In an interview about my book, I said both Republicans and Democrats could profit by reading it because it emphasized the importance of issue frames. The reporter thought I was just trying to sell books. While I’m in favor of book sales, my point was broader, and I’ll explain why both the left and the right could profit from reading the book and considering issue frames. 
Huey Long framed a few issues that appealed to a majority of Louisiana voters and, when he reached the national stage, he provided issue frames designed to appeal to the majority of national voters. When 20 million or so votes could conceivably carry a national election, he had about 9 million voters signed up for his Share Our Wealth societies after only about a year and a half of organizing. By organizing I mean the publicity he obtained from his speeches in the United States Senate and over the radio and his direct mail appeals. He had yet to visit most states for the kind of campaigning and organizing work typical of a political campaign, which makes his success in signing 9 million people up more impressive.
Before he hit the national stage, he promised Louisiana voters to provide free schoolbooks for their children, concrete and asphalt highways, and natural gas (rather than artificial gas) for New Orleans. So everyone with a child in school, everyone who needed to travel and owned a car or truck, and every business or consumer in New Orleans interested in saving utility costs would benefit from his program.
In retrospect, everyone can see the wide appeal of these simple, few promises. But less understood is that these objectives were readily achievable: free schoolbooks were offered in other states, the extensive gravel road construction begun before Huey took office had whetted the appetite of automobile drivers for better roads, and pipelines for natural gas were already at the doorstep of New Orleans. Huey promised these things and then delivered on his promises. No wonder he got reelected. Then he expanded his program to found a new medical school, expand LSU, build a new state capitol, construct a new airport, and build the first bridge over the lower Mississippi River, all popular projects. All projects were first promised and then delivered promptly with first-rate quality.
Other leaders of the same constituents, say, Populists or populist-type leaders have won elections without the same record of achievement. They typically suffered ups and downs but remained relevant because they were entertaining or because they spoke the opinions (including in many cases, the prejudices) of their constituents. Anyone examining the careers of Pitchfork Ben Tillman of South Carolina, Eugene Talmadge of Georgia, Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi, or Big Bill Thompson of Chicago will understand what I mean.
Why should Republicans and Democrats consider this? Take the Republicans first. Their recent issue frames: (1) no new wars; (2) ending the Ukraine war; (3) reduce the price of groceries; (4) tariffs to fund the federal government; and (5) mass deportations and control of the border. Under the umbrella slogans of Make America Great Again or America First, these issue frames were appealing—they won the elections—and Republicans as a result control the presidency, the Congress, and the Supreme Court. But the solutions framed were not readily achievable (the Ukraine war still rages, grocery prices have increased, tariffs were ruled illegal by a Republican Supreme Court) or were torpedoed by their own conduct (attacking Iran; ICE shooting American citizens). I could discuss other issues such as abortion (still legal even in many Republican states), invading Greenland, annexing Canada, reducing available vaccines, releasing the Epstein files, among them, but the result would be largely the same. While the issue frames got Trump and Congressional Republicans elected, they haven’t achieved their articulated goals. Trump’s approval ratings now are dismal, as they were after his first term, resulting in his defeat by Joe Biden in 2020. (One might say Trump disregarded the idea to focus on only a few key ideas, but when he commented on broader issues, such as football players who kneeled during the National Anthem, they reflected the majority’s view as well as the views of his base, or could be considered harmless.)
Now let’s consider the Democrats. A few members of this party adopted the label of Democratic Socialism, even though the definition of socialism—public ownership of the means of production—is not included among their promises. The socialism label scares people. Huey Long was asked why he didn’t call himself a socialist. He said he wasn’t a socialist (he wasn’t) but even if he were he wouldn’t label himself as such because he wanted to get elected. One socialist program recently advocated such ideas as abolishing the United States Senate and making the President and Supreme Court subservient to Congress. One candidate espousing Democratic Socialism had previously advocated abolishing Thanksgiving because it was a symbol of colonialism. What is appealing about these ideas to a majority of voters? What might be a popular discussion topic or proposal in a Burlington coffee shop is not going to benefit anyone—and therefore is not going to appeal to anyone–on Main Street.
Huey’s national program was to provide a minimum income for deserving families, a homestead that could not be attached by creditors, free college educations for qualified individuals, retirement benefits, a shortened workweek, and crop holidays to ensure farmers could make money. The benefit programs were to be secured by high taxes on big incomes, inheritances, and capital. (It is amazing that President Trump has established a sovereign wealth fund by which the U.S. government has obtained stock in private companies; Huey proposed that individuals could pay inheritance or capital taxes by providing the stock itself to the government, escaping the price deflationary effects of a tax-forced liquidation.) Political science professor Sindler said Huey’s program was designed by a master political craftsman. It appealed to every American family. In contrast, SNAP benefits, section 8 housing vouchers, food stamps, and many other programs individually appeal to smaller segments of voters rather than a majority of voters. These programs thus take more time to explain and allow divisive criticism from those not directly benefited.
In my book on Huey, I discussed grievances–the reasons people might want change–and issue framing, emphasizing the need to view both the arguments for change and the arguments against it. They can include economic, cultural, religious, or other irritations, real or perceived. It has been impossible to compute prospectively when the amount or type of grievances will lead to a social movement or revolutionary change, perhaps because skillful leadership is difficult to evaluate prospectively, and because bad framing of the issues and their solution can kill the prospects for change even when grievances are prevalent.
“Reformers have to frame the issues: to diagnose the problem, propose a solution, and create an identity. Appeals to shared values and understandings; the use of evocative phrases, metaphors, and slogans; the development of symbols and myths, songs and narrative; and appeals to reason (with evidence, common experiences, shared values) and emotion (religious, injustice, unfairness) are all necessary to convince people that they are right and that there is an enemy or opponent.” (p. 114).
The framing of reformers must be compared to the framing of incumbents or defenders of the status quo. They can point out problems “with the solutions proposed by reformers (for example, socialism has never worked). . . . The rhetoric of reaction often claims that the reforms proposed will jeopardize a class of people, constitute an exercise in futility, or will have perverse consequences . . . {and their leaders can] foment irrelevant divisions among the likely reform constituency.” (p. 115).
There is more to a movement, revolution, or political campaign than issue framing, but those advocating change from the right or left should first start with grievances and then move on to issue framing, concentrating on solutions that appeal to a majority of the people and are readily achievable. Some leaders will win campaigns speaking to grievances without proposing realistic solutions, but lasting change from either direction depends on articulating grievances and proposing realistic solutions—and then implementing those solutions if they are given the chance that a successful campaign provides.
