How to Craft Messages People Repeat — Lessons from Anat Shenker-Osario

By Benn Marine August 12, 2025

At Campfire, we spend a lot of time thinking about the stories brands tell — and more importantly, how those stories land with the audiences you most need to reach. In the rush of planning campaigns and placing media, it’s easy to overlook a hard truth: not every message is worth repeating.

Back in 2019, I sat down with Anat Shenker-Osario, one of the sharpest minds in progressive political communications strategy, for a conversation that feels just as urgent today as it did then. Anat’s work has shaped movements across the globe, and her insights are invaluable for marketers, campaigners, and anyone who wants their message to actually move people to action.

Start With What You Stand For

One of Anat’s core lessons is deceptively simple: don’t start with the problem. Start with a shared value.

Too often, progressive campaigns (and purpose-driven brands) open with “boy, have I got a problem for you.” The trouble? People already have 99 problems — they’re not looking to adopt yours.

Instead, lead with a value your audience shares, then name the problem, then offer the solution. For example:

“No matter what we look like or where we come from, most of us work hard for our families. But today, a wealthy few… [problem]. That’s why we’re [solution].”

That order — value, problem, solution — consistently outperforms doom-first messaging.

If You Want Reach, Think Repeatability

Anat makes an important distinction between messages people agree with and messages people will repeat. A technically sound, fact-checked talking point that no one says out loud in daily life has no chance of spreading.

That’s why “love is love” traveled further than any tax-filing argument for marriage equality. The same goes for “fight for $15” versus “a living wage will grow the economy.” The base agreed with both — but they repeated only one.

For marketers, the takeaway is clear: test not just for approval, but for stickiness. And when you find language that works, say fewer things and repeat them more often.

Be For Something

One of the most common traps purpose-driven organizations fall into is defining themselves in opposition — “don’t do this,” “stop that.” While it can be tempting to rally around what you reject, Anat’s research shows it’s far more motivating to rally around what you build.

This is especially true for audiences aligned with progressive values: fear may mobilize some, but it often suppresses participation among your base. Give people a dream to move toward, not just a crisis to run from.

Change the Temperature

Polling tells you where people are now. Message testing tells you where they’re capable of going — and how to move them there.

For brands, this means you don’t have to accept “the market isn’t ready” as the final word. If your message is rooted in shared values and framed in a way people want to share, you can expand the conversation and shift what’s possible.

Why This Matters for Your Media Strategy

At Campfire, we know media buying is only as good as the message you’re amplifying. You can have the smartest placement plan in the world, but if your message doesn’t inspire your audience to repeat it, it stops with them.

Anat’s work reminds us to:

• Anchor campaigns in shared values.

• Test for repeatability, not just approval.

• Lead with what you stand for.

• Use media not just to take the temperature, but to change it.

If you’re crafting your 2026 campaigns now, it’s the perfect moment to pressure-test your messaging. Ask: Will this get my base talking? Will they say it to someone else without me in the room? If the answer is no, it’s time to refine.

• Show Notes

  ASO Communications – This is Anat’s website and where you can learn more about her and her research. If you want to go straight to her research you should follow this link. https://asocommunications.com/

  Brave New Words Podcast – You can go behind the scenes on different political campaigns and efforts with Anat and listen in on how different tactics in messaging were used and their outcomes. You can also find this podcast wherever you listen to podcasts. https://bravenewwordspod.com

• Read the Transcript

  Benn Marine: 0:02

  Hey friends, ben Marine here with the Responsibly Different podcast. It is August and the Campfire team is deep in the thick of 2026, planning for our clients right now, but we didn't want to leave you hanging without something valuable this month, so we're reaching into the archive to bring you a conversation that's just as relevant today as when I first recorded it. That's just as relevant today as when I first recorded it. Back on October 27th 2019, I released this episode on a podcast I used to host called Ocean of Organizing. That show was all about exploring the strategies, stories and skills behind building movements for change conversations with organizers, communicators and change makers about how we can work together for a better world.

  Benn Marine: 0:46

  In this episode, I sat down with Anat Shankar Osario, a brilliant communication strategist whose work has shaped movements across the globe. We dig into how framing language and storytelling can move people to action and how we, as marketers and organizers, can connect more deeply with our audiences. Whether you're planning a campaign, crafting a message or just curious about how words can change minds, this episode is packed with insights you can put to work. So, without further ado, here's my conversation with Anat Shankar Osario on the Ocean of Organizing podcast that originally aired in October of 2019. Enjoy.

  Benn Marine: 1:35

  Welcome to the Ocean of Organizing podcast, where we explore what it means to build community and create change. I'm so excited to share with you this conversation with Anat Shankar Osario. Anat is a renowned communications researcher and her research and writing have been featured in a myriad of publications, including the Atlantic, boston Globe, salon, the Guardian and many others. She's also the host of the new podcast Brave New Words, where she takes listeners behind the scenes of different campaigns and efforts and what goes into crafting a winning message. And so, with that, let's dive on in. Anat, what got you interested in communications and specifically working within a progressive lens?

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 2:48

  campaigns—and here I am revealing a secret, a not-so-dirty secret—that the way that a lot of the messaging is done is sort of just a hold up a finger in the wind.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 2:53

  I know we'll call it that, or I like that slogan, or you know what.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 2:57

  That URL wasn't taken.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 3:00

  And having studied linguistics and language, I knew I know that there is actually a systematic way and there are sets of knowable things around which messages resonate and which don't, and that it doesn't need to be simply a guessing game or whatever kind of occurs to the author, who is almost, almost almost never at all like the intended audience, which is one of the core mistakes that we make we don't realize that our hardcore advocates are not actually our intended audiences, and so the messages that we create don't necessarily actually work for the goals that we have.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 3:39

  And then the second reason is that when you're doing campaigning, when you are a progressive campaigner, there is very little that is under your control. You can't control what the opposition says, you can't control how much money they have to say it, you can't control how the media reports or what they choose to focus on, but the words that come out of your mouth or are typed by your own fingers are entirely under your control, and so, for me, I focus on language and narrative and messaging, because it is one of those very, very few things that is entirely under our domain.

  Benn Marine: 4:13

  For organizers that are listening to this and maybe don't have access to someone like you who has that much knowledge and resources. What would you recommend to them when they start thinking about crafting a message and kind of promoting their cause?

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 4:29

  Yeah, I think I mean the easiest answer is that anything I am allowed to make public in terms of my research and I really work hard to try to write open source contracts so that everything can be made public Whatever research results I'm allowed to release, I always do, and they hang out on my website and I'm sure we can share that with your listeners. It's just ASOMyInitialsCommunicationscom, asocommunicationscom, and there's a research tab and everything's hanging out there. And there's a research tab and everything's hanging out there. But the kind of fundamentals that I would transmit are and I often like to joke that I can reduce progressive messaging to three sentences. By progressive messaging I mean present day progressive messaging, and those three sentences are boy, have I got a problem for you? This is the Titanic. Would you like to buy a ticket? And we're the losing team. We lose a lot. Also, we lost recently, so you should join us opposite.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 5:46

  And some of the core lessons for folks who are just getting started or trying to figure all of this out or, frankly, folks who have been at this for a very, very long time but need to break those bad default habits is number one ordering effects. So what we find in testing over and over and over again and this is pretty much true across issues is that the order in which you present the message is really what matters. And, first and foremost, you want to begin your message with a shared value and not with a problem. So instead of saying you know this horrific thing is happening, or there's a war on women, or union density is at its lowest in decades, or the climate is cooked and we're totally and completely screwed Instead of beginning that opening salvo with boy have I got a problem for you? Because FYI people got 99 problems and they don't want yours.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 6:37

  Most people are not attracted to boy. Have I got a problem for you? We want to begin with a shared value. So, for example, no matter our differences, most of us want pretty similar things. Or no matter what we look like or where we come from, most of us work hard for our families. Or whether we're white, black or brown, latinx or Asian, most of us seek to treat others the way we want to be treated. So you begin with that opening value. You've hooked the person in and they're like OK, that sounds good. And it's at that point, second, that you name the problem and then from there you move into your solution and call to action. That is kind of the framework of an effective message.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 7:30

  And you talk a lot on your website and even your podcast, which I want to make sure we give a shout out to the new word brave new words right, Brave new words. Brave new words, yeah.

  Benn Marine: 7:39

  Tell us more about that. Curious though you talk a lot about how, and even now mentioning how, we talk a lot about opposition and and no, and can't and don't and how. That's not super helpful, and so I'm curious how? Because I think part of reframing words is also reframing the way we think about things too, and so I'm curious if you have advice for folks on how to reframe instead of being anti-something, being pro the other side of it.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 8:07

  Yeah it's a great question. So it's a massive, massive problem our tendency to be a no and a don't and a stop and a can't. And so when we, for example, flip and we've tested this between saying end family separation, end detention, abolish ICE all of which I hope it's clear to everybody listening I 100% agree with. That's not the issue. But all of those are what we oppose and what we find is that what we fight we feed. And the more that we reaffirm these terrible, horrible things, the more people either tune out because they're not sure what they're supposed to do with this horrible information, or the more that they feel just disempowered, like the whole world is going to hell, because, let's face it, it kind of is. And what is my vote going to do? Right, it's disempowering to people because whatever solution we're proposing just doesn't feel conventurate to the response. So when we test the difference between and this, stop that and say, create a fair immigration process that respects all families, we find that the difference is massive.

  Benn Marine: 9:21

  And so with that I'm curious about, because I feel like at the root of don't stop and you know that those language bits is is kind of utilizing fear as a tactic, right, and it seems like fear works for the right, works for the right. And I'm just curious to understand, like I'm curious, your thoughts around fear as a tactic and how it pertains to that language. Or maybe they're not related at all, I'm not sure I'm curious, your thoughts on that.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 9:52

  No, it's a great question. So a version of this question and I don't know if this is what you're asking, but a version of this question that I get frequently is well, the right uses fear all the time and it seems to be working beautifully for them. And that is very, very hard to refute because, guess what, that is a true story. And so what happens with our side is that we believe, hey, they're trading in fear and they're peddling this anger and hatred. We should trade in fear because fear is obviously incredibly motivating to people.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 10:29

  But what that fundamentally misunderstands is that our task is very different from their task. Their task is to rile up their base, to repeat and repeat and repeat their tropes in order to persuade the middle. Our task is to rile up our base in order to repeat and repeat and repeat and persuade the middle. And at a fundamental psychological level and the testing shows this it's also just common sense the makeup of their base the human beings and the way that they are wired, and the testing shows this it's also just common sense the makeup of their base the human beings and the way that they are wired and the way that they are triggered and the way that they are motivated and made to act. It's just fundamentally different from our base because we are talking about a different group of human beings. So where fear is incredibly motivating to a conservative base, fear is incredibly suppressive to a progressive base.

  Benn Marine: 11:28

  That's so neat and I'm curious too. So another piece that I, in kind, of reading through some of your work, I saw that you have this kind of phrase of don't take the temperature, change it, Can you? Which? I think is really cool. I'm curious can you speak a little bit to that and what that means?

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 11:51

  Yeah, so frequently what happens? For example, you know I'm an empiricist so I live in the realm of public opinion research and quantifying things. And frequently, when you look at the way that the left whether that be Democratic pollsters or progressives more broadly do public opinion research, it is a form of taking the temperature. So let me give you a very specific for instance years ago, when there were groups of people who really wanted to take on the fight to raise the minimum wage, they did a bunch of public opinion polling and, not surprisingly, a majority of American voters supported a $12 an hour minimum wage, but they did not support $15.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 12:29

  $15 was not you know anywhere near the 50% threshold that we expect for a majority.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 12:36

  And so the mainstream large economic groups were like no, public's not there, we can't do that Now.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 12:44

  Thank goodness, the scrappy, really, really effective smaller groups were like look, polling's not about taking the temperature, it's not about figuring out where people are, it's about figuring out where they're capable of going and what it is we need to say, supported by our words and images and relentless repetition.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 13:05

  We need to move them there. And so, where the national groups were not willing to have a quote fight for 15, the smaller groups were like fine, we'll take it to Seattle-Tacoma and we'll win there. We'll take it to the San Francisco Bay Area, we'll win there. We'll take it to LA, we'll take it to California, we'll take it to LA, we'll take it to California, we'll take it to New York. And sure enough, lo and behold, a couple of years later, the majority of people in the US because New York and California are very populous states, as you know have a minimum wage of $15 an hour, and it's sort of become the new default norm. That is the difference between doing polling to take the temperature where are people and message testing to understand where are people capable of going, and what is it we need to say to get them there?

  Benn Marine: 13:54

  So do you feel like there is an important place for polling in some of these national discussions of messaging, or do you feel like that's a completely separate tool for a different purpose?

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 14:07

  Look, it's important to know what you're up against and where people are. You need to understand kind of what you need to overcome. You need to be able to disaggregate and be able to see in this subgroup of people, whether that be by age, whether that be by race, whether that be by geography you need to be able to see your terrain, because none of us are living in a world of infinity dollars, and so you need to know who you're going to target, to be your base and repeat your message. You need to know who the gettable persuadables are, so that you can sort of concentrate your firepower on them. So I mean, of course there's a role for polling and message testing.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 14:47

  What I'm calling message testing does not. Is not that dissimilar in format. Right, we're still doing giant national surveys. It's just a question of how you interpret the results. You know, do you look at an answer around a 12 or 15 dollar an hour minimum wage and say, oh, that's it, we're not going to do this campaign. Or do you look at that and say, look, these are the people we do have, these are the people that would carry the message. These are the spots where we can start with this. Do you use that public opinion research as a tool for organizing and as a tool for constructing a narrative that actually is going to change people's minds.

  Benn Marine: 15:28

  So, in terms of the, the persuadable middle, and then also the, the repeat, piece of kind of grabbing the base. Have you found that there are, or has any, have any studies shown that there are particular like media channels that work best? Like is TV better than radio, better than digital, better than you know, Netflix? Or would you say like yeah.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 15:57

  So I'm going to sort of come at that question a slightly different way and then I'll come to precisely what you asked. Okay, I think it's easiest to think of it, and my colleague on an immigrant rights message test, ryan Clayton, who was a Democratic strategist, he likes to say a message is like a baton that needs to be passed from person to person to person, and if it gets dropped anywhere along that way, by definition it's not persuasive. Right, you tested it in the laboratory environment, the test tube of a survey, but no one would say it, and so by definition it's not persuasive because nobody heard it. So, as far as channels, I will get to that in a second. But honestly, what we see over and over again and I'm sure that your listeners will find this familiar, and I'm sure that your listeners will find this familiar is that as soon as a message is shared by a kind of suspect source, it is suspicious. And so what I mean by that is you know, when such and such restaurant in your hometown says you should eat here, the tacos are delicious, you look at that and you say that could be true. That could not be true. It's literally your job to tell me that your food is delicious because you are the restaurant. The same is true when FGAU or another labor union says labor unions are important and this is why you should support us. Or when you know the fight for 15 says $15 an hour. Or when CHIRLA or United we Dream or National Immigrant Law Center, or whomever, says you know this should be your stance on immigrant rights. Or when NARAL says this is how you should feel about abortion.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 17:43

  As soon as that message is coming from a source that is understood to make you know, you have to say that that's literally your job, right? So the Democratic candidate says you should vote for me. You're like, of course, you're saying that that's literally your job. That is very different than your cousin saying to you or your sibling or your neighbor. And so what we find more than anything is that in this profusion of millions and millions and millions of different information sources and channels and people being bombarded with a constant signal of information, so that the person that you're hearing from is a person you actually already know and is a person that you trust and you don't associate as like. Well, of course you're saying that you're on the campaign, so the most effective channel is actually getting people to repeat, and this is something that we saw very, very effectively in marriage equality. This is the difference between when we used to argue about quote-unquote gay marriage and say you know, gay marriage is important because people need to be able to file their taxes jointly or people need to be able to visit their loved one in a hospital.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 19:04

  Our base agreed with that message, but they weren't going to repeat it, because a human being has never stood in line at the grocery store and said you know, I was just thinking the other day about being a joint filer but they would say love is love. That is a sentence that the average person would actually say, and so the greatest channel is actually that it's fight for 15. It's love is love. It's people who work for a living ought to make a living. It's what the other side was able to do with Make America Great Again. That slogan doesn't work if the only people repeating it never mind if it's Twitter, never mind if it's Facebook, never mind if it's TV, never mind if it's all of the above. Make America Great Again does not work as a slogan if the only people saying it are the campaign. The base has to say it to the persuadables.

  Benn Marine: 19:52

  So how do you manifest that Is that about? Is that about really choosing the right words? Or how, like, how do you manifest that organic word of mouth spread?

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 20:29

  Yeah, I mean you can't write that Anyone who is selling you that is is is selling you nonsense. But number one, we can test for that. We can test inside of our giant messaging experiment for things that the base will not just agree with but actually want to repeat, for things that the base will not just agree with but actually want to repeat. And what we find is that that is one of the fundamental differences between the way that the left and the right and by the left I mean not including me, because I don't do this but the difference between the way that the left and right use public opinion research. And again, it is this distinction between taking the temperature and changing the temperature. And what I mean by that is that when the right does a test and this is something Frank wants who is their like big, you know, I mean he's been sort of distanced himself because he's a never Trumper, but he was the architect behind the contract for America. He was the guy that came up with such nonsense as the Blue Skies Initiative, no Child Left Behind, etc. All of their kind of big phrases. What he says is I dial for the red meat. So he looks first and foremost at a message, is the base very excited about it and are they going to repeat it about it? And are they going to repeat it On the other side, what Democratic pollsters tend to do is they score a message by its overall number in the sample.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 21:58

  So they look at everyone in the sample and they say, okay, out of 1,000 people, or the 2,000 people, or however many people they're testing it with, what is the message that gets the highest overall score? By definition, if that's what you're measuring, you are going to get milquetoast, because if you're looking for a thing to say that everyone kind of sort of agrees with, then you couldn't possibly be saying anything that your base is going to be excited to repeat. And so that is the difference between, for example, in the economic justice fight, saying we should pay people more because that will grow our economy which is a classic milquetoast message. The base agrees but won't repeat it and saying people who work for a living ought to earn a living, having a fundamental fairness and moral argument which the base will repeat. So part of it is that you actually need to build that into your testing and, yeah, you need to come up with short things, and then, finally, you need to say fewer things and say them more often.

  Benn Marine: 23:04

  I'm curious what of all your studies and work and research, what has been kind of the most surprising find?

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 23:13

  I mean, it's no longer surprising to me because I have spent so much time with it, but if I remember back to when we initially did it, so most of the work that I was engaged in over late 2017 and 2018 was a project we call the Race Class Narrative which, again, all of the information is public it's all on my site which was a project around how we talk about race and link it to class, and I think the most surprising thing about that was that we tested a whole bunch of things and what we found is that across the board not just with our base, not just with progressive advocates, but with persuadables every message we tested that explicitly named race outperformed colorblind economic populism. I was surprised at the strength of that.

  Benn Marine: 24:07

  Wow, I'm so curious. What would you say, so you're saying even so, like that persuadable middle was on board with that too. Are there, is there like so for folks that in progressive circles are organizing what would you? How can they best utilize that knowledge in terms of, like, the conversations they're having with that persuadable middle?

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 24:26

  It's a great question. So, basically, when folks are talking about to you know that proverbial uncle that I guess white people all seem to have right, we need to recognize that politics is not solitaire, and what I mean by that is that our messages don't exist in a vacuum. We do not have the luxury of people just hearing what we say. In fact, people are poisoned constantly by what the other side is saying, and what we see is that what the other side is saying is a constant, relentless race baiting right. It is the fundamental architecture of a right-wing message.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 25:08

  So it's not just simply the case that talking about race is a moral imperative, because issues of racial justice are basically issues of human rights, and it's only because we live in a dysfunctional country that we allow them to be called quote unquote identity politics, which again, normal people would call human rights Right. Being able to make it home and not get shot by police is not an identity issue, it's a survival issue. I mean that is also tied up in your identity issue. It's a survival issue. I mean that is also tied up in your identity. So if we are not attending to race, then what is happening?

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 25:41

  Is that the only thing that this conflicted middle is hearing about race and about gender and about other forms of identity comes from the other side. It's not like they don't hear anything at all about it. If we're quiet about it, all they get is this ugly, divisive, hateful, horrible rhetoric. And so if you're trying to contend with these persuadables, you have to be able to speak openly about race, otherwise you're not effectively countering what the other side is saying. You're not effectively countering what the other side is saying. Now, as far as what that actually sounds like in practice, there are lots and lots and lots of example messages on those cheat sheets that are on the site, but basically the architecture of what we call a winning race class message goes like this it begins number one in that shared value, as I mentioned before that, and in this case it explicitly names race.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 26:37

  So no matter what we look like or where we come from, most of us want pretty similar things.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 26:41

  Or another way to start it is whether we're white, black or brown.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 26:46

  Most of us work hard for our families problem, but today a wealthy few and the politicians they pay for divide us from each other, shaming and blaming new immigrants this is one, for instance so that we'll look the other way while they hand the spoils to their rich friends.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 27:11

  Basically, what we're doing in the problem statement is we are narrating that interwoven reality of racial and economic justice, that the reason that the other side has weaponized race and used scapegoating and used hateful, horrible rhetoric and policies not just rhetoric is both to hurt Black and brown folks and other people of color, but also to aid and abet their economic plunder. This is what allows us to hold up and bring central issues of racial justice while at the same time making it clear to whites in our audiences, who may not be understanding how is it possible that I'm an ex-coal miner in in West Virginia, or I'm a person who doesn't have their job in the upper Midwest, or I'm a person who is contending with not being able to pay for health care and you keep telling me the problems are just for black and brown people. How am I supposed to understand that? That's what the race class narrative does. It explains how the weaponization of race and the use of scapegoating is a tool to primarily hurt people of color, but also get away with economic harms against all of us.

  Benn Marine: 28:24

  Thank you for that. I think that's that's super helpful framework for sure. And I'm curious kind of moving into the, I feel like that kind of feeds into the what you, what you fight, you feed right, like. I feel like that's kind of like what we were talking a little bit about earlier, about how the no and don't feeds into that fear and anger, and that's, I think, sounds like another example of how to flip that on its head a bit. Would you say that's true.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 28:50

  Yeah, and actually what we? We tested very specific things, for example the call to action being joined together across our communities versus joined together across racial differences, and we found that the latter the explicit naming of joined together across racial differences is more effective. People are aware that racial differences are alive and well. You know. It's sort of like that funny thing where parents think you know you can't swear in front of the kids, like somehow, or you can't talk about sex because that's where kids are going to learn about sex. I hate to tell you kids are not learning about sex from when it gets mentioned in puberty ed, in whatever grade. That is Right. So us saying join together across racial differences is not like, wait what? There are racial differences. I had no idea.

  Benn Marine: 29:40

  Right, that makes sense. Tell us a little bit about your podcast.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 29:44

  Um, yeah, thank you. So my podcast, brave New Words is the first season which we released all at once just now is six episodes of campaigns that we have won. So it takes you backstage with amazing kick-ass campaigners, ad writers, messaging people, organizers, and it reveals how and why we want things. So one episode details Jacinda Ardern becoming prime minister of New Zealand in an incredibly quick seven week race ban on abortion in Ireland.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 30:38

  One details the use of this race class narrative to beat back against Islamophobia and anti-immigrant race baiting to win a whole slew of races in Minnesota. One of them is about winning police reform in Washington state, et cetera, et cetera, and so in each case it's a whole story and you hear from multiple people, you hear the ads that we wrote, you hear what the opposition said, you hear, in some cases, the actual testing that we did and we walk you through. This was the losing message, this was the winning message. I peel back the layers in terms of ideas from persuasion and perception and cognitive science as to why a certain message works and another one doesn't. So it's a really sort of hopeful, optimistic. Progressive values and views not only are viable, they do in fact win, and here are real world examples of that.

  Benn Marine: 31:29

  Awesome. I know I'm really excited to check it out and I'll certainly link to it in the show notes, for sure. Any other advice or thoughts that you want to share with the audience?

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 31:39

  Yeah, I think you know, look it's, it's let's. Let's be honest, right, it's a very hard moment. It's been a hard moment for a very, very long time. It's an especially hard moment for the people who are being relentlessly targeted in the most draconian and horrible ways. And I know that feeling like you know we can have hope and we can have a positive message sometimes just feels Pollyannish and kind of goofy and silly.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 32:09

  And I understand the attachment to narrating harms and horrors. But what we know over and over again is you know, there's a reason why Martin Luther King did not get famous for saying I have a complaint. Right, even in the darkest of times, there has to be a dream, there has to be a thing to motivate people to be for. And so when we present ourselves nearly as a resistance, as powerful and as amazing as it is, most people do not want to exist in a perpetual state of resistance. What they want is to be part of creating something wonderful and good, not merely ameliorating harms. And when we speak about what we're for and what we believe, as opposed to constantly talking about how horrible our opposition, how relentless, how big, how powerful, that is what actually gets people on board and sustains their participation.

  Benn Marine: 33:02

  I'm curious to your thoughts on just kind of the present moment right now, where we have the Democratic candidates running and all of that Do you feel like? Do you feel like the conversation has shifted for the better since, in terms of the Democratic side and the progressive side, since the loss in 2016?

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 33:22

  Yeah, I do, and maybe I'm, you know, trying to comfort myself, certainly not above a little. You know self-delusion, right, everybody needs a little bit of that. A little, you know self-delusion, right, everybody needs a little bit of that. But no, genuinely, as a person who studies and experiments with language, and also as a person who is a pretty constant consumer of public opinion from many, many, many different sources, I think it's undeniable that there has been a shift.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 33:51

  I think we saw a lot of that shift in 2018 toward the victories that we saw. We see that shift in kind of the younger, the quote-unquote freshman class in Congress that is much, much more about affirming what we're for, is much more audacious in the most wonderful of ways, and is much more about, you know, saying things that the base is going to be excited about and want to repeat and make common sense. You know, I think that the Democratic field in 2020 is massive and it has its good bits and it has its horrendously, you know, it has its tired old bits, which are still harkening back to a world that does not exist anymore, and rightfully so. But, yeah, I think that there is a lot of shift toward being explicit about race. I think there is a shift toward presenting an affirmative vision of what we're for and not just merely lending Trump more airtime, because, honestly, when we are talking about him, the story is about him.

  Benn Marine: 34:59

  So, would you say, then the best way to combat Trump at this point is to just turn off your TV and not, not, not listen or give him the airtime.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 35:06

  Um, what I would say is the best way to combat Trump is to just, without hesitation and without sort of just to relentlessly repeat what we are for and what we believe.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 35:21

  One of the things that we did, for example and this is in one of the podcast episodes, this is in the Greater Than Fear episode in Minnesota, in the midst of organizing there, when we had come up with our branding, which was Greater Than Fear, with the tagline in Minnesota we're better off together.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 35:34

  Trump was greater than fear, with the tagline in Minnesota we're better off together.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 35:36

  Trump came to Rochester, which is the city in Minnesota, and the default setting, as it always is when Trump is coming to our hometowns, is to have an anti-Trump rally, and, of course, I understand that default, but instead we were able to talk into having a greater than fear rally, which the local and the national press that travels with the president covered as such, and to have those people at that rally instead of saying Trump is horrible, here's why he's horrible.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 36:07

  He's also horrible and he did this horrible thing and also this terrible thing. I mean, the sad truth of Trump is that he has turned us all into cats looking at a laser pointer, and every single thing he does. We're over there and we're talking about that. We're over there and we're talking about that, and that robs us of precious airtime to talk about the things that we want and what we are for, whether that be the Green New Deal, whether that be Medicare for all, whether that be creating a fair immigration process that respects all families all of the above. So the best way to combat Trump is to not talk about Trump.

  Benn Marine: 36:42

  That's awesome, oh my goodness. Well, thank you so much, and I feel like I could ask you questions all day. Thank you so much. I really appreciate your time.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 36:50

  Oh, thank you.

  Benn Marine: 36:51

  Any other resources or links folks should know about?

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 36:53

  Oh, thank you, any other resources or links folks should know about? I guess the only other thing I would say is that, while you can get Brave New Words in all the places that people get the podcast, if you actually go to the website for the podcast itself, which is bravenewwordspodcom itself, which is Brave New Words podcom, each episode has its own page and research that we did, where applicable, is there the ads that we ran. So if you want to go in deeper and understand you know why Jacinda won in New Zealand, or how we beat back Islamophobia in Minnesota, or you know how they passed police reform in Washington, etc. You can go there and find more resources.

  Benn Marine: 37:38

  Awesome, and I'll be sure to link to all that in the show notes as well.

  Anat Shenker-Osario: 37:44

  Great Well, thank you so much. No, thank you, I really appreciate it.

  Benn Marine: 37:50

  Thank you so much for tuning in. Friends. Please subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts and leave a review. It helps folks find this podcast, which in turn, helps us help more folks like yourself. As always, you can find links to the content of this episode in the show notes at OceanOfOrganizingcom and some exciting news in the world of Ocean of Organizing. Thanks to the feedback of many of you, the official survey for organizers is live and ready for you to participate. Just head on over to oceanoforganizingcom forward slash survey to take the survey. It takes about 10 to 15 minutes and when it's completed, I'll certainly be sharing all of the results of that with all of you. And as we speak, we're also working really hard on creating some online courses and tools for all of you. And as we speak, we're also working really hard on creating some online courses and tools for all of you for next year. So really exciting things to look forward to, as always. Thank you, I appreciate you.