Buttigieg, showing how it's done

In 2019 Pete Buttigieg appeared on a Fox News show and made the case for late-term abortion -- and got an ovation from the conservative audience.  He did it by putting the issue in human terms, avoiding abstraction and canned rhetoric, and by using plain everyday language instead of focus-grouped campaign-speech slogans.  He totally avoided disrespectful rhetoric like "deplorables", "clinging bitterly", etc which instantly provokes anger and closes minds.  Most importantly, he did it on Fox, reaching an audience that didn't already share his views on the matter, so that the conservative people in the room and watching on TV could hear what he said in his own words, not via a slanted paraphrase concocted by another conservative.  I'm sure few, if any, of those people substantially changed their views of the issue on the spot -- but they heard a clear and sympathetic explanation of the reality of abortion that most of them likely hadn't heard before, and many minds were probably opened at least a bit, if only to sympathy for women in the situation he was describing.  It's a beginning.

This is how you do it.  Preaching to those who are already believers is easy, but it's not how you win new converts.  If Buttigieg had made the exact same speech on the Rachel Maddow show or at a Democratic convention, it would have been worth very little.  To reach audiences beyond those who are already on our side, it's necessary to go where those people are, not expect them to come to us.  This situation where everybody just sits in their own echo chambers, and listens only to voices they already agree with, is a national disaster.  Anything that breaks down those barriers and exposes people to different thinking is vital.

In the same vein, two weeks ago Elizabeth Warren posted an op-ed at Fox explaining the DOGE attack on Social Security.  Most of what she said is already familiar to the informed left, but by posting it there, she reached people who likely have not had the issue put clearly to them before.  And last week Buttigieg was back, appearing for three hours on a podcast geared to the "manosphere" (a subculture of young males defined by resentful and primitive attitudes toward women, generally leaning right-wing if they're interested in politics at all), making his case on a wide range of topics in a forum where a hostile audience that hasn't heard most of it before would be tuning in, using plain language rather than politician-speak.  And, yes, Gavin Newsom having right-wingers like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon on his podcast is a good move, even if he doesn't handle the opportunity as adeptly as Buttigieg does.  It probably brings in at least a few right-wing listeners who get to hear some left-wing arguments they normally wouldn't.  More left-leaning speakers, especially those who are adept at making their case and using plain non-jargony English, need to find ways to do the same.