Read on Twitter
Pardon me as I have no special background in this, but it seems like there are two types of political messaging activity: 1. Aiming to find the political mainstream and hold it, and 2. Aiming to stimulate some kind of political extreme you can exploit. /1
Of the two types of political messaging, 1. "Aim to find the/a political mainstream and hold it" is what centrist parties do, as well as all types of public service institutions, sometimes with a bit of nudging added in. /2
The other type of political messaging 2. "Aim to identify, stimulate, provoke and heighten some kind of extreme you can exploit" is the zone of non-centrist parties both on the right and on the left. That is not necessarily as unprincipled as it sounds--though it can be /3
If your party genuinely believes a relatively extreme solution is required for existing problems, trying to education people about that solution--and then to incidentally benefit from their interest in it--is as legitimate of a political motivation as any. /4
If you and your party don't really believe in the extreme solution--but just identify it as a way to kick up some discontent you can then bank on, as the only ones willing to "go there"--that is of course insincere and exploitative politics. /5
I'm more interested in the 1st type of political/policy messaging--which involves finding, carving off, solidifying and maintaining a mainstream of relatively moderate & ordinary folks you can trust to assess propositions on grounds of reasonableness and proportionateness. /6
The interesting question is how & whether institutions & relatively centrist/moderate governments can reinvigorate the practice of carving off sufficiently large & robust mainstream constituencies to sustain political consensuses with resilience to assaults from all extremes. /7
What are correct leadership & messaging practices for a government or party to maintain a mainstream constituency it can rely upon? How does you keep demonstrating you have its back so it will have yours? (ie comply with regulations, reelect you on grounds of good govt, etc.)? /8
Are there forms and also appearances of responsibility & responsiveness towards mainstream--though somewhat heterogeneous--constituencies that institutions and centrist parties can practice to maintain their approval and loyalty? /9
Practices to maintain mainstream constituencies include 1. Messaging norms applicable to both leadership & constituency; 2. Firing officials who deviate grossly from norms (as we just saw in Ontario); 3. Public consultation around norms & actions (little of this in 2020). /10
Other proposed practices to build & maintain robust mainstream constituencies over long term: 1. Avoid lying & distortion; 2. Demonstrate humility & responsiveness to emergent events & constituent concerns; 3. Engage with extremes in temperate ways; 4. Be genuinely nice. (?) /11
Some paradoxes that emerge in maintaining mainstream constituencies are: 1. How to keep on top of constituent concerns & discourse? Especially, is avid social media monitoring more essential--or more creepy? 2. When to lead & when to follow in terms of pushing norms further? /12
