messaging: i’m obsessed.

Went to a really interesting event this morning at the Economic Policy Institute on “Engaging Younger Voters on Social Security.” I learned so much about the Social Security program, what it stands for and how it works. I’m pretty much an expert now; watch for a new post on IWPR’s Social Security Media Watch Project blog summarizing the event and what it meant to me. In the meantime, check out “A Young Person’s Guide to Social Security,” co-written by one of the panelists, Kathryn Edwards, who was an extremely impressive economic policy researcher (and probably like three years older than me, sigh). Her guide, and her effective way of framing Social Security as relevant to young people, was totally inspiring. Seriously, check it out.

But this post isn’t about Social Security itself. It’s about how fascinated I was by one of the other panelists’ presentations. Celinda Lake is a hugely established Democratic strategist, advisor and pollster who recently conducted a study on younger voters’ feelings about Social Security with her group Lake Research Partners.

While most advocates believe younger voters have little investment or interest in Social Security, Lake’s survey surprisingly found that voters under 30 are almost as likely as retirees to value Social Security. She speculated that this result is related to the youngest working generation’s difficulty in finding work in a struggling economy throughout their early careers. They realize the necessity of a safety net, a retirement insurance program that helps them rest assured they’ll be able to maintain a stable lifestyle as they age.

The most interesting part of Lake’s survey to me were her results on which messages in favor of strengthening Social Security were most effective for younger voters. Some of her findings:

  • Younger voters responded well to the framing of Social Security as a “promise” made to all generations to provide a basic and reliable retirement
  • Younger voters overwhelmingly sided with a candidate who would close the Social Security payroll tax loophole (it exempts those making over $106,800 from paying Social Security taxes on their income above that threshold) over a candidate who wants to raise the retirement age to 69 and make other cuts to Social Security
  • A whopping 73% of voters surveyed found the following statement to represent their views extremely well: “Social Security money belongs to the people who have worked hard all their lives and contributed to the program, not to the government. We must protect Social Security from cuts that will hurt beneficiaries, we cannot let Congress try to use Social Security as a piggy bank.”
  • Other successful messaging themes: Congress should have other priorities, like regulating Wall Street; Congress should try revenue increases rather than entitlement cuts; cutting Social Security is a broken promise; the government should prioritize paying back the$2.6 trillion it took from the Social Security trust fund, just like it prioritized bailing out Wall Street

This survey was interesting to me mostly because I kept thinking about my experiences volunteering with Planned Parenthood in grassroots activism efforts like phone banking and canvassing. At all of these events I’ve been handed a list of “talking points” instructing me how to frame my viewpoint most effectively to voters. I always knew these talking points were researched by some outside consulting group that probably conducted focus groups and phone surveys, but the event this morning was my first detailed view of this type of research.

Planned Parenthood has been very effective in framing its recent right-wing attacks as attacks on family planning services, necessary for everyone, as opposed to a dialogue about the morality of abortion. Polls have shown that Americans understand Planned Parenthood’s services are primarily focused on unplanned pregnancy prevention and education, and they reject efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. Reading about this successful messaging is why I wasn’t too surprised to see that Planned Parenthood’s most recent campaign is in favor of eliminating co-pays for birth control (sign the petition!) under the new health reform guidelines. What a great strategy – Planned Parenthood realized the dialogue about its services had turned in its favor, and decided it was the right time to go for it with another push in favor of protecting reproductive health.

Love it! This type of messaging/strategic communications research is really interesting to me. I’m known to be a person who loves to talk about feminism to, say, my random beer pong partner on a Friday night in a way that’s simple and identifiable. As a peer educator, I love experimenting with how to best help participants understand the culture of violence and get inspired to take action to help change it. I’m hoping to do a little investigating as to how I could possibly translate those small-scale interactions to my career.

Again, every day I’m amazed at how much I’m learning about myself and my future in this city.


welcome to DC, rep. kathy hochul!

Unfortunately blurry photo of me, a fellow IWPR intern and new Rep. Kathy Hochul! (camera was malfunctioning, oh well)

I was lucky enough to attend a reception at the PPFA office Monday night welcoming New York Rep. Kathy Hochul to Washington, D.C. as another strong pro-choice voice in the House! Not only were there heavy hors d’oeuvres and free booze, I got to meet Rep. Hochul, who was a smart, funny woman with a strong political background.

She spoke to the crowd, which was comprised of advocates from progressive and women’s interest groups who all contributed to her campaign effort. For the first time ever, Planned Parenthood “embedded” one of its field organizers into a political campaign, ensuring that a reproductive rights expert was advising Hochul on strategy. Hochul said she knew the huge, supportive network of women’s organizations that threw its support behind her was a key factor leading to her important victory, and that she wouldn’t forget that support. “I was getting checks from states I’d never been to before!” she said.

Another grainy photo of Rep. Hochul speaking to the reception attendees.

Hochul recounted her very first vote – rejecting the controversial budget proposal of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, whom she said still won’t meet her eyes on the House floor.

Hochul was at one time a legslative aide for former New York Sen. Daniel Moynihan and recalled an era when she’d often be sent to Republican Senators’ offices to collaborate with their staffers on bipartisan solutions to policy debates. She said she hoped to use that philosophical mindset to work with all members of the House to achieve compromise. But one issue Hochul didn’t seem willing to compromise on was health care – she ran her campaign on her commitment to protect Medicare and Medicaid, her surprising success in a typically conservative district interpreted by some to be a public referendum on the Ryan budget plan.

I met a fabulous UNC alum at the event, too – she was a policy adviser for PPFA and told me all about her career path (which was definitely indirect) and invited me to stay in touch. Networking is so much easier when you’ve had a couple glasses of wine…


new faces, more voices session 2

Note–this post is long! You’ll probably prefer to skim it; I didn’t try to shorten because I wanted everything here for my own reference later (you know, since I’ll probably lose my actual notes)!

I’ve been meaning to create a post from my notes from the second session of the New Faces, More Voices program for a few days now. The topic of the program, which took place on Thursday, June 16, and was so exciting it inspired me to create this blog, was “Help on the Home Front: Effective Advocacy Strategies for Domestic Women’s Issues” and featured a panel of three fabulous career feminists who talked about their work and current challenges for American women’s rights. I think some of their discussion was awesome and want to share it with folks back in Chapel Hill!

The first speaker was Rachel Lyons, Work and Family Government Affairs Manager for the National Partnership for Women and Families, a group that advocates for U.S. women’s economic justice. The National Partnership is particularly concerned with workplace and work-family balance issues and frequently works with my internship organization, IWPR. Lyons got her start working on Democratic political campaigns before turning her career toward policy. She suggested that campaign work was a great “crash course” for activists because it helps them get a feel for the political dynamics they’re up against.

Lyons explained some of the work the National Partnership has done for specific policy goals. She explained that current workplace policy in the U.S. doesn’t reflect the reality of the work force–even though 50 percent of the work force is now comprised of women, and many of them serve as heads of household, workplace policy still reflects a time when women stayed home caring for children while their husbands worked. This antiquated assumption about the nuclear family as the norm is why the U.S. has embarrassingly sub-par provisions for maternity and sick leave, as well as pay equity, compared to other developed countries.

Paid sick leave is one of the National Partnership’s most important policy areas. It has pushed for the Healthy Families Act, which would allow for seven paid sick days for full-time workers, at the federal level as well as simultaneous action at the state and local levels, a strategic move that allows for smaller “testing grounds” for new legislation before pushing for broader approval. Sick leave was approved in San Francisco in 2006 (and was proved successful) and was passed in Connecticut only a few weeks ago. Ballot initiatives in Seattle, Denver and New York City are pending, as is legislation in Philadelphia.

Lyons also mentioned the National Partnership’s work attempting to expand the Family Medical Leave Act, pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (side note: I met Lilly this year! Maybe I’ll post the photo soon), and collaborate on the Wal-Mart class action lawsuit for pay equity. She said she thought the next battle for women would be against pregnancy discrimination.

Pat Ruess was the second speaker. She’s a lobbyist for the YWCA who served for many years as policy adviser and lobbyist for NOW. Ruess is an expert on the Violence Against Women Act and was instrumental in its passage. Not only is she a trailblazing feminist, she’s a total badass. Ruess described the devastating history of the violence prevention movement and her personal story of radicalization, which started with her advocacy to establish the first domestic violence shelter in Montana. She became a strong anti-violence advocate and worked with the NOW Legal Defense Fund to build a coalition that would help pass VAWA, which would win federal funding for shelters across the country. It wasn’t until then-Senator Joe Biden became interested in violence against women advocacy in the late 1980s (supposedly after someone approached him at a fundraising dinner and told him his daughter was at risk, just like every other young woman in America) that the proposed bill began to make headway. VAWA was originally bipartisan when it was signed under President Clinton in 1994, and it was passed nearly unanimously through both houses.

But now VAWA faces its fourth reauthorization in a hostile environment for women’s rights. Ruess hopes this time to include special provisions for women in ethnic communities, disabled women, older women, teenagers (where are their resources if they’re in abusive relationships that aren’t necessarily domestic?), Native American women (who suffer sexual violence at two times the rate of the general population), women in the armed forces and members of the LGBTQ communities. She hopes these topics will be included in an omnibus reauthorization bill, but since VAWA has unfortunately become a partisan issue in the years following its first passage, her goals may become too controversial for acceptance. You know, because disabled women, old women, young women and lesbian women just don’t quite count much to legislators these days…

The final speaker was Angela Sutton, Senior Health Policy Associate for the Black Women’s Health Imperative. Sutton described her organization’s extensive advocacy for reproductive justice, explaining the intersecting oppressions that must be considered when fighting for justice, as well as its work on maternal health and breast cancer. Black women are four times more likely to suffer maternal mortality and are disproportionately diagnosed with breast cancer.

Right now the Health Imperative is focusing on the budget negotiations and controversial debate regarding the level of the debt ceiling. It also is concerned with cuts to Medicaid, which would severely limit access to family planning and reproductive health services for low-income women. The organization has begun campaigns working to address sociocultural breast cancer disparities (check out “Moving Beyond Pink“) and to combat the negative anti-choice messages recently targeted at black and Hispanic women.

Sutton said one of the lessons she’s learned from the attacks on reproductive rights in recent months is that when the national temperature is hostile toward progressive policies for reproductive health, even if it’s possible to stave off federal attacks, they’ll achieve far more success at the state level.

When asked about how to gain victories in troubling times like these, Lyons said the National Partnership sometimes attempts smaller victories at administrative levels. An example would be the Department of Education’s recent statement to universities on their responsibility to enforce Title IX regulations when dealing with sexual assaults on campus.

Ruess said violence prevention advocates at universities should collaborate on their efforts to identify weaknesses and define need.

Check out the hashtag for New Faces, More Voices at #2011nfmv. I’m trying to get some other members of the program to collaborate on it!