People love to hate Frank Luntz.
It seems like every time he opens his mouth, a chorus of journalists, bloggers, pundits and armchair strategists shower him with righteous anger. The irony is this: if any of them actually stopped to listen to what he was saying, they might learn something far more important than how righteousness feels.
They might learn how winning feels.
Wait. Before you dismiss what follows, understand I don’t always see eye to eye with Frank’s politics. But, as a trained researcher and communications professional who spent years as Frank’s business partner, I happen to know him and his work better than most.
I can tell you what few professional politicos – or Fortune 500 CEOs – in either party would dispute: Frank is probably one of the most influential people in American politics. And love him or hate him, he’s certainly one of the smartest.
Which is why I’ve been watching, perplexed, as much of the media and blogosphere has exploded with rage of his latest strategy memo, The 10 Rules for Stopping the “Washington Takeover” of Healthcare.
This strategy document is a great example of what our company has done for years to further political positions as well as corporate marketing, PR and public affairs objectives: turn lucid insights about the emotions and language of Americans into effective communications strategies.
Savvy observers should realize they’ve just been given the keys to the kingdom in terms of how to speak to – yes, and influence – the American public about the coming healthcare debate. Many Republicans have embraced Frank’s words as the new way to talk about – and fight against – healthcare reform. However, many on the left have chosen instead to invest their energy in complaining about the conservative “spin machine” once again trying to mislead the public.
This is absurd.
Even Democratic pollster Paul Begala’s impressive memo last week responding, point-by-point, to Frank’s document falls into the trap of pitting Frank against the truth.
To those who say Frank’s messages manipulate the truth, I ask WHOSE truth? Believe it or not, there are people in this country legitimately opposed to healthcare reform. People who think it will lead to negative outcomes that drag down care. You may have a DIFFERENT truth, but approaching a public policy debate from the vantage of right against wrong is the quickest way not to victory – because you may have facts and figures on your side – but to defeat – because you’re focusing more on the justice of your cause than the strategy that will actually further it.
Ask anyone who has tried to promote healthcare reform over the last 20 years – being right is poor consolation for losing.
So what I say to those wishing to further healthcare reform is simple:
- Stop confusing policy with politics. Supporters of reform are treating the healthcare debate as…a debate. Its opponents know better. POLICY is to be discussed, refined, debated. This isn’t policy. It’s POLITICS. And in politics, both sides use language to convince and cajole.
- There is no referee. One image keeps jumping into my head when I see someone complaining about Frank instead of focusing on THEIR strategy: an athlete looking for a foul call from a referee. Forget that great competitors always play until a whistle is blown – THERE ARE NO REFS IN POLITICS. Nobody’s going to swoop in and call the foul. Just because some strategists do what we do more effectively than others should not lead to cries of unfair. The better response is to learn these lessons and apply them for yourself.
- Don’t get mad, get even. Stop attacking effective tactics (except to the extent this itself is an effective tactic for you). Take a page from Frank’s book, roll up your sleeves and start fighting smart.
Regardless of whether you support or oppose healthcare reform, Frank has laid out an informed (I can attest to this as it’s based on research we’ve been doing for years) roadmap to how Americans FEEL about this hot-button issue and the language that surrounds it. And thanks to the fact that the memo was leaked, both sides now have some extremely valuable insights into the steps they must take to further their causes – no matter what their goal.
Paul Begala’s recent memo reframing Frank’s findings for use by the pro-reform movement is masterful. Yet the fact he even had to write it underlines my point. Paul doesn’t challenge Frank’s fundamental findings. He takes them to their pro-reform conclusions. Well done. But if other supporters of reform weren’t so busy complaining to the ref about unfair play, they could have done that part themselves.
I found Frank’s health care strategy document to be well-informed, insightful, accurate and full of valid usable research. I thought it was excellent. There are always those who will whine and miss the valuable points in a work like this. Great work and thanks for contributing it to the public – it was much needed.
There is another point that resonates with most Americans: government take-over of health care means that your most private and personal information will be in government data banks at the disposal of government workers. The potential for security breaches and outright abuse is enormous and dangerous.
So, as a ‘trained researcher’, how do you feel about Frank’s dubious research techniques? How about his techniques at his focus groups? How about his clear partisan views showing through during his ‘research’? As a trained researcher, didn’t it offend you to work for a guy that clearly was just a charlatan? How did it feel to be getting coffee for the guy that would go on Fox news and spout off a bunch of B.S. that you, the trained researcher, knew, KNEW was just B.S. not remotely scientific.