When Amazon began blocking the sale of e-cigarettes on its platform, other retailers were poised to jump in. Sadly, I was not nimble enough to get in on the gold rush of off-brand mango flavored vape pens, as my Malaysian supplier was dealing with an outbreak of diphtheria in his factory. But I vowed to be ready the next time.
And now is that time, because when Jeff Bezos be-zigs, I be-zag. I was considering opening a chain of hardcover-only book stores that offer above manufacturers-suggested-retail price books, but Bezos’ spiked the Washington Post’s presidential endorsement and I pounced. The Gist, for the first time in its 11-year history, has issued a presidential endorsement.
Why Is the Gist Endorsing Now and Never Before?
Ok, I admit it. There are reasons for my first-ever endorsement other than running the counter-Bezos playbook; reasons that are personal and professional.
Professionally, I’ve always hated newspaper endorsements. They’re pompous, tedious, obvious, and are written more for the grandees on editorial boards than the public. Most endorsements I’ve read are litanies that read as prosecutor’s briefs. Newspaper editorials are an exercise in their authors being able to say, years later, “See, I told you.”
I wanted to compose my editorial as an exercise in saying “See, I hear you.” An essay of persuasion must meet the audience where it is. It should concede points, express shared values, offer a different way of looking at facts and events, and make convincing predictions. I don’t say, “I don’t understand how YOU can vote for such a man.” I don’t say, “Any decent person MUST stand up to these excesses.” My phrasing is always about my following up on my own convictions and explains where my beliefs lead me.
In general I think “I couldn’t live with myself if…” arguments are much more inviting than “how could you live with yourself when…” arguments.
The most persuasive parts of a good essay are never adjectives. This is from the Star Ledger’s endorsement of Harris, or more precisely, their un-endorsement of Donald Trump:
The most powerful indictment comes from those who have worked with him closely, shell-shocked Republicans who joined his administration and came away horrified after spending years inside the chemical spill of his wretched presidency.
There is no way you will convince a possible Trump voter with this language. A plausibly persuadable Trump voter will remember that “wretched” chemical spill of his first term as a positive time; though I do concede that New Jersey’s #1 daily does have standing to use this analogy.
Are There Actually Any Plausibly Persuadable Trump Voters?
Well if they aren’t, I have no idea why the campaigns are desperately barnstorming the country. I know the plausibly persuadable Trump voter exists because I’ve met her, I play fantasy football with him, and some are friends of mine. The particular variety of plausibly persuadable Trump voter in my life over-indexes for pro-Israel sentiment, and is less likely to be motivated by an anti-Puerto Rican joke than another plausibly persuadable Trump voter ,who is, Puerto Rican. But they do exist. They need reasons to reject Trump. Those reasons are most likely rooted in the question of “what will he do for me?”, versus “can you provide me with an exhaustive list of all the bad things he’s ever said?” The path toward persuasion is to meet the persuadable at their points of conflict. Newspapers seem indifferent to this task. This Philadelphia Inquirer endorsement, featuring talk of a “complot” (it’s an archaic word meaning plot or conspiracy) will change no minds.
The plausibly persuadable believe that Trump is better on economic issues, and that Harris is worse on stemming the leftist creep they see emerging from the Democratic party. Here is perhaps the most conciliatory sentence in the NY Time’s endorsement of Kamala Harris
Yet even when the former president’s overall aim may have had merit, his operational incompetence, his mercurial temperament and his outright recklessness often led to bad outcomes.
I agree, more or less, but then again I was already in agreement. I tried to avoid the types of arguments that would inspire nods from the faithful, but not confront the cross-pressured. To do this you have to actually understand what a plausibly persuadable Trump voter might react to your argument. Take this from the Johnstown Pennsylvania’s Tribune Democrat
Many of Trump’s statements, beyond the overt promises of revenge, range from the rambling and bizarre – such as his off-color salute to Arnold Palmer’s anatomy at a recent Latrobe rally – to the divisive and outrageous, such as his evidence-free claim that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, were stealing and eating household pets.
This is not a person who can be trusted with the most important job in the world.
I imagine almost every plausibly persuadable Trump voter will answer “But he already held the most important job in the world! And the world didn’t blow up!! And you warned me back then in the same dire tones.”
The crafters of that editorial, writing in the biggest city in Cambria County which went for Trump over Biden 68% to 31% in 2020, surely know many Trump voters. But their editorial made arguments that couldn’t possibly convince them.
I tried to make three main points against Trump, including one about how life would be better under Harris. I added a few policy areas for the like-minded to know where I stand. But I was offering a few ideas for the plausibly persuadable to latch onto. Will it work? You be the judge! A more realistic answer is: almost certainly not! But, unlike with vape pens and the hard cover-ony bookstore, I can at least say I tried.
The Gist's First Ever Political Endorsment (Video)