that "the third way" was something that was new back in 1992, so continuing to position this sort of triangulating tactic as some sort of newfangled "Third Way" is pretty rich, given that it has been the only option the Democratic leadership has offered in at least 30 years, when Bill Clinton used it to triangulate between the Democratic base on the left and center-right Reagan voters by finding points of agreement. And it worked then insofar as it "won," but it involved capitulations to a supremacist worldview that led us to this unfortunate moment of empowered fascism, so not only does this tactic align one with lies more than the truth, it does so while not gaining any sort of strategic political advantage whatsoever.

It's also been pointed out that there is a whole lot of very simple language that is commonly used by activists on the left, and Third Way Democrats oppose outright. "Defund the Police" is exactly what it says, as is "Black Lives Matter," as is "Tax the Rich" ("Eat the Rich" if you're nasty) or "Universal Health Care Now." There really isn't a more direct and plain-spoken way of making these demands, or of going directly to a solution at the heart of a central problem, yet say these things to a Third Way Democrat and you'll likely be told that this language is somehow simultaneously too divisive and impossible to understand, and to that I guess I'll reiterate that when somebody doesn't want to know a truth they usually manage to get the job done. Nobody knows what that slogan means, you'll hear, a formulation which (since it is very understandable and there are many people who understand it) makes no sense unless "nobody" means "nobody that matters to me." And whoopsie! we just exposed that what we are interested in isn't actually simple talk, and we just slipped once more into the tenets of supremacy.

I can't help but notice that in the world of the Third Way, we're all presumed to agree with Third Way-ers about matters that they never get around to actually agreeing with us about. I can't help but notice that all the agreeing that is happening is being done with conservatives who will never agree with us on anything, about matters that Third Way-ers actually seem to agree with conservatives already, in the name of persuading conservatives to agree with us about things Third-Wayers seem intent on assuring conservatives they will never need to agree with us about.

Here's a problem I don't see pointed out as much. Kings might be more resonant in a slogan than oligarchs, and thus there might be certain tactical areas—a chant, a poster, a slogan—where kings would be more useful as a word than oligarchs. However, oligarchs is a much more accurate depiction of our problem than kings, and refusing to say oligarch in any circumstance whatsoever only benefits oligarchs, and those who are aligned with oligarchs. Likewise, white supremacy might be off-putting to many, but no matter how off-putting it gets, it still remains our nation's foundational problem, and refusing to mention it only benefits white supremacists, and those aligned with them.

Sometimes tactics call for less direct messages. But at some point, if we are to express truth, we have to say things the way they are, using the most precise available words.

And that's just plain talk.

Or don't subscribe. I'm not the boss of you. But if you do subscribe, you get one of these essays pretty much every week.

I think principled language is usually simple enough when left in its natural environment. If there were no supremacists using safety and prosperity and justice in order to further their intentions of violence and theft and corruption, if there were no centrists agreeing with supremacists about their frames for and definitions of safety and prosperity and justice, then safety and justice and prosperity could probably do the trick all by themselves. It's when people with bad principles feel a need to make themselves sound principled that they make their language deliberate and specific, sometimes even conspiratorial, in order to obfuscate the fact that what they intend is malice and what they believe are lies. It's when people who have no principles feel the need to act as if they have principles that they make their language empty and corporate. But once a playing field has been invaded by liars, their lies must be met upon it.

There are playing fields in which the tactics call for catchiness. There are others where precision and accuracy are ideal. Supremacists know this: Remember, they have their own complex and byzantine and strange-sounding jargon used to undergird their lies in academia or think tanks, which may not use language that is used in everyday conversation, but which develop the supremacist ideas that take hold in the public imagination.

If you look at the words Third Way wants everyone to stop using, they're all words that define truths very precisely, phrases that name different types of people and different types of human experience. All this precise language exists to counter the lies told to undergird supremacy, or to expose those lies as lies, and, as supremacy's rationale gets more and more complex and more and more diffuse and irrational, so does centrism's rationale for agreeing with supremacy gets wonkier and wonkier, and so the truthful counters to the lies and the emptiness must become more and more precise and academic.

We need people committed to liberation from supremacy doing the hard work of establishing frameworks and definitions for its fundamental truths, a need for language that meets supremacist lies complexity for complexity, that meets supremacist rationale with precision for every obfuscation and reality for every conspiracy, which set the frame and the scope of the argument around those truths. And yes, not all of this will not employ language that mirrors the way people talk in everyday life, but even if it is precise, it will be understood by those willing to understand, and generate some real killer buzzwords like "abolition" and "equity" and "equality" and "diversity" to enter the public imagination.

If it were not effective and understood, I doubt conservative supremacists would spend so much time trying to suppress it and punish it and destroy it. I doubt they would be removing it from libraries and academia and government. They don't oppose it because it doesn't work, but because it does.

What is being asked by Third Way is not that those in the political playing field or the interpersonal playing field stop using this sort of talk situationally. It's a demand that those who are working in the playing field of naming and categorizing the truth surrender the field entirely, in favor of manufacturing agreement with people who mean us no good, about principles they don't really believe in, over matters about which we ought never agree. As a punchline, Third Way frames this surrender as a tactic for success.

Using more basic vocabularies and simpler sentences is sometimes a good tactic. But what actually creates the most simple talk of all are principles, and when you wish to convey principles, words can be good, but deeds are better.

A bill that promotes supremacist bigotry will convince people that you will deliver supremacist bigotry. When you make the attempt even though your attempt is unlikely to succeed, you convince people that you'll pursue injustice and hate even when the going is tough. Among those who want supremacist bigotry, you will build political capital.

Refusing to abandon people convinces people that you'll stick with them. When you are steadfast even though the cost is high and success seems costly, you convince people that you'll do so even when the going is tough. Among those who want justice and equality and diversity, you will build political capital.

Abandoning people to supremacist ignorance and malice convinces people that you will abandon people to ignorance and malice. When you do so even though there seems little advantage, it convinces people you don't actually believe in anything and will abandon them for no good reason at all. You will lose all your political capital, which is what I think has happened.

If you want simple talk, that's the simplest talk I know.

I think this points to what's happening with the Third Way memo; when you don't have principles, you need to focus on tactics.

I oppose the memo because I think anti-fascists and anti-supremacists of all stripes would do so much better to advocate for universal principles rather than trying to enforce universal tactics.

First, tactics are situational. What might make sense for one won't make sense for most others. Principles apply broadly, and can suggest the right tactic for the situation. So yes, use kings instead of oligarchs, and don't say white supremacy if the conversation doesn't call for it, but know that you are doing it to demolish oligarchs and white supremacy, and how they are connected, and why defeating both is important.

Second, effective tactics spring from principles, not principles from tactics. Those who begin with tactics confuse the source and the stream ; treating a principle as if it were a tactic to consider and reject. This is how you get an alleged opposition party ignoring or abandoning marginalized people in order to defeat a party designed to ignore and abandon marginalized people. But authentic principles create authenticity, no matter what tactics are called for.

Finally, focusing upon tactics needlessly spends political capital. If you treat your tactic as a principle, you might wind up wasting your time admonishing others employing different tactics than you—tactics which are appropriate to their own particular situational playing field even if they aren't appropriate to yours—to stop wasting their time (which they are not wasting) and employ your own specific tactic instead—which may not be appropriate to their situation, even if it is appropriate to yours.

So what principles should we work from? Well, our opponents are working from the principles of our supremacist foundational lies. Let us craft principles to counter those.

1) Every human being is a unique and irreplaceable work of art.
2) Therefore, life is a right of all humans; it is not earned.
3) Any part of our order that fails these foundational principles is an injustice.
4) Therefore, addressing injustice is always more important than enforcing order.
5) Injustice is brokenness, and brokenness demands repair.
6) Therefore we will pay the cost of repair.
7) We know that brokenness can be fixed, and should be fixed.
8) We expect improvement, and we will demand it.
9) If our demands are not met, we will issue consequences for the failure.
10) We won't give up.

If we engage in a principles-first politics in a world of corporatist fascists and corporatist centrists—both of them with their own complex ways of defending foundational supremacist lies—that would be simple talk; the simplest talk there is, which is principled action.

You know what that would be? That would be something new.

That would be a real third way.

The Reframe is totally free, supported voluntarily by its readership.

If you liked what you read, and only if you can afford to, please consider becoming a paid sponsor for as little as $1/month. If you'd like to be a patron of my work, there's a Founding Member level that comes with a free signed copy of one of my books and thanks by name in the acknowledgement section of any books I publish.

Looking for a tip jar but don't want to subscribe?

Venmo is here and Paypal is here.

A.R. Moxon is the author of the novel The Revisionaries and the essay collection Very Fine People, which are available in most of the usual places, and some of the unusual places. You can get his books right here for example. He is also co-writer of Sugar Maple, a musical fiction podcast from Osiris Media which goes in your ears. Embarrassed with failure, he tries to reverse the course that his tread has already traversed.