Why the Right Wins the Messaging War: The Secret Behind Conservative Success
- FUCT
- Feb 5
- 23 min read
Updated: Feb 11
Why Progressive Policies Struggle in Political Messaging: The curse of simplicity.
This is the first in a series exploring why progressive policies struggle in the messaging war. In future pieces, we’ll dig deeper into specific issues to examine how they’re misrepresented and what can be done about it. But before we dive into individual policies, we need to address the broader problem: why does right-wing messaging land so easily, while the left struggles to make its case?
TL;DR (Your 'menu') - click to expand
The power of Right-Wing Messaging
First off, let’s get one thing straight: this isn’t about whether left-wing policies are brilliant or right-wing policies are evil (or vice versa); that’s not the argument. This is about one simple fact: when it comes to messaging, the right is winning. And not because their ideas are better (that’s irrelevant right now), but because of their presentation - they’ve mastered the art of selling ideas in a way that sticks. The left, meanwhile, still thinks the average person has the time (or patience) to sit through a dissertation on wealth inequality. Spoiler alert: they don’t.
However, it’s true that explaining left-leaning policies to some people is like trying to teach a cat algebra - it’s not that the subject is hard; it’s that they’ve already decided it’s nonsensical. The issue isn’t that progressive policies are inherently complicated; it’s that the right has mastered the dark art of reducing everything to emotionally charged, digestible soundbites. Fear is faster than facts. Personal loss is more emotive than ‘betterment for everybody,’ and quick quips are more digestible than, say - reality!
Want an even better analogy? Try to explain modern socialism to someone who gets all their news from Facebook memes. You might as well try explaining the stock market to a goldfish - they’ll just blink at you before returning to their regularly scheduled programming of ‘10 Reasons Why The World Was Better Before Feminism.’
Sponsored Ad:
The Role of Emotion vs. Logic in Political Messaging
Multiple studies show that emotion-based arguments consistently outperform logic-driven arguments. A study published in the Journal of Political Psychology found that fear-based messaging is significantly more effective at shaping public opinion than rational chitter-chatter (Brader, 2005).
This isn’t exclusive to the right - the left has had its own messaging victories. One prime example? Obama’s 2008 "Hope" campaign, which leaned heavily on emotional resonance, aspirational messaging, and a singular, memorable slogan. It worked because it bypassed logic and spoke directly to people’s emotions.
The lesson?
People don’t engage with politics as if they’re writing a research paper.
They respond to what makes them feel something. And in that department, the right has spent decades perfecting the formula.
The Right’s Messaging Tactics: Why They Stick
The right thrives on bite-sized, emotionally charged messaging:
“They’re stealing your jobs.”
“They’re taking your money.”
“They’re coming for your children.”
This stuff is easy to remember, quick to repeat, and requires zero critical thinking (darn it).
The left, on the other hand, has to explain things. For example:
Why poverty isn’t just about “laziness.”
Why historical discrimination doesn’t just vanish with a few nice speeches.
Why most wealthy people aren’t really “self-made” when they started life with a golden spoon shoved so far down their throat they’re practically gagging on privilege.
But trying to summarise decades of economic inequality in a tweet? Not easy.
This isn’t to say that right-wing ideas are inherently wrong or that left-wing policies are always superior. There are good and bad ideas on both sides, but the messaging war is lopsided. The right has successfully framed issues through the lens of individualism and fear, while the left often gets bogged down in intellectualism and nuance and yes, when left-leaning policies fail to gain traction, it’s often because they’re presented as moral imperatives rather than practical solutions that benefit everyone.
Fear-Based Messaging: Why it Works
The effectiveness of fear-based messaging can be attributed to negativity bias, a psychological concept where individuals are more influenced by negative information than positive. Research indicates that people tend to give more weight to negative messages, which can make fear-based political campaigns more impactful. (Source: The Guardian)
Example: Brexit's "Take Back Control" Slogan
Historical examples further illustrate this point. Forget about Boris and his big red bus for a moment and remember that during the Brexit referendum, the "Leave" campaign’s slogan was mostly "Take Back Control", which in turn tapped into fears about national sovereignty and immigration, resonating more deeply with voters than the "Remain" campaign’s focus on economic and societal warnings. (Source: tandfonline.com)
In Essence:
The Right Sells Fear, whilst the Left Sells Homework
Let’s look at some other messaging examples and ultimately massive cock-ups…
Sponsored Ad:
Political Messaging in Action: Case Studies
Universal Healthcare: Messaging Failure 101
The idea that nobody should go bankrupt over a broken leg seems obvious - until the right steps in to scream about “big government tyranny.”
The UK’s National Health Service (NHS) is a universal lifeline, yet privatisation advocates constantly paint it as an inefficient dinosaur while ignoring the fact that US-style private healthcare bankrupts people daily whilst overall not providing much better in terms of actual health outcomes.
Opponents claim public healthcare leads to rationing, yet private insurers do exactly that - only with more paperwork and surprise bills.
And let’s be honest - private medical insurance is still an option in the UK. If you want to skip NHS waiting lists, you can pay for private care - but the NHS will always be there if you fall on hard times or simply don’t have thousands of whatever currency you use lying around to pay for an emergency appendectomy.
Meanwhile, in the US, maybe a child will literally die because an ambulance ride costs too much? In the UK, you’ll never get a bill for breaking your leg. That’s not “big government” - that’s basic humanity. But again, this argument isn’t framed in a way that lands emotionally.
The left fails to package it in a way that taps into individual concerns, whereas the right can simply shout “TAXES!” and watch voters’ recoil.
Oh, and if a poorer American breaks their leg, they really do have two choices: get treated and go bankrupt or just hop for the rest of their life.
The right wins because their argument plays on immediate self-interest, while the left is stuck arguing for a system that people won’t appreciate until they need it.
And still, the US, which lacks a proper public system, spends far more on healthcare per capita than any country with socialised medicine. In 2022, the United States spent an estimated $12,742 (£10,000) per person on healthcare - the highest healthcare costs per capita across comparable countries.
For context:
Switzerland was the second-highest spending country at $9,044 (£7,100) per person.
The average for wealthy OECD countries (excluding the US) was just $6,850 (£5,400) per person.
The UK? Just $5,493 (£4,300) per person - less than half the US cost, all with a system that covers everyone.
And yet, when the left argues for universal healthcare, it often fails to highlight this economic advantage. Instead of selling the NHS as an efficient, cost-saving system, the debate always seems to revolve around ideology - giving the right an easy opening to frame it as “socialism” (there's that dreaded but often misunderstood word again) rather than simple economic sense.
And sure, The NHS has its problems (Don’t we all?) - But Privatisation Is NOT the Fix.
Of course, no system is perfect. The NHS has real inefficiencies - waiting times are a problem, bureaucratic delays happen, and chronic underfunding has left it struggling in some areas. But what privatisation advocates conveniently ignore is that privatised healthcare doesn’t eliminate inefficiencies - it just makes them someone else’s financial problem.
Sponsored Ad:
The 'Health' Economic Argument That Never Lands
What makes this policy particularly hard to explain is that healthcare isn’t just about individual costs - it’s also about overall economic productivity and national wellbeing. A healthier population means:
✔ Fewer work absences → Better for businesses and workers alike.
✔ Lower long-term medical costs → Preventative care is far cheaper than emergency care.
✔ A stronger economy overall → People who aren’t bankrupt from medical bills can actually spend money elsewhere.
But because the right focuses solely on short-term taxation or scream “COMMUNISM” rather than on more complex long-term benefits, their argument is easier to sell.
The Right Wins the Messaging War with Personal Anecdotes, Not Data
The right’s messaging relies heavily on anecdotes. Rather than discussing systemic benefits, they focus on isolated horror stories - like a patient waiting too long for a procedure, while ignoring the countless cases of people in private systems who are denied care entirely due to costs. The emotional appeal of these narratives makes their argument more persuasive, despite the broader facts contradicting them. Don’t agree? Then check out: OECD Health Data – International Comparisons (and yeah, get FUCT).
Affirmative Action
Take affirmative action. I mean, even the name doesn’t scream simplicity! It sounds less like a policy and more like something requiring three committee meetings and a PowerPoint.
It’s a policy designed to correct historical injustices, giving disadvantaged groups a shot at the same opportunities as everyone else. But the right slaps a new label on it - “reverse racism” - and suddenly, Karen from Surrey is convinced she’s a victim of systemic oppression because she didn’t get a job she was wasn't qualified for in the first place. But don’t worry, she’ll definitely be ranting about ‘woke quotas’ on Facebook later, right after posting a minion meme about hard work.
The irony? Well, in fact (and in the US), it’s white women who have been the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action. (Source: Harvard Gazette) But since “reverse racism” hits harder than “gender equity”, the right pretends it’s all about race - which is part of it, but not all.
And let’s not pretend the left doesn’t have its own problems with this. The way affirmative action is framed often makes it sound like a free handout or unfair ‘leg-up’, rather than a correction of systemic barriers. Instead of selling it as ensuring equal access to opportunity, pussy progressives let conservatives control the narrative, reducing it to an argument about who “deserves” what - which is exactly how resentment politics thrives.
But here’s where it gets messy: while affirmative action has undoubtedly helped level the playing field, it has also been missused by corporations as a PR shield. Ever noticed how, after almost every scandal, companies suddenly slap a person of colour in a VP role? That’s not progress, that’s damage control. It’s like a corporate version of "I have Black friends" - only instead of friends, it’s a hastily promoted executive who now gets to sit in on meetings about why the diversity budget is being slashed. (Source: Korn Ferry)
And then there’s the UK angle - which by the way, does not have affirmative action in the same way the US does. Positive discrimination (e.g., quotas) is illegal in the UK, but “positive action” is allowed, meaning employers can encourage underrepresented groups to apply but can’t just hand out jobs based on race or gender. (Source: BCLP Law)
So, is affirmative action necessary? Yes. Is it perfect? Hell no.
But instead of having a real discussion on how to refine it, the debate gets hijacked by bad-faith actors.
They frame it as a zero-sum game - where every gain for one group is a loss for another (are you noticing a ‘theme’ here yet?). And that, my friends, is how you manufacture outrage out of thin air.
Still with me? Well, no medals for that, but let’s move on…
Progressive Taxation: Why the Right’s “Taxation is Theft” Slogan Works
The logic with this is SO straightforward: the rich (or ‘wealthier’), who benefit the most from a stable society, should contribute more to keeping it running. Seems fair, right?
Not if you listen to the right, who shriek about "government theft" and act as though Jeff Bezos is being mugged by a bloke in a balaclava every time tax bills roll around.
Meanwhile, cutting taxes for the wealthy is magically transformed into wealth or “job creation,” despite decades of evidence proving that money at the top tends to just sit there, admiring itself in the mirror.
Factually, except when used for the first time, continually lowering taxes for the rich has rarely - if ever - translated into economic benefits for ordinary people. Instead of trickling down, wealth piles up, nestled comfortably in offshore accounts while public services shoulder the shortfall.
Sponsored Ad:
The Reality of Progressive Taxation
While the right peddles the myth that tax cuts for the wealthy drive economic growth, actual data suggests that countries with stronger progressive taxation tend to have:
✔ Lower income inequality
✔ Higher economic and social mobility
✔ Better-funded public services
For instance, countries like Denmark and Sweden - which have some of the highest tax rates in the world - also score highest on quality of life, happiness, and economic resilience. Their economies aren’t suffocated by high taxes; instead, they benefit from well-funded public infrastructure that drives productivity.
Furthermore, in nations where the rich pay their fair share, we don’t see tons of wealthy people disappearing to some mythical capitalist utopia where they can hoard gold like a dragon in an offshore vault. The idea that taxing the rich will send them ALL packing is one of the right’s laziest scare tactics - one that conveniently ignores the reality that the wealthiest enjoy the infrastructure, societal conditions and legal protections that only well-funded and open states can provide.
When Higher Taxes Go Wrong
To ensure balance, it's worth noting that progressive taxation can backfire when poorly implemented. For example, France’s 75% "super-tax" on millionaires, introduced in 2013, was scrapped after just two years because it led to capital flight. This wasn’t because high taxation inherently kills economies, but rather because the policy was rushed and lacked long-term structural planning. Oh and also, you know, the French...
Similarly, even in Sweden during the 1970s, excessive wealth taxes led to brain drain, where some of the nation’s most successful entrepreneurs simply moved abroad (Yes it does happen sometimes, despite what the left tell you). But rather than ditch progressive taxation altogether, Sweden restructured its tax system to be fairer while still maintaining a strong welfare state.
And this is the real conversation about taxation - not the simplistic “taxation is theft” nonsense, but how to ensure taxation is both fair and functional.
The Right’s Convenient Amnesia on Taxes
The irony of right-wing tax arguments is that the very infrastructure and institutions that allow the for wealthy people to become, well, wealthy - You know, say the courts, policing, stable government, protected trade laws - are all funded by taxation. Yet, the wealthiest individuals and corporations aggressively exploit loopholes to avoid paying their fair share.
If taxation is theft, then a lot of billionaires are burglars with offshore getaway cars, racing to the Cayman Islands while the rest of us pay for their roads, their legal protections, and their government bailouts. Anyway, our mate Gary has some things to say on this;
The Minimum Wage Debate
Even when it comes to the topic of Minimum Wage increases, the right loves to claim that raising the minimum wage will destroy businesses. But funnily enough, whenever wages do go up, tons of businesses don’t collapse (although some that are poorly managed do – but that’s the capitalist’s fault, right? Pah.). Instead, in general, workers have more money to spend and are more productive, which actually boosts local economies.
Take Australia, a country with one of the highest minimum wages in the world. Businesses haven’t fled, unemployment hasn’t skyrocketed, and the economy is generally thriving.
Denmark, where fast-food workers earn nearly triple what their US counterparts make, hasn’t collapsed into economic ruin either (The Guardian). In fact, these higher wages contribute to stronger consumer spending, greater job satisfaction, and lower employee turnover. Meanwhile, in the US, where wages stagnate, workers rely on food stamps just to survive. So much for “wealth creation.”
If raising wages kills jobs, why aren’t Australian businesses dropping like flies?
What makes this issue particularly complex is that economic outcomes depend on multiple factors (funny that) i.e cost of living, productivity, corporate profit margins, and inflation amongst numerous other things. The right wins by focusing on simplistic arguments: “Higher wages = fewer jobs”, ignoring all nuance. The left, meanwhile, has to unpack layers of economic theory just to make their case.
A major strength of the right’s argument is their ability to package and deliver fear, in droves. Small business owners are often the face of their campaign, even though many minimum wage workers are employed by billion-dollar corporations that could easily afford higher wages without blinking. But by shifting the narrative to “protecting small businesses,” they disguise policies that primarily benefit large corporations hoarding record profits. Or they don’t’ disguise anything and they are completely truthful – but you have to admit, their messaging is a whole lot better!?
Left vs Right: The Messaging Wars
The Economy
From wages to the wider economy. The right loves to bang on about “hard work” and “entrepreneurial spirit,” as if everyone starts life with the same resources. In the real world, wealth is mostly a consequence of infrastructure, legal protections, a stable, law-abiding, and forward-thinking society (which the ‘state’ is typically elected to create and maintain), oh, and good old-fashioned generational advantage.
Sure, some people do really well or even get rich through sheer grit and determination (and fair play to them), but most fortunes aren’t built on hustle - they’re built on a foundation of well-placed parents, access to education and opportunity, and tax loopholes the size of small countries. But go ahead, tell a single parent born into poverty, who barely went to school and has been screwed over time and time again to just “hustle harder.”
Sponsored Ad:
The right also thrives on portraying the myth of the self-made billionaire because it’s something that’s aspirational and therefore emotive enough to get people to buy into the idea that they can be too – if they work hard enough.
Take Donald Trump, who just loves to paint himself as a business genius. The catch? His father, Fred Trump, gave him the equivalent of over $400 million in today’s money throughout his lifetime, along with government-backed contracts and a tax avoidance playbook to ensure his “success” (Source: The New York Times - Trump Tax Investigations).
If you start life with a massive interest-free loan from your dad, you’re not self-made. And if you claim you are, then you’re bad at maths, oh and utterly deluded.
But this is why the messaging war is so effective: The right sells individual success stories, while the left is stuck explaining complex economic systems.
If you can reduce economic prosperity down to “work hard and you’ll make it”, then you don’t have to engage with the fact that social mobility is largely a myth for most people. (Source: OECD - Income Inequality and Social Mobility Report)
The problem with progressive arguments is they require engagement beyond knee-jerk reactions. The right sells narratives based on personal victimhood - whether it’s taxes, immigration, or social justice. It’s always framed as you losing something, whether it's your job, your hard-earned money, or, more recently, your national identity.
The left, on the other hand, asks people to think beyond themselves, to understand societal structures and the role of government in shaping fairer systems.
But people generally find it easier to be angry about their taxes than to contemplate wealth disparity or the idea that economic inequality plays a huge factor in whether a society is truly successful or not. And yes, I know I haven’t defined what ‘successful’ is here, but that’s for another time (bugger off already).
But know this: the right wins because they tap into immediate fears, while the left struggles to sell long-term sustainability. The battle isn’t about policy - it’s about immediate fear versus future survival.
The Environment
The right has also masterfully turned "not poisoning the planet" into a political debate. Regulations that curb pollution and tackle climate change are dismissed as "job killers," while fossil fuel giants rake in record profits and the planet burns. Almost the entire global scientific community agrees on the reality of climate change - yet the right ‘pluck out’ so-called ‘evidence to the contrary,’ often from scientists who aren’t even climate experts, and somehow manage to convince half the population that it’s all a hoax.
Ans this is one where I’m going to outright say, climate science is not to be dismissed and if you think otherwise then you know what you can do. I want my grandchildren to have a good life, so do-one if you disagree.
Getting back to it, investing in green energy actually creates jobs - millions of them. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), the renewable energy sector employed 12.7 million people worldwide back in 2021, a number expected to double by 2050 as economies transition away from fossil fuels.
Meanwhile, countries that ignored environmental protections - like the US under Trump (Presidency #1) - saw no economic miracle. Deregulation led to more pollution, more corporate profit-hoarding, and precisely zero benefit for the average worker. But, of course;
“Green Policies Kill Jobs” is catchier than“Climate Catastrophe Will Kill Us All (in the long run)!!.”
And this isn’t just about economic opportunity. Climate change is already costing lives and livelihoods. In 2022 alone, extreme weather events cost the global economy over $300 billion in damages, with droughts, wildfires, and floods displacing millions. But because climate destruction is gradual, it doesn’t trigger the immediate fear response that fuels right-wing messaging. Instead, the right exploits this time lag with gems like
“It was cold last winter, so global warming is fake.”
FUC me, where’s the critical thinking?!?! Cold weather is weather, it shifts DAILY, while climate change refers to long-term shifts. But naturally, the soundbite wins while the science gets ignored.
Sponsored Ad:
Where Green Policies Have Backfired
Alas, I have to be fair, not every green policy has been (or will be) a flawless success. Take Germany’s energy transition - a widely praised shift toward renewable energy. While Germany did increase its reliance on wind and solar, the premature shutdown of nuclear power plants led to an increased dependence on coal, ironically boosting emissions instead of reducing them. And even then – where does all the scaremongering come from with ‘nuclear power' (ahh, this time mostly the left – so they ARE able to hit the sweet spot, occasionally) – but ok, Nuclear Power is probably ‘safer’ than most people realise, damn lefties!
Similarly, while electric vehicles (EVs) are a crucial part of reducing carbon emissions, their actual production isn’t entirely “clean”. Lithium mining - necessary for EV batteries comes with its own environmental and ethical costs, including water depletion, habitat destruction, and exploitative labour conditions in countries like Bolivia, Chile, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is exactly the kind of nuance the right capitalises on - using these challenges as excuses for inaction, rather than reasons to push for better, more sustainable solutions.
The Right’s Forgetfulness
The right sure does love to talk about "future generations" ever notice that? Well except, of course, when it comes to making sure they have a frikkin’ future.
While conservatives are busy warning about how much debt we’ll leave our children, they seem entirely unbothered by the prospect of leaving them a planet with collapsing ecosystems, mass displacement, and resource wars. Priorities, right?
Workers’ Rights and Trade Unions
*Ahem, moving on (some more). Well, trade unions are painted as greedy, corrupt, and dangerous to the economy. Yet, did you know that without them, we wouldn’t have weekends, sick pay, or child labour laws? The right frames striking workers as a potential "cripple" to the economy, and trust me, growing up in the era in Britain that I did, sometimes they bloody can be.
This isn’t new. Divide-and-rule is the oldest trick in the book - from colonial empires to corporate boardrooms, keeping workers fighting each other means those at the top never have to change.
Hypocrisy No Longer Seems to Matter
By example, the right are curiously silent when CEOs siphon millions in bonuses while slashing jobs, freezing wages, and outsourcing work abroad. Take Jeff Fairburn, who walked away with a £75 million bonus while Persimmon cut back on affordable housing projects (The Guardian).
Or Disney’s Bob Chapek, who approved mass layoffs while securing himself a hefty pay rise. Funny how “efficiency” only ever applies to the people doing the real labour. And no, I’m not saying people don’t ‘earn’ their place – perhaps some CEO’s deserve the millions they get paid, and I’ll be the first to admit I’m not smart enough or savvy enough to run a company worth billions. But there’s a but…
Let’s look at a country where strong unions haven’t destroyed the economy. Germany has some of the strongest unions in the world, and yet its economy remains one of the strongest in Europe and the World for that matter.
German trade unions negotiate wages, protect worker rights, and ensure fair conditions - yet the economy still thrives (OECD Labour Market Statistics). Meanwhile, in the UK and the US, where union power has been systematically eroded, we’ve seen rising job insecurity, wage stagnation, and a growing wealth gap (Economic Policy Institute).
And yes, as I’ve alluded to already, there are some good ‘uns out there (at the top), and no, I’m not anti-business, or anti-capitalist, or a communist (see me feeling as though I have to explain myself here against any potential ‘right-labelled smears’? Funny that…), in fact, I’m pro-capitalism - just not unfettered capitalism. However, I’m digressing (forgive me, I’m getting old, oh and FUC you for good measure).
Sponsored Ad:
Resentment Politics: The other Oldest Trick in the Book
Actually, that was a nice segway, as the right also thrives on resentment politics - convincing struggling workers that unionised employees are the real problem, instead of the corporations they work for hoarding wealth or ripping off consumers.
When people start demanding better conditions, the right paints them as entitled. The goal?
Keep people fighting each other, instead of questioning why around half of us are about but one payslip away from financial ruin.
And still, the irony remains: “Unions are bad!” Now excuse me while I enjoy my weekend, sick pay, and pension - all thanks to unions. (so yeah, they can FUC off, can’t they?) Seriously though, look it all up, it’s all out there - unless you've already fallen victim to the death of critical thinking and wear your ignorance as a badge of honour?
Where Left-Wing Messaging has Fallen Apart
While the right wins by oversimplifying, the left loses by failing to make complex ideas digestible (which is the core point I’m trying to get across here, duh!). Let’s review some of what I’ve spoken about - plus a bit more below.
Four key examples:
“Defund the Police” – A slogan so disastrous that even its supporters had to backpedal. Instead of advocating for reform and reallocation, it made the left look anti-law and order, which is politically suicidal. The right didn’t have to do much - just let the phrase hang in the air while middle-class voters imagined The Purge. Well, you numbnuts lefties, if your slogan makes people imagine The Purge, it’s a bad slogan. Seriously, what were ‘they’ thinking here??
Over-reliance on academic jargon – The left loves terms like “structural inequality” and “neoliberal hegemony,” which mean nothing to most people. If the average voter has to Google your slogan, you’ve already lost them. Political messaging works when it’s intuitive and relatable, not when it sounds like a PhD dissertation title.
“Increasing Benefits” – Instead of explaining why social safety nets benefit everyone, the left lets the right control the narrative - framing it as a handout for lazy people rather than an economic stabiliser. But actually, it can mean the opposite if done correctly. Higher benefits can mean more spending power, stronger local economies, and long-term reductions in poverty. But because the messaging is weak, conservatives win by default.
“Democratic Socialism” – Jeez, A branding disaster, much? The left has a nasty habit of marketing socialism in ways that make even moderates panic. The phrase “Democratic Socialism” might make perfect sense to an economist, but to the average voter, it sounds like a gateway drug to full-blown communism. The right simply has to say, “Look at Venezuela,” and suddenly, half the electorate is convinced they’ll be eating out of bins if taxes go up.
Meanwhile, actual socialist policies - like public healthcare, workers’ rights, and strong welfare states exist comfortably in countries like Denmark and Sweden without turning into gulags. But by leading with the word “socialism”, the left invites an uphill battle before they’ve even begun.
The Future of Political Messaging: What the Left Needs to Learn
Well, I’m a big proponent of critical thinking (in case you hadn’t noticed), I’m also a grumpy old stickler who loves to curse and wag my finger, so yes, the left needs to do a hell of a better job if we’re actually going to move away from the sheer divisive type of politics we see today. If the left wants to compete, it needs better messaging, not just better policies.
Four core strategies could be:
1. Frame narratives, not just policies – Instead of just facts and figures, the left needs emotional hooks. Saying “universal healthcare means a mother never has to choose between medicine and rent” is more effective than listing statistics. The right understands this well; they don’t just argue against immigration - they tell stories of one ‘bad immigrant’ and let that define the whole policy debate.
2. Simplify the message – The right thrives on snappy, memorable slogans. The left needs clear, repeatable language that ordinary people can repeat in everyday conversations. Instead of “wealth redistribution as a means of equitable economic justice,” maybe try “billionaires should pay taxes like the rest of us”.
Step one: Stop making slogans that sound like supervillain plans.
3. Reclaim patriotism – The right weaponises nationalism, but the left can redefine what patriotism means - investing in people, in communities, in the future. Public infrastructure, strong schools, universal healthcare - these aren’t handouts; they’re the backbone of a nation that actually cares about its citizens.
Real patriotism isn’t about waving a flag - it’s about making sure everyone has a shot at a decent life.
4. Highlight Economic Benefits – The left needs to be better at framing progressive policies as pro-growth. Instead of “raising the minimum wage is fair,” frame it as “higher wages mean more money circulating in local businesses.” Right now, the right gets to scream “TAXES KILL JOBS!” while the left responds with a 20-slide PowerPoint. Guess which one wins?
What Can be Done Right Now?
Well, Ditch the abstract language – People don’t wake up worrying about “systemic inequality.” Most worry about paying rent/mortgages, staying healthy and keeping their jobs.
Talk to that, you lefty dummies.
Invest in better storytellers – The right has Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and an entire media ecosystem that delivers their talking points in entertaining, digestible formats as well as a news behemoth that can get as cunning as a Fox when it wants to pump out more digestible nonsense (subtle hint). The left needs compelling voices that speak in plain English, not just policy experts.
Call out right-wing messaging tactics directly – Instead of constantly defending, flip the script. “Why do billionaires need tax cuts when they can already afford their own space programs?” Make them justify themselves for once. And who knows, they actually might! Which means the exercise would be a success as it becomes a catalyst for starting a PROPER conversation or DEBATE (now that would be a fine thing).
Be bold, not defensive – The left often apologises for its own policies before even making the case. Stop playing not to lose - start playing to win.
The reality is this: most people aren’t ideologues - they’re just trying to get by, life is a fuc’ing struggle a LOT of the time. The side that speaks to these struggles in the simplest, most direct way will almost always win. And until the left figures that out, they’ll keep bringing spreadsheets to a street fight.
The Final Challenge: Understanding Requires Effort
The right has made a science out of selling simplicity. But the truth is, simplicity is often a lie or at best, a half-baked truth. Reality is complicated, and the solutions to our biggest problems aren’t going to fit neatly on a bumper sticker, in a tweet or a caption on a ‘video short’.
Next time someone says universal healthcare is tyranny, ask them if they’d rather die free or live with medical bills. And when someone says; ‘Taxation is theft,’ just ask them if they’d rather crowdfund their own roads or pay thousands up-front before the fire service turn on their hoses to save their burning house.
Well done for making it to the end, I hope you're feeling like getting some more FUCT.
See ya.
Sponsored ad:
Further Reading & Sources
No need for these today – everything has been placed in the blog post for you, didn’t you notice? (smh)