On Inauguration Day, I launched this newsletter to join with kindred spirits1 in facing the daunting question, “What now?” Since then, I’ve had a surprising number of people sign up to chat with me.
Hi Mark! Oh how I wish I knew. ::head in hands:: Usually when I write something and it gets relatively little uptake, I crawl back under my rock and accept that I was off base in some way. But it's been over two weeks and--radio silence be damned--I *still* think this, or something very like this, really needs to happen. So I'm shamelessly emailing it to everyone I know in, or close to, the party. One bit of discouraging feedback I got was this: 'It’s not a bad idea, it’s a good idea. But it asks Ds to do extra work. And it’s work for a lot of them that’s out of their comfort zone so..."
::sputters:: I mean if there were *any* time to put in some extra effort, isn't that time now??? Also, it doesn't require *every* Democrat--and certainly not the ones who are weak communicators. But we have a few dozen *really* good communicators--plenty to shoulder the load. Anyway, my latest social media strategy is to try to appeal to their self interest. Today's BlueSky post:
#Democrats who hope to be President: if you started a daily YouTube briefing to the American people about what you’re doing for the 99% (including calling out Trump’s galling corruption), you could build the name recognition and trust you’ll need to win. Also: all of America would feel better.
Great idea! I think that this feels akin to the early days of Covid where we were looking to find leadership SOMEWHERE because it certainly wasn't turning up at the Executive Branch level. At that time Governor Cuomo filled that void, and while he may be a former official most people don't want to hear from anymore, having a steady voice or voices giving visibility into what is happening would surely be welcome. All we have is bad news these days and there's truly not enough coming from the people we need most right now.
I’m interested in theory, and hopeful that we’d see emerge from this some voices that break us out of the logjam we’ve been in politically for the last [X] years.
Logjam indeed! The number one objection I've heard so far is that politicians (current and aspiring) won't do it because it's too risky. But if there is any lesson from 2024--or I guess I should say one of the *many* lessons from 2024--it's that leaders--if they want to become known quantities who are trusted--need to put themselves out there. Day in and day out, they need to share what they believe and what they are doing. If they make mistakes, they need to cop to them. Acknowledge places where they've changed their minds etc. It would require that voters become more forgiving--no canceling someone for one dumb slip--but heck: 77 million Americans were unphased by Trump's truly substantive "slips" (read: actual crimes)...so surely those of us wanting a different leader can become more forgiving of truly small stuff to anyone bold enough to actually step into the arena.
Totally agree with your point that progressives can’t demand “perfection” from their candidates. I’m hoping we have moved past that phase. But I also want to see progressives offer a substantive alternate vision, and not just hand-wringing at how dangerous and scary the bad guys are. (Not you doing this Kate.)
100%! That's why that's part 3 of the "mandatory" format:
1. What's happening/why it matters
2. What we're doing about it
3. What we *could* be/where we *could* go.
So yes--painting that alternate vision is ESSENTIAL. It didn't happen in 2024, which caused a lot of people to stay home and too many others to sign on to Camp "Burn It All Down."
I'm not sure BTW how exactly to make this format mandatory : ) since the politicians themselves would be the hosts...but they *are* responsive to public sentiment as long as it's clear/strong enough. I guess we'd just have to be loud about asking for it?
What a great idea, Kate! As for guests, my suspicion is having on former public servants no longer in office may give them the flexibility and air to talk more freely or more expansively than those currently in office, so a solid mix of both might be smart.
Would you consider rotating the role of interviewer? It may be a tough ask of a single journalist without some compensation (if it weren’t you specifically). Plus, it may grant those coming from non-traditional journalism outlets space to exercise their skills.
As for inviting guests back, since we’ve seen how outrageous viewpoints on social (or any) media tend to get the most clicks, perhaps we balance that with more pointed Likert-style questions like, “I learned a lot from this guest” and “I think this guest’s views contribute to our society’s betterment”.
Hi Bill! Key to me is the thought of NOT having an interviewer. Having the official host the show--basically sharing 'here is what I think.' I guess if they wanted to bring on a guest (say a constituent) that would be okay. Their choice. As for current vs. former: I think the craving (mine at least) is to know what our current officials make of what's happening, what they are doing about it, and what they think we should do. I feel like there's a lot of arms-length discussion (from former officials, reporters, analysts, etc.)--but not nearly enough comms from those in the arena right now. In fact--funny story--the only reason I went with current and former is I needed a way to loop Pete Buttigieg into this madcap plan. He is just such a good thinker and communicator--and I believe he will return to office in some capacity. Couldn't leave him out! :)
Thank you; I couldn't agree with more!! I sent the text of my substack (which Erika Dreifus kindly posted below) to all my representatives today. I think this is moving through the Zeitgeist. "sharewhatishappening."
I'm happy to hear that, Lisa. I figure: even if they all had very different takes, I think having a daily presence, consistent branding, a set length, and actionable info would be both grounding and galvanizing.
A friend asked me to put this in memo form. Here goes:
THE PROBLEM
--Many Democrats are working incredibly hard to contain the damage being done by the Trump administration. Nevertheless, the refrain on the street is: “Where are the Democrats?”
--People feel leaderless and overwhelmed.
WHAT’S NEEDED
A sustained comms effort, specifically:
--A daily video in which a prominent Democrat breaks down the news of the day and what can be done about it—directly to the camera, not via an interview with a reporter.
--Importantly, this video would be a set length with a set format and clearly branded—all of which would help with the ‘overwhelm’ problem.
--Distribution-wise, the plan would be to put this video on every social media platform every day—in full and in clips. So “flooding the zone”—but with reliable, actionable information.
--Just to give a flavor, here is two weeks’ worth of possible hosts (in alphabetical order): Andy Beshear, Pete Buttigieg, Chris Coons, Jasmine Crockett, Maxwell Frost, Ruben Gallego, Chris Murphy, Wes Moore, Gavin Newsom, JB Pritzker, Jamie Raskin, Josh Shapiro, AOC, Raphael Warnock, and Gretchen Whitmer.
ANTICIPATED QUESTIONS
Why not an interview format?
--Because this is a crisis—and navigating crises requires unmediated leadership. In my view, we don’t have time to debate whether a reporter comes from a good media outlet or asked good questions. We just need to hear what our leaders are thinking and doing—and what they want us to do to help them.
Why a revolving cast of hosts?
1) Done by any one politician, a daily video might be criticized as an ego trip. Done in concert with dozens of others, it gives resistance--in all its rich diversity—a real presence.
2) Our public servants are themselves overwhelmed. Comms is CRITICAL (cf. Biden) but they also have other important work to do, including looking after their strength. Sharing the load makes this vital comms lift sustainable.
3) It's too early to know who is going to emerge as the best opposition leader for this time. Let's take advantage of our very real bench strength, give a lot of leaders a shot, and see in time who we the people are moved to get behind.
What would it take, logistics-wise?
Three staff—a producer, an editor, and a social media expert. The producer should be based in DC, have political experience, and have good relationships with pols/their staff. The editor and social media expert could be based anywhere.
Love this idea. How do we make it happen?
Hi Mark! Oh how I wish I knew. ::head in hands:: Usually when I write something and it gets relatively little uptake, I crawl back under my rock and accept that I was off base in some way. But it's been over two weeks and--radio silence be damned--I *still* think this, or something very like this, really needs to happen. So I'm shamelessly emailing it to everyone I know in, or close to, the party. One bit of discouraging feedback I got was this: 'It’s not a bad idea, it’s a good idea. But it asks Ds to do extra work. And it’s work for a lot of them that’s out of their comfort zone so..."
::sputters:: I mean if there were *any* time to put in some extra effort, isn't that time now??? Also, it doesn't require *every* Democrat--and certainly not the ones who are weak communicators. But we have a few dozen *really* good communicators--plenty to shoulder the load. Anyway, my latest social media strategy is to try to appeal to their self interest. Today's BlueSky post:
Kate Gace Walton @kategacewalton.bsky.social·6h
#Democrats who hope to be President: if you started a daily YouTube briefing to the American people about what you’re doing for the 99% (including calling out Trump’s galling corruption), you could build the name recognition and trust you’ll need to win. Also: all of America would feel better.
Great idea! I think that this feels akin to the early days of Covid where we were looking to find leadership SOMEWHERE because it certainly wasn't turning up at the Executive Branch level. At that time Governor Cuomo filled that void, and while he may be a former official most people don't want to hear from anymore, having a steady voice or voices giving visibility into what is happening would surely be welcome. All we have is bad news these days and there's truly not enough coming from the people we need most right now.
Thanks for weighing in, Maeve. Yes, there's a real vacuum and it needs filling asap!
I’m interested in theory, and hopeful that we’d see emerge from this some voices that break us out of the logjam we’ve been in politically for the last [X] years.
Logjam indeed! The number one objection I've heard so far is that politicians (current and aspiring) won't do it because it's too risky. But if there is any lesson from 2024--or I guess I should say one of the *many* lessons from 2024--it's that leaders--if they want to become known quantities who are trusted--need to put themselves out there. Day in and day out, they need to share what they believe and what they are doing. If they make mistakes, they need to cop to them. Acknowledge places where they've changed their minds etc. It would require that voters become more forgiving--no canceling someone for one dumb slip--but heck: 77 million Americans were unphased by Trump's truly substantive "slips" (read: actual crimes)...so surely those of us wanting a different leader can become more forgiving of truly small stuff to anyone bold enough to actually step into the arena.
Totally agree with your point that progressives can’t demand “perfection” from their candidates. I’m hoping we have moved past that phase. But I also want to see progressives offer a substantive alternate vision, and not just hand-wringing at how dangerous and scary the bad guys are. (Not you doing this Kate.)
100%! That's why that's part 3 of the "mandatory" format:
1. What's happening/why it matters
2. What we're doing about it
3. What we *could* be/where we *could* go.
So yes--painting that alternate vision is ESSENTIAL. It didn't happen in 2024, which caused a lot of people to stay home and too many others to sign on to Camp "Burn It All Down."
I'm not sure BTW how exactly to make this format mandatory : ) since the politicians themselves would be the hosts...but they *are* responsive to public sentiment as long as it's clear/strong enough. I guess we'd just have to be loud about asking for it?
What a great idea, Kate! As for guests, my suspicion is having on former public servants no longer in office may give them the flexibility and air to talk more freely or more expansively than those currently in office, so a solid mix of both might be smart.
Would you consider rotating the role of interviewer? It may be a tough ask of a single journalist without some compensation (if it weren’t you specifically). Plus, it may grant those coming from non-traditional journalism outlets space to exercise their skills.
As for inviting guests back, since we’ve seen how outrageous viewpoints on social (or any) media tend to get the most clicks, perhaps we balance that with more pointed Likert-style questions like, “I learned a lot from this guest” and “I think this guest’s views contribute to our society’s betterment”.
Hi Bill! Key to me is the thought of NOT having an interviewer. Having the official host the show--basically sharing 'here is what I think.' I guess if they wanted to bring on a guest (say a constituent) that would be okay. Their choice. As for current vs. former: I think the craving (mine at least) is to know what our current officials make of what's happening, what they are doing about it, and what they think we should do. I feel like there's a lot of arms-length discussion (from former officials, reporters, analysts, etc.)--but not nearly enough comms from those in the arena right now. In fact--funny story--the only reason I went with current and former is I needed a way to loop Pete Buttigieg into this madcap plan. He is just such a good thinker and communicator--and I believe he will return to office in some capacity. Couldn't leave him out! :)
Brilliant! Love the idea. This makes a lot of sense to me too, Kate.
Thank you; I couldn't agree with more!! I sent the text of my substack (which Erika Dreifus kindly posted below) to all my representatives today. I think this is moving through the Zeitgeist. "sharewhatishappening."
This reminds me of something I read earlier today (from Randy Susan Meyers). She's not seeking a full YouTube video—just SOME communication that expresses what is (we hope?) happening behind the scenes. https://randysusanmeyers.substack.com/p/dear-congress-please-write-to-us
Thank you for this link, Erika! I'll read it right away!
I think the Daily YouTube video would be great. I know I would listen to it, and hope to find more of what we can do as individuals.
I'm happy to hear that, Lisa. I figure: even if they all had very different takes, I think having a daily presence, consistent branding, a set length, and actionable info would be both grounding and galvanizing.
A friend asked me to put this in memo form. Here goes:
THE PROBLEM
--Many Democrats are working incredibly hard to contain the damage being done by the Trump administration. Nevertheless, the refrain on the street is: “Where are the Democrats?”
--People feel leaderless and overwhelmed.
WHAT’S NEEDED
A sustained comms effort, specifically:
--A daily video in which a prominent Democrat breaks down the news of the day and what can be done about it—directly to the camera, not via an interview with a reporter.
--Importantly, this video would be a set length with a set format and clearly branded—all of which would help with the ‘overwhelm’ problem.
--Distribution-wise, the plan would be to put this video on every social media platform every day—in full and in clips. So “flooding the zone”—but with reliable, actionable information.
--Just to give a flavor, here is two weeks’ worth of possible hosts (in alphabetical order): Andy Beshear, Pete Buttigieg, Chris Coons, Jasmine Crockett, Maxwell Frost, Ruben Gallego, Chris Murphy, Wes Moore, Gavin Newsom, JB Pritzker, Jamie Raskin, Josh Shapiro, AOC, Raphael Warnock, and Gretchen Whitmer.
ANTICIPATED QUESTIONS
Why not an interview format?
--Because this is a crisis—and navigating crises requires unmediated leadership. In my view, we don’t have time to debate whether a reporter comes from a good media outlet or asked good questions. We just need to hear what our leaders are thinking and doing—and what they want us to do to help them.
Why a revolving cast of hosts?
1) Done by any one politician, a daily video might be criticized as an ego trip. Done in concert with dozens of others, it gives resistance--in all its rich diversity—a real presence.
2) Our public servants are themselves overwhelmed. Comms is CRITICAL (cf. Biden) but they also have other important work to do, including looking after their strength. Sharing the load makes this vital comms lift sustainable.
3) It's too early to know who is going to emerge as the best opposition leader for this time. Let's take advantage of our very real bench strength, give a lot of leaders a shot, and see in time who we the people are moved to get behind.
What would it take, logistics-wise?
Three staff—a producer, an editor, and a social media expert. The producer should be based in DC, have political experience, and have good relationships with pols/their staff. The editor and social media expert could be based anywhere.
***