[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning again everyone. Now that the house has passed that physical infrastructure bill from President Biden, it remains even more uncertain whether the big human infrastructure initiative will have the votes to pass in either house of Congress. Remember, progressives in the house had wanted to wait to approve physical infrastructure which had bipartisan support until they had guarantees that the human infrastructure one would pass too.

They did not get that before Friday night's physical infrastructure vote, so the campaign for the other bill goes on, but here is one obstacle to getting it passed that we've mentioned before on this show but we'll focus a little more closely on right now. President Biden and other Democrats may not be communicating clearly enough what it is. It doesn't even have a consistent name that they call it by. The bill includes universal pre-K, childcare subsidies, paid family leave, expanded home health aid access for seniors and disabled people.

It originally had free community college, that got negotiated out. It also has climate provisions. It's a lot to give a name to but even the president calls his own bill different things on different days. Just taking three examples from this summer, here he is on July 7th calling it the Build Back Better plan.

President Biden: There's a lot more the agreement is going to do to encourage the physical infrastructure, lays a foundation for a strong and durable and sustainable competitive economy, but what I want to talk to you about today is human infrastructure. It's essential to that foundation as well.

Brian Lehrer: All right. Actually in that one, he didn't call it Build Back Better, he called it "human infrastructure." See, even I'm confused by the president and the clips of him that we pulled. In this one, he does call it not human infrastructure, Build Back Better.

President Biden: We have to get to work on the next critical piece of my agenda, my Build Back Better plan. Making housing more affordable, is so unaffordable for so many Americans. Providing clean energy tax cuts. Including homeowners to make energy efficient improvements in their homes.

Brian Lehrer: And he also refers to it by another name that we've heard a lot, a Reconciliation Bill.

President Biden: In addition to the bipartisan infrastructure agreement that I believe we're going to get done, I'm here to make a case for the second critical part of my domestic agenda. It's a combination of parts of my American Jobs Plan that were essential and not included in the bipartisan infrastructure plan, as well as my American Families Plan. In Washington, they call it a Reconciliation Bill.

Brian Lehrer: He actually had two more names for it in that clip "Reconciliation Bill" and his "American Families Plan." That's another name, he hasn't been using that one lately. Same president, same bill, four names, none of them all that clear. Now, we also often hear it referred to as a Social Spending Bill. You probably have been hearing that one a lot lately. A Safety Net Bill. A Safety Net Plus Climate Bill even by its original price tag, the $3.5 trillion bill. Here, meet the press host, Chuck Todd, does that with Senator Joe Manchin.

Chuck Todd: You could support this $3.5 trillion plan--

Senator Joe Manchin: No, I could not support $ 3.5 trillion [crosstalk]

Chuck Todd: Okay so that is-- All right, now we're getting [unintelligible 00:03:49]. It is not a time issue, it really is a cost issue?

Brian Lehrer: All right. Even though the cost over 10 years, not one year, is the number that he said, that's what it was originally, and it might not increase the deficit by even a dollar because of how it would be paid for. Now it's been cut in half anyway to $1.75 trillion over 10 years, but the point is the Democrats seem to have a messaging problem around what could be the most important piece of social legislation since social security.

Let's talk about messaging that bill, and Democratic and Republican messaging generally after significant Republican victories and Democratic losses in the elections last week and going into the crucial 2022 midterms. With us for this is communications researcher and progressive candidates' campaign advisor Anat Shenker-Osorio, founder of the consulting firm with her initials, ASO Communications, and host of the podcast Words to Win By just beginning its second season. Anat, thanks for coming on. Welcome to WNYC.

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Thanks so much for having me.

Brian Lehrer: Let's start with this, Build Back Better, Human Infrastructure, Reconciliation, American Families Plan, Social Spending Bill. Are you as surprised as I am that it doesn't have a single or a clear name after all this time?

Anat Shenker-Osorio: No, I've been alive for more days than one, so I'm not surprised. I'm also not surprised that in this discussion Democrats are committing the cardinal sin of trying to sell the recipe instead of selling the brownie. I often tell my clients, "Do not take your policy out in public. It is unseemly. The name of your policy should never be your message. Your message should be what the policy will deliver in people's lives," because we see over and over again that even when we do a super simple wording experiment, say, how many people support let's call it paid family leave. Most Americans do.

When instead we say you're there the first time your newborn smiles, approval goes up, up, up. Same thing with raising wages or raising the minimum wage. When we reframe it as everyone has paid enough to care for their families, support goes up. We need to talk about what these policies deliver in the tangible lived experience of our audiences, not the names of the policies within them.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, here is one way you can participate for this conversation. If you're a supporter of this whatever it's called bill, you suggest the name for it, and Words to Win By host and communications specialist Anat Shenker-Osorio, will see what she thinks of it. 212-433-WNYC. Who wants to take a shot at naming or renaming this bill or giving it a seventh name, an eighth name as it enters a make or break few weeks. Now that it's out there all by itself with physical infrastructure no longer attached. 212-433-WNYC. Anyone want to try to name or rename this bill? 212-433-9692 or tweet, if you rather do it on Twitter, you can definitely get a name for the bill in in 280 characters or less.

Tweet @BrianLehrer. I'll start, I've joked or half-joked on the air that they should call it the, "Give your kid free pre-K and keep grandma out of a nursing home bill." Do you think something along those lines would start a different, maybe more accurate national conversation?

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Yes. I mean, I think what you're doing in that phrase, although I'm guessing the URL might be a little bit clunky, Brian, just guessing, is that you are indeed following that first rule that I set out where you are discussing it in terms of how it would feel in your life. I think, just to be clear, the laying out of the challenge of the name which is different to how do you describe it; how do you talk about it; what is the second, third, fourth sentence, is that as you've already implied and it's just absolutely true.

Repetition is absolutely essential. Even if there wasn't a perfect overarching name, and by the way, I've got a couple in my pocket, but I'm withholding them because I want to hear from other people, I find that fascinating.

Brian Lehrer: Will you do a reveal at the end of the segment?

Anat Shenker-Osorio: I will do a reveal, but even with that reveal, what we find in message testing and experimentation is that there is a specific reason why repetition is so important. Repetition is in and of itself persuasive. Messages that are more familiar to people are rated to be more desirable, more credible, people like them better, because what repetition does is it creates what we call cognitive ease. It is that experience of when somebody goes da-da-da-da-da and your brain does the da-da. You are not having to work for it.

You are simply filling in the rest of the name, and so this is why, for example, corporations that have, let's take Nike, had Just Do It as their slogan since the time they were founded, are never going to change that because they've created a mental imprint. The exercise of renaming the thing in a way is sort of a problem. I think we just need to call it Build Back Better even if that's not my favorite name only because there is some level of existing familiarity and we need that repetition effect.

Brian Lehrer: They do seem to be landing on Build Back Better recently. Is that your impression?

Anat Shenker-Osorio: It is my impression. It's also-- It's a carrying through of what the campaign slogan was. That is what they eventually landed and cemented on, and so this is meant to be, part of the argument that Biden and Democrats are making, is that he was elected, this essentially is his mandate. If you want to be able to make that argument that this is what turned people out in record numbers as we saw in 2020 then. Having some sort of harkening back to what was said during the campaign is useful.

Brian Lehrer: Let's see what our listeners are coming up with. Here's Max in Boerum Hill. Max, you're on WNYC. You've got a name for that bill?

Max: Yes. Thanks Brian. Thanks for having me on. Been thinking about this for weeks and I came up with the Rising Tide Bill, would've been a great name. I know changing it now would be not helpful, but I thought the Rising Tide Bill, because it lifts all boats, and that might address some of the concerns about the tax hikes on the rich because they still would benefit from the economic lift that the whole thing would get.

Brian Lehrer: All right. Interesting. The Rising Tide Bill, although that makes me think of, "Let's do nothing about climate change and then we'll have rising sea levels and all the tides will be--" Scout in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC. Hi Scout. You got one?

Scout: I have a few that are kind of similar. Just thinking about alternatives, like Social Infrastructure or Wellness Infrastructure or really any kind of variation that's people-centered, because I think that that's really the theme that's missing. I just have to say that perspective of offering the ingredients rather than the dish being a bad strategy is fascinating.

Brian Lehrer: Social Infrastructure or Wellness Infrastructure.

Anat Shenker-Osorio: I think that what Scout has said is just spot on in terms of putting people at the very center of it. I think what's challenging with the word "infrastructure" is first of all, it's very high register. It's not in common speech. It is common for political commentators and radio hosts, but as far as the working vocabulary of most Americans, most voters, it's not there, it's also not an imageable thing.

It doesn't feel cuddly. It is different to say protect the water you drink and the bridges you drive on or deliver internet to our farms and new equipment to our ports, which again are not an overarching name. They're a descriptor. Like I said, they're the second, third, et cetera sentence, but putting people at the center is absolutely essential.

Brian Lehrer: Peter in Manhattan, you have a name for this bill?

Peter: Is that me?

Brian: Yes.

Peter: Oh, cool. I was thinking Fair Deal. I know Harry Truman used it, but only you and I are old enough to remember that, but that's about dealing right with people in all areas of life instead of being specific. "Fair deal."

Brian Lehrer: Thank you very much. Actually, I would bet that neither of us are actually old enough to remember the Truman administration, but I guess if we didn't get it through, it's still hanging out there and up for grabs. Robert in Manhattan, you're on WNYC. Hi Robert.

Robert: Hi. How are you? My suggestion would be "Bring Americans up to speed" or "Bring America up to speed."

Brian Lehrer: "Up to speed." [crosstalk] Thank you very much. We're having fun with the callers, a little naming game here, but is there a legitimate question in this case of whether any good messaging could get passed, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, if they just have political or campaign funding interests in blocking the thing that are too strong for the other side to overcome with any kind of rhetoric or messaging or communications? How much can messaging do in a case like this?

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Yes, it's a great question. I'm going to take the question a step back, if you allow, which is that, I would absolutely love to live in a world-- It is my fantasy. These are small fantasies. It's going to reveal a lot about me. It is my fantasy to live in a world where what people think about Democrats is made out of what Democrats say or even what they do, but I live in America.

In America, the former Senator from MasterCard and people who are in tight with Wall Street get called socialists, and that label sticks. I could go on and on. What we see in our public opinion research is that people's formulation of what Democrats stand for, what they believe in, et cetera are largely shaped not by actual Democratic utterances but rather by the media and of course by what Republican opponents say about them.

Why do I bring this up in answer to your question? The theory of change question that you're essentially asking is, what would it actually take to exert enough pressure on Manchin and Sinema, or dare we even hope bigger, somebody like Lisa Murkowski or somebody like Mitt Romney or somebody who at least genuflects at the altar of being some sort of reasonable human being despite what their party credentials might be, what would it take?

The question is, where have we seen in the past where people have kind of either broken party lines or have changed their minds in a visible way. To me, really what is essential is that right now, a lot of the media reporting on these negotiations on the sausage making, just as you played in that Biden clip, the idea of calling it a reconciliation bill, can we think of anything more boring than taking-- The only thing more boring than taking your policy out in public, as your message is taking your process out in public, that is just death. No one needs to be talking about that. That definitely is not inspiring in terms of a message.

The question is really what would it take and could there be enough unrelenting public pressure? Which honestly we haven't seen that much of and part of that is COVID but if you look at what was happening, let's say around the ACA fight, when the Trump administration wanted to repeal it, and people were physically putting their bodies in the chambers and we were seeing mobilization and activation, what would that take? I think at least one element of that is that this media story around conflict, the media likes to talk about conflict. It's understandable. It is engaging and sexy.

Right now, they've cast this conflict as "Democrats in fighting, the moderates, the progressives. Who is doing what, who won't vote on what, who's stopping what?" As Democratic activists, grassroots strategists from the Left, what we need to understand is that we're not going to eliminate that media hunger for a conflict story. What we need to do is accurately recast it because there is in fact a division.

That is a division between the very wealthiest few and the politicians they've paid for and the rest of us, the rest of Americans of all walks of life of every color, creed, and ZIP code who massively support this bill, who want our children to get and stay well, who want our parents to be able to buy their prescription drugs, who want to be able to see a doctor and not get sick at the thought of a bill that will come later.

That is the division we need to be talking about in order to hold all of the politicians, not just Manchin and Sinema, because let's remember, it's not just them, it is all of the Republicans to hold their feet to the fire and to be asking them questions, "Why are you blocking what your voters want? Why are you standing in the way of people being able to get and stay well? Why are you taking insulin out of people's hands?" If we had media actually asking hard questions, not just of Manchin and Sinema but of every single Republican, then I think we would be having a very different conversation.

Brian Lehrer: Now that people have had some time to think about this question of what would you rename this bill, we're getting a lot in. I'm going to cut through a whole bunch of callers really fast and see what people came up with. The first set of callers, of course, they kind of blinked and came up with something right away, so we got what we got in the first set. Now that people have had some more time to think about it, they're coming up with some other things. Let's go through a bunch. John in Slate Hill, you're on WNYC. What's your name of the bill?

John: My name for the bill would be the American Affordability Act, [unintelligible 00:18:47] to the alliterative nature and try and get it into people's mouths and have something that sounds good and also talks about more what the bill is. It's making general life more affordable for the average person.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you very much. I like that one, American Affordability Act. Jean in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC. What would you call the bill?

Jean: Is that me?

Brian Lehrer: It is you.

Jean: Oh, sorry, I didn't catch the name. I would call it the Real Make America Great Again Bill.

Brian Lehrer: [laughs] Thank you very much. A little contrast there with a certain person. Chuck in Holbrook. What would you call the bill?

Chuck: I'm quickly going to suck up and say if we called it the Brian Lehrer Bill, everyone would love it. Okay. Now, that being said-- [crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: That would go down. Really down.

Chuck: Oh, come on now.

Brian Lehrer: Go ahead.

Chuck: Okay. Here's what I got. The Lifting American Families Act. You're saying what you're doing in the name, and more importantly, you have an attack line built in. "Kyrsten Sinema, we are trying to lift American families. You want to hold them down. We're trying to lift your finances. Joe Manchin wants to hold them down. We're trying to lift your quality of life--" [crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: I'm going to leave it there for time and pace but we've got your name there, the Lifting American Families Act. Also interesting. Chris in Maplewood has one. Hi Chris. What would you call the bill?

Chris: What about the Generational Solidarity Bill or the Cross Generation Bill?

Brian Lehrer: Another interesting one. The Generational Solidarity Bill. All right. You know what? We're going to stop there so we can get a couple of more questions in with communications consultant Anat Shenker-Osorio before we run out of time. I thought that set was more interesting than the first set and that they came up with some things that are interesting, like that last one, the Generational, what was it? Generational Solidarity Bill, because it's about the old people, it's about the newborns. What did you think of anything in there? Or the American Affordability Act, that first one in the set?

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Yes. There were some really-- some people trying to put me out of business, clearly.

Brian Lehrer: Or get jobs with your consulting firm.

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Yes, [crosstalk] job. What is interesting about the last one in particular, and many of them were really great. The alliteration is beautiful. Moving from BBB to AAA, that seems like an upgrade. Is one of the things that we're seeing most across the projects that I do, essentially we're in nightly focus groups between everything that we're looking at and fielding weekly different kinds of quantitative instruments, and one of the major themes that we are getting from our voters besides just an understandable, really deep, entrenched malaise and feeling of despondency, challenge, so on, which is really, really challenging and hard.

Yes, it's a hard thing to confront, but what we're seeing is this desire to move forward and a sense that Republicans want to send us backwards, we need to move forward, we want to move ahead, we want to move past these things, and so anything that creates that sense of propulsive forward motion, I think that I would probably, if again we were playing the name game, which I'm actually not encouraging us to do because of the need to repeat.

You just got you pick a thing and stick with it even if it's not your favorite thing at this point because it's so far down the road, but "Generations Ahead" I think is sort of the simpler version than "Generational Solidarity." Again, we always like to use words that are at a lower lexical level.

Brian Lehrer: Cool. Now, you promised that before the end of the segment, you would reveal a name or some of the names that you've been fantasizing about if it was time to rename the bill.

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Yes.

Brian Lehrer: What you got?

Anat Shenker-Osorio: If there were time, I want to be clear and go on record, I'm actually not recommending that for the repetition point. I will tell you but first, if okay, I will ask you if you had to guess, when we ask Americans in poll after poll after poll, focus group after focus group after focus group, what one value do you associate most closely with the United States? What would you guess always rises to the top regardless of demographic group? What one value? What do people say?

Brian Lehrer: Optimism?

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Good guess. It's freedom. The value that people across racial groups, across other demographics, age, most closely associated with the United States is freedom. That is a value that the Right has claimed and that the Left has been too scared to re-- to utilize, and that is really to our peril. Freedom is the value that helped win us marriage equality, the shift from "Right to Marry" to "Freedom to Marry" was incredibly important in that campaign, as were other linguistic fixes. Freedom Core Value in the Civil Rights Movement, Freedom Summer, Freedom Riders.

Again, if it were way back in time and we were playing the name game a long time ago, I think the encapsulation of this bill is freedom to thrive.

Brian Lehrer: Really interesting. Really there's a larger message there. By the way, I say "optimism" as something that historically was associated with America as an immigrant country, for those who immigrated here voluntarily, something, come and make a better life, optimism has been associated. Clearly optimism is in pretty short supply these days, but you want to take back Freedom from the Right basically? Because they own it right now.

Anat Shenker-Osorio: I don't-- They utilize it more frequently, but even in more recent testing, for example, when we're looking at how to make a full throated case for equitable, fully-funded, race forward public education, where we actually teach our children the truth, the good and bad of our history which by the way Americans favor in huge numbers. Talking about the freedom to learn, children deserve the freedom to learn the truth of our past, so they can reckon with our mistakes, understand our present and create a better future.

That is a wildly popular message. It is not coincidental that freedom to vote is the name of the newer form of what was the For the People Act. That name was very deliberately chosen. I would say that the Left-- it's not that we need to reclaim and that the Right has it entirely. Freedom has always been a contested value, Freedom From, Freedom To as you're very familiar, it's just that the Left has sort of underarticulated. It's been there in our arguments. We just need to bring it to the top, again, that would also land us that value of repetition if we had freedom to vote, freedom to thrive, freedom to learn.

Brian Lehrer: 30 seconds left in the segment, tell people what they would hear if they listen to your podcast.

Anat Shenker-Osorio: They would hear amazing stories of progressive wins around the world and the words and strategies we use to deliver them.

Brian Lehrer: A messaging expert given 30 seconds to promote her podcast, does it in 10, proving the worth of Anat Shenker-Osorio, founder of the consulting firm ASO Communications and host of the podcast Words to Win By. This has been really interesting. Hope to have you back.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you so much. Thank you for including your listeners' voices. They're obviously brilliant.

 

Copyright © 2021 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.