A failure to communicate

The Bush Tax Cuts are coming up for renewal.  Republicans want to keep them (even though they proved to do not a damn thing to help the economy) and Democrats want them to expire.  I'm not sure what the odds are on them passing, but if they do it will be in part because Democrats and Progressives don't know how to make an emotional argument. 

Republicans & Conservatives are anti-intellectual for the most part.  They are the ones who keep pointing out how elitist and fancy we progressives, liberals and Democrats are.  The voting public (at least segments of it) buy this.  Why?  Look at the debate on the Bush tax cuts.  Republicans and Conservatives are framing it as a tax increase, which strikes an emotional chord with Americans (heck the TEA party stands for Taxed Enough Already).  When you try to make the rational (and completely correct) argument that by keeping the tax cuts we will increase the deficit and not stimulate the economy (for if it was going to stimulate the economy it's had plenty of time to do so), you lose the argument.  Why?  Because emotions don't respond to logic. 

Try convincing your loved one to not leave you due to all the logic you can muster.  Not going to work.  Two friends don't like each other, try and show logically that they are perfectly compatible and like the same things.  Not going to work.  Country Music singer Colin Raye (I believe) said it, "Logic never could convince a heart."  Yet that's what we keep doing.  We keep expecting people to see that it "just doesn't make any sense" and they never do. 

Look at this article from Think Progress where Eric Cantor is unable to come up with a single program he'd cut to reduce spending enough to offset the Tax Cuts.  To us that's evidence that the Republicans aren't serious about reducing the deficit & that the Tax Cuts are going to hurt this country more than help.  But we still lose the argument (and the guy Cantor's talking to isn't even against him). 

What we need is more emotional/common sense arguments.  For instance, when talking about the tax cuts make the argument about how we're going to pay for them in simple terms.  Use family budgets.  Example:

"When you cut taxes, what you're doing is cutting income.  So let's say that you're a family living off a certain income, if you cut your income you've got to cut expenses.  All we're asking for the Republicans to do is tell us what they want to cut to offset the lost income.  If you at home take a lower paying job, you don't make up for that by maxing out your credit card, and that's what Republicans would like us to do.  Part of the reason that we ended up with such a high deficit is that Republicans ran up our credit card bills to pay for the lost income."

I think this is an argument that would resonate with voters, especially those that have lost jobs and actually taken a lower pay rate and have had to cut expenses.  I know we've used the "tighten our belts" argument before, but it's become cliche.  Using examples that really resonate, I believe, would help us persuade more voters.  And it doesn't hurt that we're right.