BulletProofBlog the blog on crisis communications

On Saturday, the House of Representatives passed an historic healthcare reform bill after months of protracted and heated debate about the future of our nation’s healthcare system. While the legislation still faces an uncertain path in the Senate, few thought Democrats would get this far, particularly after a week that included significant electoral defeats for Democrats in Virginia and New Jersey and the latest unemployment numbers clocking in at 10.2%.

As the pundits dissect the House vote and handicap the bill’s future, let’s not overlook a key factor fueling the Democrat’s progress – the use of language.

Democrats are controlling the language of the healthcare debate. Meanwhile, the Republicans – architects of greatest hits such as the “War on Terror” and the “Death Tax” – have been unsuccessful in painting the legislation as something more sinister.

To be fair, even “healthcare reform” has its opponents, but reform is generally thought of as something positive. Democrats even adjusted their language in the wake of the August town hall protests to focus more on “insurance reform” and less on “healthcare.” Give them points for flexibility.

Then there’s the so-called “public option.” While the term won’t win awards for creativity, it’s elegant in its simplicity and, more importantly, its neutrality. There’s a reason why the White House and Congressional Democrats aren’t touting a “government-run insurance plan.”

Still can’t convince card carrying members of the NRA that a public option is the key to healthcare reform? Add a “trigger.”

It’s clear why the Democrats are winning the language war, but why have Republicans been unsuccessful at making the debate about socialized medicine, for example? The party’s internal disarray following election losses in 2006 and 2008 could be hampering its messaging efforts. Or perhaps it was a simple political miscalculation. Healthcare appeared to be on life support in August; the Republicans may have thought cosmetic surgery on a nearly dead patient was unnecessary.

Whatever the case, this debate, and the many others in Washington that preceded it, offer an instructive and important lesson for moving public opinion. Control the language of the debate. If you’re locked in a communications battle and the language isn’t favorable to your side, change it fast. It takes discipline and repetition.

And whatever you do, don’t repeat language and terms favorable to your opponents. In healthcare parlance, you might call that a self-inflicted wound.

Andrew Koneschusky is a Vice President at Levick Strategic Communications and a contributing author to Bulletproof Blog.

UPDATE 11/12/09: For further analysis, read my commentary on CBSNews.com.