|
|
This section describes how to respond to arguments from the opposition. It covers how to decide what your response ought to be and how to get the information you need to make it and shape it.
There are three basic options for responding to anything your opponents do or say. You can appear to ignore it, you can reply, or you can modify your proposal. Within each option, there is a wide range of possible responses. There is only one rule for deciding which option to use and how to shape your specific response: keep focused on the point of the campaign.
Your aim is to get a policy adopted. The best response to something the other side does may be to dispel a myth about LGBT people, it may be to show up the dishonesty of the argument, etc. But you should never do any of those things (or anything else) because you want to even the score with the other side, or because you've always wanted to get a particular message out. Since your aim is to get the policy adopted, your response should always be calculated to persuade the uncommitted members of your board and its constituency. If that isn't your primary justification for a particular response, you shouldn't make it, no matter how tempting it might be.
Never truly ignore anything your opponent says. You might decide not to reply if you are convinced that an opposition argument has had no impact or has helped you with the uncommitted middle. But if you do that, you run the risk of overestimating what people know about LGBT people. Most of the time, you should at a minimum respond with the truth about whatever fact claims are made in the opposition argument.
Unless you are convinced that an opposition argument has cost you uncommitted votes that can only be regained by changing the proposed policy, you should usually try to reply before you agree to modify. Although modifications may take away an opposition argument, they almost never reduce the fervor of the opposition itself. You should modify your proposal only if uncommitted board members are truly convinced that the opposition has a point, or if they are so worried about the effect of the argument on constituents that you need to neutralize it.
If a board member is set on modifying the proposal to diminish opposition, encourage him or her to "smoke out" the opposition by offering possible amendments in exchange for support from the opponents. More often than not, this tactic reveals that an amendment will actually satisfy the opposition.
Here are a few important guidelines for putting together a reply to any opposition argument. First, in general, you shouldn't attack your opposition. This may be the "broken record" theme of this guide. One of the most important unstated rules of public discourse in the United States is that everybody is supposed to act like the process is calm, deliberate and focused on the merits of the proposal. Attacks on the opposition, like arguments made with a primarily emotional pitch, break that rule and almost always hurt those who use them.
Worse, attacks on your opposition frequently make them appear sympathetic. They can actually gain supporters for the other side. Attacks may work in campaigns for office. They don't work for proponents of civil rights policies.
The hardest part of trying to live with this guideline is that it works out to be one sided. Much of what even moderate opponents say turn out to be attacks on the character of LGBT people. But most people think that we make at least some of those arguments "fair game" by proposing a civil rights policy in the first place.
This isn't to say you shouldn't respond to such attacks. It is to say that you should calmly respond with the truth, and not return the attack in kind.
Second, and equally important, don't let the need to reply divert you from either your campaign plan or your affirmative messages. You need to make sure arguments against adopting a policy are answered. But overcoming claims that a policy shouldn't be passed isn't the same thing as convincing people that it should. Three techniques may help with this. First, try to make your replies affirmatively, without mentioning the attack.
If, for example, the opposition claims that the law will be bad for business, have your economic expert explain that the law on the whole will be good for business. She or he might refer to claims to the contrary only if asked.
Second, try to tie your reply into your main messages.
If the opposition claims the policy will force employers to hire lesbians, bisexuals, gay men or transgender people, your reply might say:
"This is a bill to restore ability and willingness to work as the important things on the job. It doesn't allow people to be fired because of who they are, and it doesn't require people to be hired because of who they are. This law is about merit."
Finally, try to work your replies into your existing campaign plan. If you want to play up your union endorsements, ask union representatives to deliver your answer to a charge which relates to jobs or business.
First, get the facts. Almost every opposition argument has some type of factual claim inside it. Usually, the argument at the least distorts the facts; often, it makes factual claims which are simply not so. Since you may need to reply quickly to a charge if it catches public attention, you need to have sources for response lined up in advance. Pay attention to the arguments opponents of LGBT civil rights are making around the country as you begin your campaign. Try to get expert sources in each area covered by the argument opponents have made elsewhere.
The best experts for the response itself are likely to be experts with state or national reputations. For example, a law professor, law school dean, or head of a state civil rights commission could be powerful explaining civil rights laws. Try to get people who will seem to be a bit above the fray; people whose expertise is well established and who are not a part of your campaign.
At the same time, to help you build your response, you should get local experts to work with the campaign. They can tell you what the facts are and point you to the most likely experts to use in a response. If you can't get a local expert to help, try contacting possible state or national experts yourself. If you can't identify any, call national professional associations, like the American Psychological Association, etc. You can also call the national LGBT civil rights organizations to ask for leads.
Sadly, truth by itself is often not enough. Your success in refuting the opposition with the truth may depend on how you present it. There are lots of ways to present a reply. One important tactic already suggested for most situations is to use recognized experts. This allows you to take the argument above the "they say/we say" level. The more your expert appears to be respected in the profession, and the more she or he appears not to be a partisan in your campaign, the stronger this effect is.
Part of your campaign planning should be to find out which positive arguments your board and its constituents are likely to accept. When you do that attitude research, keep the focus broad and find out as much as you can about attitudes to possible responses as well. Use that information to shape your response.
Never twist the truth or play games with the facts -- say something which is technically correct but which you know is giving most listeners the wrong idea about something. But you should emphasize the presentation of the facts most likely to convince the uncommitted members of your board. When you have your reply planned, run it past some of the people you've used to decide what will persuade the board and its constituents, to confirm that you are on the right track.
Assume your opponents have the evil twin of this guide, which describes a contrary tactic for just about every strategy and tactic set out here. Assume they'll do everything you'll do and more. And assume that they've read this guide. Don't ever count on surprise. Then, be ready for a few tactics opponents often rely on.
Get your religious campaign ready at the start. It will usually be easier for your opponents to mobilize religious supporters, and they will often use a member's own religious faith to pressure him or her. You can neutralize this some if you already have religious endorsements. See the next section on Dealing With Religion.
Knowing the rules and having your lawyer on call at the start is critical. One of the best ways to kill a policy proposal is with procedural maneuvers by insiders.
Finally, be ready for what is now the opponent's favorite tactic, a last minute attack more or less based on the argument that the policy is part of an "agenda." You must have your own end-of-the-campaign tactic which vividly illustrates what the bill does and your basic message. Since you can't know what the opposition will do at the end, and since they are unlikely to leave time for a reply, your message must be positive -- an implicit repudiation of whatever they say.
>> Next: 16. Dealing with Religion
|
|
