When trying to facilitate social change, “the pen is mightier than the sword,” Edward Bulwer-Lytton famously proposed in his 1839 historical play Cardinal Richelieu. While you’re not likely to find many men or women, for that matter, settling their disputes with swords in the modern era, the sentiment of this line still holds—the written word is powerful, much more than any act of violence. What separates a society on the brink of anarchy from one where order is sufficient to sustain life and liberty? One could argue that it’s our ability to use language to communicate effectively. As Mao Zedong, a Chinese statesman, suggested, “Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.” That is why political slogans used in presidential campaigns are consequential—they are a public effort to settle disputes civilly.
Let’s consider two of the most pressing political slogans of the moment. One slogan was employed by Donald Trump and was coined by Ronald Reagan during his 1980 campaign: “Make America Great Again.” And the other was used by Kamala Harris’ campaign, “We’re Not Going Back.” It’s hard to escape the discourse these slogans seem to have, where the second slogan reads as a determined response to the first. These slogans tell us a lot about the state of race relations in American society, as each was written from a different perspective. They’re like two ships passing at night, noticing one another at a distance without coming close enough to interact. Because the same people who believe we need to “Make America Great Again” would not concede the importance of declaring “We’re Not Going Back.”
Black people’s experience in America has been a story of social progress. Of course, it hasn’t been a straight line. Often, a step forward is followed by two steps back. And yet, it’s not feasible to give up hope of progress simply because of how difficult the journey has proven itself to be. “We’re Not Going Back” is a memorable slogan. It’s an effort to capture the energy of the resistance and target it politically to mitigate harm. Of course, “Make America Great Again” achieves that same goal. Still, for conservatives—it makes them feel their version of America is possible, one where the government plays a much more limited role in funding education, healthcare, and other public programs, and no one dares utter a word about “diversity, equity,” or “inclusion.” In many ways, Trump’s campaign is designed to exploit this nostalgic view many white Americans have of the past when it was easier to buy a home and support a family on one income. But, none of these societal problems can be accomplished by fixating on the past. On the flip side, Harris’ slogan, “We’re Not Going Back,” suggests that we’re in the midst of a fight and that if we lose, we can expect an escalation of regressive policies.
“Make America Great Again” is an effort to whitewash history by suggesting there once was a time when all citizens prospered—it perpetuates an addiction to nostalgia. Nevertheless, there is no version of America that Black people or other racial minorities are anxious to return to. There will be no “Back to the Future” trips for us planned any time soon. Indeed, many Black voters are rejecting the DeLorean because they’re much more interested in embracing a path forward than looking back. Who wants to return to a time when Black people had to sit toward the back of the bus and drink from separate water fountains? The answer should be no one, but attacks on civil rights precedents indicate some white Americans would like to return to an era where explicit racism is openly permitted.
The other slogan, “We’re Not Going Back,” also exposes the perspective from which it was written. We’re living in a country that, in some areas, is banning or restricting the teaching of black history. From the view of many Black Americans, this is regressive, and the only way to mitigate this backlash is by embracing a forward stance, one that’s progressive, as a remedy. Of course, “We’re Not Going Back” doesn’t only speak to Black voters but also to women of all races, who, depending on the state they live in, have lost their reproductive rights after the fall of Roe v. Wade. After witnessing these judicial consequences, many women are worried about the future of women’s rights, whether they will be restored, codified into law, or if the rights someone has will continue to depend on their zip code. As Harris noted on the campaign trail in Indianapolis, “These extremists want to take us backward, but we are not going back.” The slogan is a powerful use of language, as it speaks to the frustration of many disappointed at decisions made by The Supreme Court and conservative-controlled state governments.
One man’s trash is another man’s treasure, is an adage that applies to political slogans. Which slogan resonates more may depend on someone’s political and racial attitudes. Certainly, someone with higher colorblind racial attitudes, for instance, who did not believe race played a role in shaping our experiences, would be more likely to hold favorable views of the “Make America Great Again” slogan. As Shahrzad Shams suggested in The Roosevelt Institute, conservatives utilize colorblind racial ideology to “obstruct racial justice.” However, those more comfortable with considering the country’s legacy of racial injustice may resonate with “We’re Not Going Back,” as they would see this resistance as a necessary response to regressive policies. After all, the yellow brick road to equality is not paved with nostalgia but with an honest commitment to that principle.
Discussions about politics often center on the individuals involved. Still, we shouldn’t forget that the slogans they choose have a widespread impact on how people feel about political campaigns and who they ultimately attract. They’re a way to communicate complicated ideas by condensing them into something memorable and easily transferrable. Like a headline or a book title, they can inspire us to think and consider the perspective from which they were written and what those repeating them wish to achieve.
Comments
Leave a comment