The key to persuasion is rather simple: agree with your audience. This was explained ninety years ago by Dale Carnegie in his classic book How to Win Friends and Influence People:
In talking to people, don’t begin by discussing the things on which you differ. Begin by emphasizing—and keep on emphasizing—the things on which you agree. Keep emphasizing, if possible, that you are both striving for the same end and that your only difference is one of method and not of purpose.
Because confirmation bias makes it nearly impossible to change people’s beliefs, you must use beliefs they already hold to persuade them that you are on their side. Here are the three best ways to do that.
First: Always begin in agreement.
Start every argument from a point of agreement, then build a bridge from their preconceptions to your solutions.
Finding a point of agreement is not so difficult. The easiest way is to acknowledge a problem from your listeners’ point of view. Average Americans struggle with inadequate wages, unfair job conditions, debt, illness, addiction, worries about their children, their quality of life, and their future. Nobody is going to believe you can address their problems if you don’t make it clear that you understand what those problems are: “Yes, groceries cost too much.” “I agree, landlords can be unfair.” “I know our kids are at risk; I feel that too.”
When your listeners state a specific concern, empathize: “Yes, we’ve got to protect Social Security and Medicare.” “You’re right, the immigration system is broken.” “Certainly, cars speed down that street too fast.”
Or you can agree by stating a policy ideal: “A strong, well-trained military is essential to maintaining our security and stability.” “We must ensure that every highway bridge is safe, now and in the future.” “Every child in our city should have access to world-class public schools.”
To be clear: we are not asking you to obfuscate or misrepresent your views. You never have to compromise your political principles to begin in agreement; you just need to consider a wider range of possibilities. For example:
If someone is worried about crime (even in a low-crime community), agree that personal safety must be among the government’s highest priorities.
If an individual thinks the neighborhood is going downhill (even if that’s not the case), agree that we need to preserve the quality of life.
If your audience is worried about government budgets (even if there’s no budget problem), agree that our government has an obligation to be careful with every dollar of taxpayer money.
You may wonder, where do I take the discussion from there? What about facts and statistics? What about our progressive solutions? If you begin in agreement, your listeners will be far more willing to hear the rest. Just understand that the people you are trying to persuade are much less likely to care about policy details. If they believe you’re on their side, they are more likely to accept that your policies are sincerely intended to address their problems.
For example, let us say you are talking about making taxes more progressive. Start in agreement, like this:
Say… Our tax system is unfair. The tax burden on working families has increased, while the rich and powerful pocket more and more tax giveaways. And that’s unjust.
Almost nobody disagrees with that. Then you might provide a statistic or, far more persuasive, tell a story that illustrates the problem. Finish with a brief explanation of how your policy addresses the problem while staying true to shared beliefs.
When you give a talk, shorten your prepared remarks to allow more time for questions. Listeners will tell you what they care about, and then you will know where to start.
When you are in a direct conversation, listen carefully to what others say. Skip the parts where you disagree and steer the discussion toward the elements where you’re on the same side. If someone makes five points and you agree with only one of them, talk about that one. Demonstrate that you understand the problem they are concerned about, that you empathize, and that you share the same policy ideals.
Because of confirmation bias—and the reality that people are often drawing from very different sources of information—avoid telling people they are wrong or that their facts are incorrect. That can trigger a defensive reaction and shut down engagement. (See Chapter 22.) Instead of saying “you’re wrong,” acknowledge their perspective and offer additional context: “There’s more information on this that might be helpful,” or “Here’s what I’ve been seeing from other sources.” A more effective approach is to suggest that, even if their understanding made sense once, new information or changing circumstances may lead to a different conclusion.
Similarly, never let your emotions do the talking. When you are about to speak in anger, take a deep breath and shake it off. Voicing your emotions will make you feel good—you’ll get a shot of dopamine in your brain—but it will almost certainly end your opportunity to persuade.
Second: Use values to frame the debate.
Framing is a messaging strategy that directs attention to the part of a political debate where our argument aligns with the audience’s preexisting beliefs. It encourages people to view and understand the issue through a particular lens that supports your perspective.
Imagine a mural painted on a wall that illustrates every aspect of a political issue. Framing is the act of placing a picture frame around one section of the mural, pointing to it, and saying, “This is the most important way to view the issue.”
In a panorama that describes inflation, we want to frame the corporations that raise prices to earn windfall profits. In the broader story about health care, we want to put a frame around the unfair pricing and tactics of insurance and prescription drug companies. In the debate about both taxation and Social Security, we want to place a frame around billionaires who don’t pay their fair share. MAGA and the far right, in contrast, frame political questions to blame people of color, immigrants, and woke culture. Usually, the side with the more effective and more frequently repeated frame will win any given debate.
One of the most powerful ways to frame is by using values.
In politics, values are ideals that describe the kind of society we are trying to build. When you use values, you communicate two things. Because values are, by definition, beliefs that we share with our listeners, you agree with your audience. And values show that, whatever the specific policy you seek to frame, your overall goals are the same.
Despite how deeply progressive policies, positions, and ideology are rooted in widely popular societal values, those connections are not always emphasized in public debate. Here’s a brief guide to communicating them more effectively.
When you’re talking about an issue where government has no proper role—like free speech, privacy, religion, reproductive rights, or equal protection under law—declare your commitment to freedom or use a similar value from the chart below. When you discuss an issue where the government should act as a referee between competing interests—like court proceedings, wages, benefits, subsidies, taxes, or education—explain that your position is based on opportunity or a value from that column. When you argue about an issue where government should act as a protector—like crime, retirement, health care, zoning, or the environment—stand for security or a similar value.
FAMILY OF PROGRESSIVE VALUES
Freedom or similar values: Liberty, Privacy, Basic rights, Fundamental rights, Freedom of religion, Equal protection
Opportunity or similar values: Equal opportunity, Justice, Fairness, Fair share, Level playing field, Every American
Security or similar values: Safety, Protection, Quality of life, Employment security, Retirement security, Health security
Polls consistently show that freedom is the strongest word in American politics, and today, more than ever, we need to use it. Progressives have always been comfortable talking about opportunity, but our side rarely says the word security, even though it is nearly as persuasive as freedom.
Moreover, you can combine these values to convey that you stand for freedom, opportunity, and security for all. That phrase polls better than conservative values, and even more important, it’s an accurate description of what we stand for. The far right favors these values, but only for some—the affluent, or perhaps, for white people. Progressives insist on providing freedom, opportunity, and security to every American. This language may work even when you’re talking to conservatives; they appreciate the same values. (For a longer discussion, read Chapter 21.)
In addition to these policy values, there are personal values that may fit some arguments, such as honesty, responsibility, loyalty, and bravery.
How do you use values in a conversation?
Imagine you are a legislator visiting constituents door-to-door, and you are asked what you’re going to do to clean up the stream that runs through a particular neighborhood. But cleaning up that stream isn’t the state legislature’s job. Some progressives might launch into an explanation of the clean water legislation they support. A less practiced legislator might say the stream is the responsibility of the city or county, not the legislature. A strong communicator would start by agreeing.
Say… It’s a real shame what’s happened to our stream. It’s unsafe. It’s unhealthy. It’s wrong. And we all deserve better.
Why? The only way to connect is to agree wholeheartedly. If you can, go on to say you remember when the stream was clean and beautiful. Then frame the issue with your values, which describe your goals:
Say… Clean water and safe parklands must be a top priority to protect the quality of life in our community.
These are values you share with every voter: clean, safe, and a better quality of life, all of which fall under the category of security. At this point, you are welcome to explain your position on clean water policy, but keep it short, as you have probably already won a friend. Persuadable Americans are only listening for one thing: Are you on my side? By using shared values to frame the debate, you demonstrate that you are.
Or imagine you are an advocate promoting a package of social services intended to engage at-risk youth and divert them from crime. Obviously, start in agreement:
Say… We all want to feel safe in our own neighborhood.
Don’t start by talking about the needs of these young people, because that can be misconstrued. Demonstrate empathy. Address what concerns the listener—the value of safety. Then you can explain:
Say… There are promising strategies that protect communities by engaging at-risk young people and diverting them away from becoming offenders. Let’s provide security and prevent crime.
Protection, prevention, and security are all values. You share these goals with every listener. Use them!
Every time you have the chance to speak to a persuadable audience, don’t forget to express your values. Even if listeners grumble about your policy solution, you might very well win their support if you have made clear that you share the same concerns and are trying to achieve the same goals. They’ll feel you are on their side, and as Maya Angelou said, “people will forget what you said…but people will never forget how you made them feel.”
Third: Show listeners how they benefit.
Progressives favor policies that benefit society. We want to help the underdog. We wish that most Americans were persuaded, as we are, by appeals to the common good. But they aren’t.
In fact, it’s quite difficult to convince average citizens to support a policy that appears to benefit people other than themselves, their families, and their friends. Celinda Lake, one of our movement’s best pollsters, explains that “our culture is very, very individualistic.” When faced with a proposed government policy, she says, “people look for themselves in the proposal. People want to know what the proposal will do for me and to me.”
That means, whenever possible, you need to show voters that they personally benefit from your progressive policies. Usually, that’s not so hard. When discussing climate change, emphasize how it affects listeners’ children and grandchildren. When arguing for any kind of criminal justice reform, show how it makes their own community safer.
Sometimes it’s more of a challenge. For example, if you’re arguing for programs that benefit people in poverty, do not place the focus on the way your proposal directly helps people experiencing poverty; instead, explain how it indirectly benefits the middle class. Persuadable voters are rarely in poverty themselves, and they will relate better to an argument aimed at them.
For example, when you argue for a higher minimum wage:
Say… Raising the minimum wage puts money back into our local economy. It eases the burden on taxpayer-funded services. It’s a win-win. And it helps build a fair economy that works for everyone, not just the rich.
Every progressive policy benefits the middle class, often directly but at least indirectly. In contrast, nearly every far-right policy hurts the middle class, even if it more directly hurts people with low incomes. Since persuadable voters are nearly always middle-class and want to know how policies affect them personally, you must tell them. In doing so, you are once again staying in agreement and demonstrating that you are on their side.