Gingrich's 1996 Memo Fostered Divisiveness— There's A Much Better Way To Do What He Was Attempting

If you’re old like me, you may recall Newt Gingrich's 1996 GOPAC memo, “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control.” Ring a bell?It was addressed to Republican congressional candidates with the goal of providing then with a “how to” approach to structured political communication, underscoring the importance of language in shaping public perception and controlling political narratives. Gingrich emphasized the use of explicit positive language to describe Republican values and negative language to frame Democratic opponents, a deliberate attempt to manipulate voter perceptions through emotionally charged language while prioritizinbg rhetorical effectiveness over substantive debate and reducing complex policy discussions to emotionally loaded sound bites. This is the list of Gingrich’s positive word suggestions:

• active(ly)

• activist

• building 

• candid(ly) 

• care(ing) 

• challenge 

• change 

• children 

• choice/choose 

• citizen 

• commitment 

• common sense 

• compete 

• confident 

• conflict

• control

• courage

• crusade

• debate

• dream

• duty

• eliminate good-time in prison 

• empower(ment)

• fair

• family

• freedom

• hard work

• help

• humane

• incentive

• initiative

• lead

• learn

• legacy

• liberty

• light

• listen

• mobilize

• moral

• movement

• opportunity

• passionate

• peace

• pioneer

• precious

• premise

• preserve

• principle(d)

• pristine

• pro- (issue): flag, children, environment, 

• reform 

• prosperity

• protect 

• proud/pride 

• provide  

• rights 

• share 

• strength 

• success 

• tough

• truth 

• unique 

• vision 

• we/us/our

Funny how many of these words are part of the progressive lexicon and shunned by MAGA Republicans and conservatives in general. Gingrich chose the words for their positive connotations but their use is obviously superficial if not backed by genuine policies. For instance, terms like "freedom" and "opportunity" can be rhetorically powerful yet vague, masking policies that are the polar opposite.

These were the words Gingrich wanted GOP candidates to weaponize against Democrats:

• abuse of power

• anti- (issue): flag, family, child, jobs 

• betray

• bizarre

• bosses

• bureaucracy

• cheat

• coercion

• "compassion" is not enough 

• collapse(ing)

• consequences

• corrupt

• corruption

• criminal rights

• crisis

• cynicism

• decay

• deeper

• destroy

• destructive

• devour

• disgrace

• endanger

• excuses

• failure (fail)

• greed

• hypocrisy

• ideological

• imposei

• ncompetent

• insecure

• insensitive

• intolerant

• liberal

• lielimit(s)

• machine 

• mandate(s) 

• obsolete

• pathetic

• patronage 

• permissive attitude 

• pessimistic

• punish (poor ...) 

• radical

• red tape 

• self-serving 

• selfish 

• sensationalists 

• shallow

• shame 

• sick 

• spend(ing) 

• stagnation 

• status quo 

• stealtaxes 

• they/them 

• threaten

• traitors 

• unionized 

• urgent (cy) 

• waste 

• welfare

Gingrich was encouraging as adversarial and divisive an approach as could be mustered, even if it meant undermining the principles of the kind of healthy democratic discourse that thrives on open, honest debate and the exchange of ideas. When political language is heavily scripted to manipulate emotions rather than inform, it degrades public trust— and for many, even interest— in electoral politics and institutions and in this case it certainly deepened political polarization, very much contributing to the “us vs them” mentality, that has defined American politics since then. Obviously, this has also made bipartisan cooperation much more difficult and fostered division among members of Congress and, worse, among the citizens of the country who were forced to choose sides. This divisiveness has impeded progress on addressing shared challenges like healthcare, climate change and economic inequality.

I’m certain that it never occurred to Gingrich that when political success is achieved through manipulative language rather than substantive policy discussion, the resulting governance will lack genuine public support, understanding and even legitimacy— which is exactly what happened.

The memo had a profound impact on political communication and the Republican Party's strategy in 1996 and helped them retain their majority even while Clinton was being reelected. 36 freshmen from Gingrich’s Republican Revolution of 1994 were reelected and just 12 lost their seats. All in the Republicans only lost a net of 4 seats at least in part due to Gingrich’s memo teaching candidates how to— and encouraging them to— evoke strong emotional responses from the electorate, making the GOP approach more compelling, cohesive, memorable and persuasive, framing the political debates in terms favorable to their agenda. Campaigns weren’t as systematically vitriolic and negative before 1996. The principles outlined in the memo have influenced not just the Republican Party, but also political communication strategies across the political spectrum. Campaigns and political consultants have adopted similar techniques to craft effective, manipulative messaging ever since while eroding civic discourse.

Here's an example of a sample memo from Blue America to candidates we’re working with, designed to help them communicate effectively while emphasizing the integrity, transparency and a commitment to positive change that Gingrich completely ignored:

Language: A Key Mechanism of Empowerment and Positive Change

Dear Progressive Candidates,

As you embark on your journey to represent your communities in Congress, we recognize the power of language in shaping public discourse and inspiring action. Like Newt Gingrich’s 1996 GOPAC memo, we understand that language matters. However, a progressive goal is to use language not as a mechanism of control, but as a tool for empowerment, inclusivity and positive change, right?

This memo is designed to provide you with a directory of words and phrases that will enhance your communication, help you articulate your vision, and distinguish your policies from those of your opponents. By focusing on transparency, honesty, and the values that make us progressives, you can build a narrative that resonates with voters and fosters a more constructive and hopeful political environment.

Positive, Empowering Language

Use the following words and phrases to convey your vision for the future and the values that drive your campaign. These terms reflect our commitment to justice, equality and the well-being of all citizens.

• Inclusive Words: unity, community, together, collective, shared, solidarity, diversity, inclusion

• Hopeful Words: future, progress, vision, innovation, opportunity, growth, potential, possibility

• Empowering Words: empower, uplift, enable, support, champion, advocate, defend, protect

• Values-Based Words: justice, fairness, equality, dignity, integrity, honesty, transparency, accountability

• Action-Oriented Words: action, solution, plan, initiative, progress, build, create, transform

• Community-Focused Words: neighbor, friend, family, local, grassroots, partnership, collaboration, cooperation

• Environmental Words: sustainability, renewable, green, conservation, preservation, stewardship, climate justice

Constructive Contrasts

When discussing your opponents’ policies, focus on constructive contrasts that highlight the differences in values and approaches without resorting to divisive or demeaning language. Emphasize the positive outcomes of progressive policies and the potential shortcomings of alternative approaches.

• Contrasting Words: regressive, outdated, status quo, short-sighted, inequitable, unsustainable, unaccountable

• Critical but Constructive: address, question, challenge, rethink, reconsider, improve, enhance, reform

• Focus on Outcomes: impact, consequences, effects, results, benefits, drawbacks, implications

• Policy-Based Critiques: inefficient, ineffective, harmful, detrimental, insufficient, misguided, neglect

Principles for Effective Communication

1. Authenticity: Speak from the heart. Authenticity builds trust and credibility with voters.

2. Transparency: Be open and honest about your policies and their impacts. Transparency fosters trust.

3. Empathy: Show understanding and compassion for the struggles and concerns of your constituents.

4. Respect: Treat opponents and their supporters with respect. Civil discourse promotes a healthier democracy.

5. Solutions-Oriented: Focus on presenting solutions and positive change rather than merely criticizing opponents.

Here are some concrete examples of messaging that compares and contrasts without fostering deeper national divisiveness:

On Healthcare:

• Positive: “We champion a healthcare system that ensures every American has access to quality, affordable care. Together, we can build a healthier, more equitable future.”

• Contrast: “The current approach leaves too many behind. We need a system that prioritizes people over profits, ensuring no one has to choose between their health and financial security.”

On The Climate Crisis:

• Positive: “Our commitment to renewable energy and sustainability will create jobs, protect our planet and secure a better future for our children.”

• Contrast: “Ignoring the climate crisis jeopardizes our environment and economy. We must embrace innovative solutions that safeguard our planet for generations to come.”

On Economic Policy:

• Positive: “We believe in an economy that works for everyone, where hard work is rewarded, and opportunity is accessible to all. Together, we can achieve shared prosperity.”

• Contrast: “Trickle-down economics has failed to deliver for working families. It's time for policies that prioritize fair wages and economic justice.”

On Israel/Gaza:

• Positive: “We advocate for a peaceful and just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, emphasizing the importance of human rights, security and dignity for all. We support efforts that foster dialogue, cooperation and mutual respect between both communities.”

• Contrast: “A one-sided approach to the conflict exacerbates tensions and undermines the prospects for peace. Policies that neglect the rights and needs of both Israelis and Palestinians fail to address the root causes of violence and hinder the path to a sustainable solution.”