The overall purpose of our message framing books and materials is to show you—a policymaker, activist, advocate, campaigner, or candidate—how to persuade others. Our focus on political values is practical. It works.
But that does not mean progressives should choose their values at random. Let us look at the big picture and see how a values-based worldview operates, and why it is persuasive.
Consider the American dream. Our almost mythical ideal is not about a society where government secures the greatest good for the greatest number. Our dream is personal. It’s about an underprivileged child who delivers newspapers and, one day, ends up as the publisher. It’s about an unskilled worker who attends night school and becomes a successful manager. It’s about individuals and families practicing their religion without interference, getting ahead through hard work, and retiring in security and comfort.
The American dream is the vision of a nation where every individual is given a fair chance to build a successful life. This common vision is about both money—individuals and their families getting ahead—and self-determination—individuals and their families deciding what to think and how to live. Our dream celebrates the individual.
American individualism goes way back. Benjamin Franklin—the quintessential self-made man—reflected the thinking of his era, saying, “The U.S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.” Thomas Jefferson initially made individualism an explicit part of the Declaration of Independence. His first draft stated that “all men are created equal and independent.” Throughout the history of our nation, despite great hardships, immigrants traveled here (those who came voluntarily), settlers moved across the plains, and farmers migrated to cities, all to find a better life for themselves and their families. This common quest of individual Americans has shaped the nation.
Individualism is our nation’s greatest strength and its greatest weakness. It drives innovation and progress, but it also consigns millions of Americans to lives spent in poverty. The system doesn’t work for many because of our national culture of competition.
Competition is the very bedrock of our governmental, economic, and social systems. Elections and court cases are competitions. School and college are competitions. Our economy is a gigantic, complex competition. Even our ideas of style—attractive clothes, jewelry, furniture, houses—are based on how they compare with others. Obviously, where there is competition, there are both winners and losers.
The point is, we can’t force a communalistic philosophy on an individualistic nation. Progressives wish that American culture were more oriented toward altruism and community. But it isn’t. A realistic progressive philosophy accepts our national culture of individualism and competition and, nevertheless, seeks to make the American dream accessible to all. How can we envision such a philosophy?
Balance is justice
Imagine a balance scale—the old-fashioned kind with two pans, one suspended from each end of a bar. It’s the kind of scale that symbolizes equal justice under law. In a progressive world, the role of government is to help balance the scales when powerful individuals or organizations compete against weaker ones. The government should function as a counterweight on the scale of justice. The greater the disparity of power between competing interests, the greater weight the government must provide to the weaker side.
It is not the government’s job to ensure that everyone wins every competition—that would be a logical impossibility. Instead, the government must ensure that, whenever possible, competition is both fair and humane. In other words, justice is the purpose of government and, in an individualistic society, balance is the means to achieve it.
A system in balance rewards hard work, efficiency, and innovation, which benefit society, and discourages crime, corruption, and schemes to game the system, which rob society. As a practical matter, despite all efforts, our system will never be in balance. Justice is a journey, not a destination.
You may be thinking: Isn’t balance an awfully broad principle? How do we apply it?
Here is how. We break down public policy into three situations, where: (1) government has no proper role, (2) government acts as a referee, and (3) government acts as a protector.
Freedom
Where the government has no proper role, because public action would violate individual rights, progressive policy should be based on freedom. By freedom, we mean the absence of legal interference with our fundamental rights—freedom of speech, religion, and association; the right to privacy; the rights of the accused; the right of all citizens to vote; and the right to equal protection under the law. Compared to an individual, government wields tremendous power, so a progressive policy adds great weight—in the form of strong legal rights—to the individual’s side of the scale. For example, freedom of speech is sacrosanct unless it immediately and directly puts others in danger—“falsely shouting fire in a theater,” as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put it.
Freedom should be easy to understand—it’s a defense of our basic constitutional rights and civil liberties. We include the right to vote because the very definition of democracy—rule by the people—requires the unrestricted exercise of that right. So, laws that prevent American citizens from voting should be eliminated because they violate our most fundamental democratic freedom.
Pollster Celinda Lake explains that “freedom has been testing very, very strongly…. The strongest critique of MAGA Republicans is that they are taking away our freedom. That message [is also] very strong for mobilization. It mobilizes young voters, African Americans who associate freedom with voting rights and civil rights, and it really motivates women, and younger women, around the abortion issue, and medication abortion.”
There is no doubt that progressives believe in freedom. The problem is that, until very recently, we barely talked about it, probably because we thought conservatives claimed it. But they claimed it wrongfully.
For more than 25 years, conservatives have insisted that both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the “war on terror,” were in defense of our freedom. But it’s not true. Our freedom was never in jeopardy—the Iraqis, the Taliban, ISIS, and al-Qaeda, none of them attempted to invade America and control our government. U.S. military and police actions might be said to protect our security, but not our freedom. So don’t use the word freedom when discussing military ventures—it just provides a false justification for war.
Similarly, conservatives have equated freedom with capitalism. But that’s not valid. Our nation’s market economy is not free from government control—in fact, it is dominated by the government. Markets are based on a dense web of laws enforced by multiple layers of federal, state, and local agencies. Businesses are not free to sell diseased meat, make insider stock trades, pollute our air and water, or discriminate based on race, gender, or ethnicity. So don’t be fooled by the terms free market, free enterprise, or free trade, because they all twist the idea of freedom to support far-right policies.
Most astonishing is the way religious extremists have employed the word freedom to mean the very opposite. They argue that freedom gives them the right to use government power to impose their religious views on the rest of us. But when they use government power to ban abortion, discriminate against LGBTQ+ people, ban books, and overturn elections, that is precisely an attack on freedom. Freedom is the absence of government intervention, where we, as Americans, have fundamental rights.
The overthrow of Roe v. Wade changed the political dynamic on freedom. Persuadable voters are well on their way to understanding that the MAGA movement diminishes freedom, and using this new understanding is excellent politics. Besides, we have a solemn responsibility to guard our rights to freedom. We must shout from the rooftops that freedom is one of our most cherished values. We must remind Americans that Clarence Darrow was right when he said, “You can protect your liberties in this world only by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can be free only if I am free.”
Opportunity
Where government acts as a referee between private, unequal interests, progressive policy should be based on opportunity. By opportunity, we mean a level playing field in social and economic affairs—fair dealings between the powerful and the less powerful, the elimination of discrimination, and a quality education for all. Competing interests usually hold unequal power, so progressive policy adds weight—in the form of guarantees of specific protections—to the weaker interest, like the right of workers to form unions. Or consider that unskilled low-wage workers have no leverage to bargain for higher pay, and that’s why it is up to the government to impose a reasonable minimum wage. Quite simply, when social and market forces do not naturally promote equal opportunity, government must step in.
Opportunity means, above all, a fair marketplace. Although progressives tend to stress the rights of consumers and employees against businesses, opportunity also means fairness between businesses—especially helping small enterprises against large ones—and fairness for stockholders against corporate officers. Individual ambition, innovation, and effort—harnessed by the market system—are supposed to benefit society. But that can happen only when the competition is fair.
Opportunity also means fair economic transactions with the government. Government should use the scale of justice when determining taxes—obviously, a sliding scale where those who have the least pay the least. And when it is the government that is making payments—for contracts, subsidies, public education, and the like—the principle of opportunity dictates that all individuals and companies should have equal access, unless the balance of justice demands a measure of affirmative action.
The concept of opportunity is an easy sell to progressives. And yet, since the Reagan years, we’ve been losing the struggle to the far right, which flatly opposes opportunity.
Conservatives have fought in favor of discrimination, even though equal treatment is a precondition for equal opportunity. They don’t even pretend to support equal opportunity in commerce; instead, conservatives lobby for government favors, no-bid contracts, and economic development giveaways. And conservative movement leaders seek to destroy anything that allows individuals to stand up to larger economic forces, with labor unions, consumer protections, and antimonopoly policies under constant attack.
Our mission is clear. It is to guarantee that all Americans can realize their goals through education, hard work, and fair pay. We must provide every person—not just the privileged few—with an equal opportunity to pursue a better life and access to the American dream.
Security
Where government acts to protect those who cannot reasonably protect themselves, including future generations, progressive policy should be based on security. By security, we mean protecting Americans from domestic criminals and foreign terrorists, of course, but also insuring the sick and the vulnerable, safeguarding the food we eat and products we use, and preserving our environment.
There is always a threat that larger or unexpected forces will attack any one of us, so progressive policy adds weight, in the form of government institutions and programs, that helps protect us from harm. For example, society has a responsibility to protect older adults, people with disabilities, surviving spouses, and parentless children, and that’s why an aptly named federal program has functioned in that role for more than 90 years—Social Security.
Security can be divided into three categories. First, the government should secure our personal safety and health. That includes military and police protection, firefighting, health insurance, medical research, and protection from impurities, pollutants, and hazardous waste. Second, the government should perform its fiduciary duty to protect individuals who cannot reasonably protect themselves. That includes children, seniors, and people with physical or mental disabilities—as well as future generations. Of course, the more vulnerable the individual, the greater the protection required. Third, the government should protect our common future as a nation. That includes building and maintaining infrastructure, using zoning powers to enhance quality of life, and safeguarding the environment.
Progressives support the concept of security, of course. But we usually detour around the word when talking about law enforcement or foreign policy. Like freedom, the word security seems to stick in our throats.
Progressives want to jump immediately to collaboration and cooperation, rehabilitation and reeducation. That line of thinking is both destructive and unrealistic. Crime and terrorism are security issues. Yes, we believe our policies are the best way to ensure security, but we also need to talk about the ends. The proper role of government in these matters, and the top priority of officeholders, is to provide security for our communities. To ignore security is to lose the argument.
America’s founding principles
Now that you think about it, don’t the principles of freedom, opportunity, and security sound kind of familiar?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This famous line from the Declaration of Independence is more than a set of high-sounding platitudes—it is an assertion of American political philosophy.
By “Life,” Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration did not mean simply the right to survival, which would suggest that being beaten almost to death is okay. They meant a right to personal security. By “Liberty,” they meant the freedoms ultimately enshrined in federal and state Bills of Rights, barring the government from infringing on speech, religion, the press, and the right to trial by jury, as well as protecting individuals from wrongful criminal prosecutions.
And how do we translate “pursuit of happiness?” It cannot mean that everyone has the innate right to do whatever makes them happy. Read “happiness” together with the earlier part of the same sentence, “all men are created equal.” The Declaration of Independence does not say that people have an unbridled right to pursue happiness; it says we have an equal right to pursue happiness. In today’s language, we call that equal opportunity.
These principles served as the foundation for American independence and self-government. They are ideals that we learned in school and relearn throughout life.
The whole project of America revolves around eliminating barriers to individual success. In revolutionary times, the monarchy and aristocracy controlled what people could do economically, socially, and religiously. All those barriers needed to be toppled so that individuals could live successful and happy lives. Two hundred fifty years ago, eliminating barriers was simpler—just get rid of unjust restrictions. But today, eliminating the barriers to freedom, opportunity, and security is more complicated because modern life is more complicated. No one lives self-sufficiently on a farm anymore—everyone relies on everyone else. So today, protecting our rights as Americans requires a more proactive government.
Put another way, the government must employ the historic American concept of checks and balances. When social and market forces do not naturally promote freedom, opportunity, and security, we must achieve them through checks and balances supplied by our government. As James Madison wrote in The Federalist, “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”
We progressives haven’t forgotten the principles that inspired America. But we have misplaced them. And worse, we’ve allowed right-wing extremists to hijack our ideals and wave them like a flag, rallying Americans to their distinctly un-American cause. It is time to right that wrong.
Freedom, opportunity, and security for all
Let’s raise the banner of freedom, opportunity, and security for all.
That means we believe society should step in to address unfair competition, balancing the scales to help weaker interests get a fair deal. It means that where government has no proper role, we demand freedom; where government acts as a referee between economic interests, we champion opportunity; and where government should protect those who cannot protect themselves, we call for security.
Every public policy issue is described by at least one of our three ideals. Abortion, racial profiling, and voting rights are about freedom. Equal pay, mortgage assistance, and improving public schools are about opportunity. Terrorism, sentencing reform, and health care are about security.
Moreover, some issues can be framed by more than one of these ideals. Unemployment insurance is about opportunity (paying displaced workers fair compensation) and about security (protecting hardworking people who need temporary assistance). IVF treatment is about freedom (don’t let religion dictate to science) and about security (access to modern health care). LGBTQ+ rights are about freedom (don’t let religion dictate how people are treated), and about opportunity (prevent discrimination in employment and housing), and about security (protect individuals and families, as well as the children of same-sex couples).
To dig a little deeper, realize that one frame is often a more persuasive argument than another. Generally, freedom is the strongest argument, closely followed by security, with opportunity sometimes a poor third. Let us say that two candidates discuss crime, one framing it in terms of opportunity (e.g., addressing inequality as a cause of crime) and the other in terms of security (e.g., cracking down on violent criminals). Even in a Democratic primary, all else being equal, the security frame will win.
Now it should be easy to understand why conservatives have called so many of their issues a matter of freedom or security. The question is, why did we let them get away with it? The war in Iraq, for example, was launched under the banner of freedom and security, but, in fact, the war diminished both. Voter ID laws are promoted as security measures, but they do nothing more than erode freedom. And the first Trump Administration’s border wall, touted as a security measure, provided nothing.
In sum, here is the political distinction between the left and the right. We seek to extend freedom, opportunity, and security to all Americans. They work to limit freedom, opportunity, and security—to redistribute wealth to the wealthy, power to the powerful, and privilege to the privileged.
Our values are the principles that fueled the American Revolution. The same torch of American ideals was passed from Jefferson to Lincoln, and from TR to FDR to JFK. So let us stop hiding our glorious light under a bushel.