Per my previous posts in this series, making a real dent in the federal debt would entail a combination of higher taxes, serious spending cuts, and policy reforms that are likely to upset of lot of voters. For details, see How to Gradually Lower the Federal Debt Part I, Part II,  Part III-a, Part III-b and Part IV-a. So how can politicians and elected officials persuade the public and powerful interests to go along with disagreeable policies that promise plenty of short-term pain and almost no immediate payoff, all for an eventual yet somewhat uncertain greater good?

It doesn’t matter whether the message is spoken or written; the same principle holds: keep it short, simple and to the point. This from ‘In Favor of Simple Writing’ (The Economist, September 28th 2023):

[In one study], a pandemic-era message to parents first included a few sentences acknowledging the difficulties of home-schooling, then asked them to take a survey. A shorter message inviting them to take the survey got more responses. Writers must sometimes opt for being brusque but effective instead of sympathetic but ignored.

Often it is not just what you say but how briskly you say it. The value of brevity applies even when asking people to donate money, such as to political candidates…in an experiment for an American candidate, simply deleting every other paragraph in a fundraising email increased donations by 16% (though it resulted in a disjointed message). Even political obsessives do not want to read endless self-justification. 

Word-count is not the only thing to cut. Keeping messages to a single idea—or as few as absolutely needed—helps ensure that they will be read, remembered and acted on.

Syntax and word-choice matter, too. Short and active sentences, with common words that everyone uses, are best. 

A study of the ethics codes of 188 public companies found that those using long sentences and complicated words were seen as less moral and trustworthy.  

Also, be willing to challenge voters. Per Stanford professor Steve Callander:

 Say some things that are discordant with what the voters want. In a sense, agitate them and displease them a little bit, because you’re signaling that you’re not just saying what they want to hear, that you take positions you believe in. 

And you know who that worked for? Here’s Callander again, speaking in 2016:

I think that, for a lot of people, the appeal with Trump is that they see him as this independent figure who speaks his mind and isn’t pandering. To his supporters, he’s someone who has his own positions, makes up his mind quickly, and, because he’s independently rich, isn’t pressured by outside interests. Is this the strong guy who’s going to do great things? In some sense, people would love to have someone like that in power.

Examples of effective political messaging:

“We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way-- everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want . . . everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear . . . anywhere in the world.” - President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Message to Congress, January 6, 1941

“My policies are based not on some economics theory, but on things I and millions like me were brought up with: an honest day's work for an honest day's pay; live within your means; put by a nest egg for a rainy day; pay your bills on time; support the police." - Margaret Thatcher, The News of the World, 9/20/81.

 So How would a Politician Sell Serious Debt Reduction?

Lay out the problem, present the fix, address possible trade-offs, and connect it all to basic principles and ideals that just about everybody agrees with. Keep it short, simple, and to the point. It also helps to be extroverted, charismatic, amusing and a bit feisty.