|
 |
October 30, 2003 FRAMING....On Tuesday Digby wrote a post about George Lakoff's view that conservatives are really good at framing issues to favor themselves while liberals are really bad at it. Matt Yglesias linked to Digby's piece and I posted this comment at Matt's site:
In response I've gotten half a dozen emails pointing me to this interview with Lakoff and
wondering what I thought of it. The thing is, it was that interview
that inspired my comment in the first place. Here are a few excerpts:
I'm not trying to rag on Lakoff, but these ideas sound surprisingly naive for a guy who specializes in this topic. It's not that I disagree with the importance of framing, or with Lakoff's contention that Democrats tend to run campaigns based on a laundry list of programs instead of on general values, it's just that his framing examples don't seem very realistic to me. They just won't work. (Like some other commenters, I'm not a fan of his "strict father/nurturant parent" metaphor either, but that's a different subject entirely.) Now, from my own work as a marketing guy I'm well aware that this kind of thing is really hard and has a helluva long lead time, so Lakoff is doing everyone a favor just by raising our awareness that we have to think harder about this stuff. Still, after everyone's gotten the message we're still going to need some concrete ideas, and if your notion of a concrete idea is to convince Americans that they should be happy to pay taxes — well, it just isn't going to work. I do agree that Democrats should spend more time developing a core set of values to talk about and then figuring out good ways to frame and promote those values. But the framing needs to be based on a brutally honest examination of what people respond to, not on a fuzzy notion of what liberals wish people responded to. Humans respond best to fundamental appeals to:
Republicans appeal to these basic motivations in their stands on (respectively) affirmative action, taxes, national defense, welfare, and inheritance taxes. Regardless of our differing policy positions, and regardless of our appeals to our better natures, Democrats better make sure we also cover our bases on appealing to these basic human desires. If we don't, it's going to be an uphill battle every time. Posted by Kevin Drum at October 30, 2003 06:59 PM | TrackBackComments
I think both parties and liberals and conservatives in general are pretty good at framing value appeals - it's just that everything has its season and some values rate more highly during some circumstances than others. When your values are " out of season " with the public you get killed at the polls but the pendulum always swings back to a certain extent. Posted by: mark safranski at October 30, 2003 07:07 PM | PERMALINKI agree with your opinion Lakoff, Kevin. I first came across his work in this TAP article written by him, and I only got about halfway through before I skipped to the next one. It was the only article I didn't read in that very good issue, too. If you want to read about a guy who really knows how to frame issues for political success, read the great article on Frank Luntz that came right before it that made the one by Lakoff come off so badly in comparison. It's really instructive. It definitely appears that being underhanded, using subterfuge and generally having no scruples helps in framing the debate in your favor. As for your statement on taxes, I think you are dead wrong. As Paul Krugman pointed out, the anti-tax fervor in this country is a direct product of an incessant framing campaign; there is nothing the Republicans/conservatives have spent more money on framing, no other issue comes close. In other countries, ones with higher tax rates, large majorities feel exactly the way Lakoff says we should frame the debate, namely that taxes are the price you pay for living in and preserving a modern democratic society. I have a friend who scored a -6 on the economic axis of the political compass, and he has told me that he feels taxes aren't high enough in this country, and he is a Wall Street banker! The tax issue is the one where Lakoff is most right and framing is most necessary. We have let the anti-tax minions completely draw the playing field. Posted by: Mitch Schindler at October 30, 2003 07:16 PM | PERMALINKI don't think its the values that change, or that the importance people place on some values over others change greatly over time. I think a major part of the problem is that the conservatives have been allowed, or have managed, to define the words, for instance "Fairness", "Family". Once you allow "Family" to always mean "one man married to one woman with n kids" then you're doomed if you try to appeal to "Family Values" and the "Family" you're talking about doesn't match the narrow definition. I think that part of a successful attack on the way conservatives frame the issues must be based on pushing a redifinition of the words. Family needs to be expanded, already a large proportion of families don't match the "one man, one woman etc." definition. Attack on the basis that the conservatives don't consider that a Family. Fairness, is it fair that you can get into Yale if your Daddy and your rich but not if your poor even if you have far better grades. Territoriality, (I know this doesn't really work), all that government land out west, it belongs to all of us, the people that farm or ranch it need to take care of it for all of us. Ah well, just a rant. Posted by: Alex at October 30, 2003 07:23 PM | PERMALINKBefore reading your post I was not aware of the term "framing". I have seen in day in and day out, but never thought too much about it. Thanks for my politics/marketing lesson of the day! Posted by: Blaine Hilton at October 30, 2003 07:24 PM | PERMALINKHow about reframing Republicans as "drunk father"? You know, the one who comes home in a stupor (Bush), beats his kids (dead soldiers), and steals from their piggy banks to fund his drinking habit (deficits as far as the eye can see). Posted by: phil at October 30, 2003 07:30 PM | PERMALINKI do agree with Mark: sometimes your core values are just out of sync and there's not much you can do about it. But if you're serious about the values and have the right framing, you can keep fighting the battles and eventually watch the pendulum swing. If you don't, then a temporary mood shift can become permanent. Posted by: Kevin Drum at October 30, 2003 07:34 PM | PERMALINKI have long thought that the Democrats have entirely abandoned the field to the Reaganesque notion that government (and therefore taxes) is the problem, not a solution. At best, Democrats try to market appealing new programs (health insurance, drug benefits) but I never hear a general defense of the value of what government does, and therefore the need for people to pay some taxes for it. The dues idea is a start anyway. And someone over in one of the last comments to Atrios's post on this subject advocated the nice metaphor of government as a "barn raising" -- everyone pitches something in to benefit those in the community who need help. A vision of government as protector and helper when we are in need is essential if the "no new taxes" or "no taxes" line is to be refuted. Otherwise our society will look like the one described in the Texas Republicans' platform. Posted by: David Lewis at October 30, 2003 07:36 PM | PERMALINKThere's the way the Clintons framed the tax debate, "Make the rich pay their fair share" , which was very effective - works off Kevin's fairness doctirine, combined with the punish the cheaters doctrine. It's also being used now to get good political mileage out of Bush's tax cut. However, most Americans pay between 40% and half their income in taxes, and that's just out of their paycheck. You're never going to get them to want to pay more, or like what they are paying, or object to paying less. Kevin is dead right on this one. I wonder if the left in America is tired. I'm amazed at the partial-birth abortion issue, the feminist movement seems dead in the water on framing it. I mean, "Partial Birth Abortion" is the term of the pro-life/anti-abortion crowd. What's the pro-choice term? There may be one, but I have yet to hear it. I figured there would be another of those "naming wars", like pro-choice/pro-abortion, pro-life/anti-abortion. But "Partial-Birth Abortion" is the set name for the procedure in the media, the right really has won this battle. I think Kevin is right about developing a core set of values. But they have to be the values of the people. Where are the Mario Cuomo-like warriors of the left? The guys who can work a bar in any neighborhood and then go work a convention just as well? I think the activists of the Democratic party have moved it too far out of its old, working class roots, and have ceded way too much ground to the GOP. Do you all ever wonder why the Repubs get so much support from the middle class? Why the GOP consistently gets far more small donation hard money than the Democrats? My personal opinion: I supported, contributed, and would have worked
long and hard for Paul Tsongas. He was a social liberal who left office
and worked in business, and came back to politics as a pro-business
liberal. He wanted to cut capital gains taxes, streamline regulation,
and had a liberal/progressive social agenda. Field me a candidate like
that, and I'll go Democrat every time. I think this is the kind of Dem
who can beat a Repub easily. But can he get the nomination? You can't
hope for a Bill Clinton to come along all the time, men like that aren't
common.
I sometimes wonder how long Republican politicians can go on running
against the government, given that now they ARE the government. There
ought to be some way to use that against them. Good post, kevin. Er, umm, I have a lttle something I've started to
fill in what I perceive are the blanks in Lakoff's interview vis-a-vis,
What's next? Also to address some of the elephants in the middle of the
room with regard to "language", etc. Posted the first of a series today Was pleased to read the interview and also by what I perceive to be Digby's appreciation for how things work outside facts and figures of policy. Around our shop, we've been calling it "Managing the Frame©" since 2000. Glad Lakoff's on board. [grin] Posted by: fouro at October 30, 2003 07:44 PM | PERMALINK>most Americans pay between 40% and half their income in taxes See, here's the problem. If I remember correctly, Krugman pointed out in his Times Mag article earlier in the fall that most Americans pay about 25% of their income in taxes. As he said there (sorry it is late on this coast, and I don't have the cite right here), these 50% numbers are a myth that even the relatively well informed have bought. No one (except mayber Krugman) is trying to go at those myths and replace them with a better view. Posted by: David Lewis at October 30, 2003 07:46 PM | PERMALINKFairness -- Tax relief for EVERYONE (evenly distributed) How's that for a start? (Of course, it helps to have an army of talk radio hosts, a few
newspapers, a host of pundits, and a cable news network dedicated to
providing your framing for you...) Yes, Krugman from the 9/14 NY Times Magazine: David Lewis: Democrats better make sure we also cover our bases on appealing to these basic human desires. Read "these basest human desires." I'm serious. The Repubs appeal to people's nastiest, most selfish desires -- I get to keep all my money. . . no taxes. . . a man's got to control his woman and kids. . . America should beat the shit out of any nations that look at us funny. . . life's a game of Survivor. . . lie, cheat and steal to get to / stay at the top. . . I get to go to heaven and you go to hell. . . .we're "realists" and our behavior is justified by "evolutionary psychology." I think we should frame the Republicans in just these terms and show the public how unpleasant they are, underneath the patriotic and moralistic facades. People used to be more idealistic, in the progressive sense. I think this has been pushed out, as the popular culture gets nastier and nastier, economic insecurity and materialism increase. The left has institutionalized progressive politics and made them tiresome for everyone else -- the "political correctness" meme is inspired by an academic, bureacuratic and legalistic approach to promoting equality and respect for others, especially in the schools. Progressivism has been routinized; it's no longer charismatic (terms from Max Weber, Charisma and Institution Building) Posted by: sara at October 30, 2003 08:08 PM | PERMALINK"Marriage is about property." No, Dave, marriage is about having your relationship recognized as legitimate. An unmarried couple can make property arrangements duplicating the property effects of marriage fairly easily. Posted by: rea at October 30, 2003 08:09 PM | PERMALINKSara, well said, JFK called these people idiots. By that he meant the Ancient Greek sense of the term, people who were so self absorbed that they contributed nothing to their community but expected the all of the benefits of democracy. When, in our idiocy, we have eliminated all public spaces and made our private sector all-encompassing, we will have turned our nation completely over to the idiots. Posted by: Another Bruce at October 30, 2003 08:23 PM | PERMALINKI think the greater problem is not "framing" but "scripting", the question of what the mainstream media has presented as "balance" over the past quarter century. Television news, especially, ran scared from Nixon's attacks on liberal bias, and over the decade of the 70s the Right was allowed to present its position on every issue as "the" opposing viewpoint. This has continued to this day--almost the whole of political discourse is conducted according to the litany of Candidate Reagan's complaints. Abortion is a question of morality, not civil rights; Taxation is about "keeping your money" instead of paying your fair share; Welfare is a handout not a helping hand. Despite controling the WH for 16 of the ensuing 24 years, and effective control of Congress for much of that time, the Right is still permitted to act as "outsiders", because the debate itself is still framed that way. Liberals face the difficult prospect not just of improving the acceptance of their own positions, but of making the epistemological argument that the terms of debate are themselves skewed, that description of the problem is itself inadequate. Posted by: D. Case at October 30, 2003 08:41 PM | PERMALINKThanks for the nod Kevin. For all the wailing goiong on here about how sophisticated the GOP is with framing you forget how well the Democrats have " framed " issues like social security - it didn't become the " third rail " without a fair amount of demogoguery. " Tax cuts for the Rich " sometimes is very effective as a mantra though not when people feel like they are being squeezed economically. And on a non-political note, for those interested, Daniel Goleman ( " Emotional Intelligence" guru )wrote a good book earlier in his career on the psychology of perception and framing. Posted by: mark safranski at October 30, 2003 08:58 PM | PERMALINK"An unmarried couple can make property arrangements duplicating the property effects of marriage fairly easily." Not easily at all. Expensively. Marriage confers automatically a sharing of property and a system of inheritance. That what it's about. Sex is purely incidental. On a related topic -- I'm with sara. Framing- Georgie Bush says the 7.2% GDP growth is all thanks to his tax cut. Dino the Dumbass Democrat says, whoa, hold on there, one quarter does not a recovery make. Georgie says, I did something, you benefited. Dino says, did you want ice with your cold bucket of water? Jimmy Carter lost, in large measure, because he dampened Americans hope and optimism for the future. So what should Dino say? "That 7.2% GDP growth was in large part the result of the spending generated from the $1000 tax credit we pushed for in the tax cuts, a credit that has always been the type of governmental action Democrats have been in favor of in times of trouble, putting money in the hands of people who can really use it. Our strategy has been proven by this growth in GDP. This is what we fought for, not a big fat tax break for Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers (insert appropriate evil money grubbing gopper with no socially redeeming qualities, not Bill Gates, maybe Dick Grasso) so they could get even more of their shareholders capital for their own selfish and unproductive use." Framing. Posted by: Duckman GR at October 30, 2003 09:07 PM | PERMALINKSo, for the average American, take IRS withholding, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, booze taxes, cigarette taxes Let's take the "average household income" to be $50k, married, 2 kids (~$30k taxable income): Federal Income tax: $3919 Or approx 33% tax burden. Liberals can frame some of their ideas just fine. They get to focus on the 'choice' of abortion instead of worrying about whether or not they are killing someone. They convinced the public that it was sexual harassment for a man to take have sex with his interns, and then seamlessly flip flopped on it less than ten years later. They can make fruitless negotiations seem like a success because 'at least we got them to talk with us'. You guys shouldn't be so hard on yourselves. Posted by: Sebastian Holsclawq at October 30, 2003 09:16 PM | PERMALINKWADR, I think many miss the point here, Kevin. And, I too was disappointed in the "surface" nature of Lakoff's understandings, hence my blogging. To be fair, it was an interview so maybe he spared the metaphysics and persona, ego, self disposition for expediency. Let's hope so, because as I've written elsewhere, for a thing to be easy, it must be hard. But "hard" is "inneficient", isn't it? At least, in business and politics, leaders seem to have gotten the idea that action--the appearance of doing something--substitutes for direction. I fight this every day. I'm sure others here do too. And the sad truth is, smart guys and girls, at the top of the heap, when you get a few scotches in them admit they want more. They're just too freaked and stretched to find it themselves. They're victims of inertia and the system: Too many consultants are facile in Excel® and Visio® and cut and paste strategy and know "fuck-all" about what makes people willing to throw themselves in front of a bus for a cause. Metapohorically speaking, of course. Not as an example to follow, but as evidence of a mindset, look at the "policy-consumer market" so to speak. By my "personal" measure, which means nothing for this exercise, the prime contractor is: * An incurious man His party is mean spirited, lacks any introspective quality and revels in belittling ideas not their own. Platitudes substitute for poetry. And that's the kind version. But you see, my opinion doesn't mean anything. On paper, he should be gone, never there. And yet the guy is in office and until recently had said and done enough "right" to have historic poll numbers. He has no policies to speak of, he has no apparent overarching philosophy to speak of, save the vaunted "tax relief". Yet he wins. Perhaps most important, his party wins. And please, don't get all specific on me about his poll trends and recent events in Iraq. And spare the Supreme Court angle, what is is. This is a larger story than Bush. The object lesson here is that whatever candidate they wish to run,
Republicans know something many Democrats don't when it comes to desire
and "Framework." Time to light a candle. Here are some frames to satisfy your practical nature, Kevin: 1) Tax cuts = Tax shifts etc. Just requires message discipline, which Dems don't have. Not that I would want the Dems to turn into the dittoheads on the right, but I think it's unity of command that's the issue. Framing's a piece of cake. Posted by: praktike at October 30, 2003 09:24 PM | PERMALINKIf I had to sum up my own Canadian attitude to taxes it would be: You get what you pay for. If you want good government, you have to foot the bill. I don't like paying taxes any better than anyone else, but government is necessary, it does things I want to have done, and there aren't any free lunches. It seems like common sense. Why don't Americans see it that way? Why would they let Republicans get away with claiming they could get something for nothing? Posted by: Canadian Reader at October 30, 2003 09:27 PM | PERMALINKWe have ultra-conservative christians explaining that Sebastian, you had me on the first two, "Gong" on the third. Moral consistency is important, and your first two points are hanging chad in terms of congruency for framing a viable democratic party. Work to be done. But, O' poster of clangy psyche, temperance justice and charity would infer that our obligation is to go the extra mile, while polishing our brasss knuckles. Wouldn't hurt not to be assholes to our allies eaither. Posted by: fouro at October 30, 2003 09:31 PM | PERMALINKThey get to focus on the 'choice' of abortion instead of worrying about whether or not they are killing someone. yup, the choice to terminate a dependent life inside of one's body is just that -- a personal choice. It will be whether or not it is again criminalized. Posted by: Troy at October 30, 2003 09:38 PM | PERMALINKkevin says: ...these ideas sound surprisingly naive... kevin, didn't I read somewhere that you had spent time in some marketing field or another? Then with all due respect, you should know better. Simple framing is best for complicated ideas, so long as it leads the recipient to explore or make meaning of the complications. I worry that the Left has too much of its self-definition invested in intellectual superiority. Any leftie so afflicted who reads that last sentence should immediately try and dismiss it. Don't. Because the result is that the Left uses convoluted language in an attempt to express exact meaning that alienates large groups of voters who would otherwise be receptive to a progressive message. Lakoff may sound naive, but he's on the right track. Say tax reform or tax fairness twice for every time the Right says tax relief and I bet your average joe and jane will respond. Say tax repeal or tax hike, and we all know what will happen. It may sound naive and simple, but that is because the language of it is, even if the ideas behind it aren't. Posted by: ccobb at October 30, 2003 09:42 PM | PERMALINKSome small points: 1. Krugman is really good at framing and explaining issues. Here's my favorite Krugman frame: " . . .Consider this parable: There are two societies. In one, everyone makes a living at some occupation--say, fishing--in which the amount people earn over the course of a year is fairly closely determined by their skill and effort. Incomes will not be equal in this society--some people are better at fishing than others, some people are willing to work harder than others--but the range of incomes will not be that wide. And there will be a sense that those who catch a lot of fish have earned their success. In the other society, the main source of income is gold prospecting. A few find rich mother lodes and become wealthy. Others find smaller deposits, and many find themselves working hard for very little reward. The result will be a very unequal distribution of income. Some of this will still reflect effort and skill: Those who are especially alert to signs of gold, or willing to put in longer hours prospecting, will on average do better than those who are not. But there will be many skilled, industrious prospectors who do not get rich and a few who become immensely so. Surely the great majority of Americans, no matter how conservative, instinctively feel that a nation that resembles the second imaginary society is a worse place than one that resembles the first. Yet there is also no question that our nation today is much less like the benign society of fishermen--and much more like the harsh society of prospectors--than it was a generation ago. . ." 2. Read Bugliosi's book "Outrage: the 5 reasons OJ Simpson got away with murder", on how the prosecution botched their job despite having an overwhelming case. Also his book "And the Sea Will Tell" 3. Also Orwell's Politics and English Language. Posted by: roublen vesseau at October 30, 2003 09:46 PM | PERMALINKRoyko, the bullhorn is indispensable. But.... Tax Shifts? How descriptive. How appealing. How unsticky. How inert. Rich = unpatriotic? "Gee, what's rich? I'm doing okay. Am I rich? i'm unpatriotic? Fuck you." Royko, yer still playing the old game.
reasonable points, fouro. i'll get back to you after some sleep. Posted by: praktike at October 30, 2003 10:07 PM | PERMALINKCan anyone tell me how a frame differs from a spin, and how either of those differs from a prespective? Vocabulary, by itself, doesn't do much good. What has Lakoff contributed here, other than a trendy new word that we can use and feel smart for having done so? Posted by: JoJo at October 30, 2003 10:44 PM | PERMALINKPraktike, look forward to it, I'm off too. Come on, now. Democrats have been champion framers and demagogues. 1) "Affirmative action" rather than racial preferences. Think about it - what does "affirmative action" have to do with race-based hiring & admissions criteria? Those are two nonsense, positive-sounding words that have nothing to do with the policy. 2) "Tax cuts for the rich", which neglects the fact that "the rich" pay the vast majority of taxes. Check out this IRS data link in Excel format, scroll to the bottom. In 2001: the top 50% paid 96.03% of all income taxes So of course tax cuts will be disproportionately targeted to the rich, because the top 50% of the population pays more than 96% of the taxes! 3) "Racial profiling" rather than standard police work. Every source - from the FBI Uniform crime reports (filed by arresting agencies) to the California DOJ statistics to the National Criminal Victimisation Study ( filed by victims, who have little incentive to misstate the race of their attacker ) shows that blacks and Hispanics offend at higher rates than whites, who in turn offend at higher rates than Asians. Now, police resources are scarce. Most people agree that men are more violent than women, and the young more violent than the old - and that police should use this information accordingly. Reliable statistics - both victim reports and law enforcement agencies - show that such generalizations can be extended to ethnic background. Calling it "racial profiling" rather than "good police work" is a perfect example of spin/framing. Anyway, I could go on. I'm not saying the Republicans don't do this (e.g. the liberation of Iraq, partial-birth abortion, the death tax). I am saying that crying foul on this issue is surreal. Posted by: godlesscapitalist at October 30, 2003 11:23 PM | PERMALINKFouro, I never said that the rich are unpatriotic. But should the wealthiest 1% get the lion's share of the tax cut? How is that fair? What about the other 99%? When we're talking about fairness, Bush's tax cuts are anything but. Posted by: Royko at October 30, 2003 11:28 PM | PERMALINKOh yes - and this doesn't even begin to get at the ultimate ,
last-50-years-defining frame, which is the idea that Communism was
somehow "well meaning and idealistic"...and therefore that its death
toll of 100 million was different in any essential respect from the
similarly murderous collectivist ideology of Nazism. Royko: But should the wealthiest 1% get the lion's share of the tax cut? How is that fair? What about the other 99%? Look at the IRS stats (scroll to the very last table, it's in Excel format). Tax relief would *have* to come from the people who are actually paying taxes. The bottom 50% wouldn't be getting a tax break...they'd be getting a welfare check. Posted by: godlesscapitalist at October 30, 2003 11:31 PM | PERMALINKRoyko: But should the wealthiest 1% get the lion's share of the tax cut? How is that fair? What about the other 99%? Look at the IRS stats (scroll to the very last table, it's in Excel format). The top 50% pay more than 96% of the taxes. Tax relief would *have* to come from the people who are actually paying taxes. The bottom 50% wouldn't be getting a tax break...they'd be getting a welfare check. (sorry for the double post) Look at the IRS stats... Real good. You got that right off Rush's home page. Now let's discuss the percentage of the national income that the various groups enjoy. Or, better still, the percentage of the national wealth they own. Posted by: JoJo at October 30, 2003 11:43 PM | PERMALINKJoJo: let's discuss the percentage of the national income that the
various groups enjoy. Or, better still, the percentage of the national
wealth they own. Sure thing. While we're at it, why don't we discuss[1] income mobility: A 1996 Urban Institute study showed that large numbers of Americans move into a new income quintile, with estimates ranging from 25 percent to 40 percent in a single year. The same study found even higher mobility rates over longer periods: about 45 percent over five years and 60 percent over 9-year and 17-year periods. Or the fact that those with wealth generally did not inherit it: The Affluent: Perception and Reality America is the most meritocratic country in the world. Take a look at the richest people in the US, and see how many Indians, Chinese, and Jews are among them. Class warfare rhetoric is bankrupt when people have actually *earned* their money.
Royko, My BAD. Trying to reply to two posts in one, and instead revealed my lack of opposable thumbs. Many sorrys. But should the wealthiest 1% get the lion's share of the tax cut? How is that fair? What about the other 99%? Agnostically speaking, on the face of it, yes. If they pay the lion's share, they should get the the lion's rebate. But we're not speaking agnostically here, are we? Fairness needs a common benchmark. That's what Lakoff is talking about in framing. The concept of noblesse oblige IS being dragged to Norquist's jacuzzi. But not to worry, it's a concept that's innate in the national psyche. "Taxes unfair!" for many is not a reflection of the anguish they get from writing big schecks to Uncle Sam. Fact is, most don't. "Taxes unfair!" or "Liberal traitor" is an identifier, like "Hook em horns!" or "You're from Jersey? I'm from Jersey!" The challenge--doable, I believe--is to reframe and reclaim today's "higher ground" from the pretenders to virtue. Dunno if you've visited but I'm blogging on it here. past time for bed Ahh innocent folks like GodlessCapitalist, so blissfully unaware of payroll and regressive state and local taxes, so willing to shill for the poor oppressed upper 1% who control 40% of the wealth of our nation. Keep going, Godless, we can eliminate the middle class and attain thirdworldhood yet! Posted by: Another Bruce at October 31, 2003 12:48 AM | PERMALINKHey! That upper 1% earned that wealth! If we all try as hard and forego all the shit jobs working for the man, everyone too can join that blessed top 1%. The framing follows from the establishment of an infrastructure to disseminate the message. It's not a particular question of skill in framing, but the resources available to do it. For example - it's noticeable in the UK that for all the debate in the US about a liberal media, our media is more to the left than your supposed left wing channels, and, in the case of TV and radio, is legally bound to uphold a centrist position. TV stations don't provide a platform to continually put forward a particular world view. The print media broadly falls across the political spectrum and as a result, it is journalists, not politicians, who get to frame the debate. Where the left in America has failed is in building the critical mass of message givers - voters don't care especially about the quality of the message and aren't bothered enough to actually analyse it. They react more to its familiarity. Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2003 03:41 AM | PERMALINKKevin, Until moderates and liberals start to frame the issues intelligently, and as long as they are oblivious to the right wing's careful rhetorical traps, they simply cannot even begin to hope that their ideas will get a fair hearing. You seem to accept the importance of rhetoric, but nevertheless, you give it short shrift. Sorry, but it's central. The substantive ideas of moderate and liberal thought are far more developed than Bush's are, and far more sensible. You can read the policy papers on the candidate's websites or at the think tanks if you feel otherwise. It is a lie that Democrats don't have a plan. They do, it's consistent, and the differences between the plans are typically ones of emphasis rather than direction. The problem is simply one of persuasion. And moderates and liberals are woefully ineffective at that. Lakoff addresses this. Let's get his bad ideas out of the way first. Strict Father/Nurturant Pattern is bullshit for many reasons. In addition, the "self-help style" in which he wrote Moral Politics is an offensive way to approach ultra-educated policy wonks, his intended audience, who find such books morally offensive. But Lakoff's emphasis on the importance of framing issues correctly is THE issue that the Democrats need to address if they are ever to be effective. Now, there are two levels to your criticism of Lakoff, as I see it. 1. The expressed views are naive. Regarding (1), of course Lakoff's opinions are naive. They were designed to appeal not to smart people like yourself but to the same sort of mentality that responds to phrases like "death tax" or "defense of marriage". In fact, Lakoff 's point is that you are naive, Kevin, in focusing on the lack of substance in such rhetoric. Eqaully vacuous, indeed dangerously naive, sentiments -Axis of Evil, preemptive unilateralism- define public discourse. Moderates and liberals must respond in kind, but from a reservoir of common sense. As for (2), you've chosen to highlight some of Lakoff's least effective examples. But you've ignored his excellent analyses in the very same article. For example, Lakoff unpacks the phrase "tax relief." He demonstrates what should be obvious to everyone, but isn't: The moment you use the phrase "tax relief" you have accepted that taxes are always a burden, that you deserve relief from them, and the person who does the relieving is doing something morally good. It is dismaying to watch seemingly experienced opposition politicians struggle to refute "tax relief". It's impossible to win on such a tilted playing field. Rhetoric, especially framing, is precisely the elephant in the room that moderates and liberals need to address. Until recently, we've sucked at it, and for the most part, we still do. So if Lakoff himself comes up with poor examples, it does not mean his basic insight isn't absolutely right. It is. Posted by: tristero at October 31, 2003 04:03 AM | PERMALINKsorry I had to skip directly ot the end of the posts to post this, I'm in the middle of packing kid lunchs and don't have time to read everything first. so sorry if this duplicates someone else's post. In re Kevin's point that "people" are attracted by basically a laundry list of things (us vs them) , "terriroriality" etc... that is true, the "framing" thing comes in what things are included in each frame. The idea that "republicans" satisfy people's desires to "protect the kids" while undermining welfare is ludicrous. Actually, as Kevin would no doubt admit, they "satisfy a desire" to "get the cheaters" when they undercut wellfare. That is an issue of framing the debate and it is one on which we can win. Terry Schiavo's case also falls uncomfortably on the mid line of some of these overall "values" since what seems like a kind of "protect the kids" or "protect life" kind of stance also conflicts dramatically with "sanctity of the family" and other closely held values. I agree with lakoff, though I "disagreed" a bit on digby's original post: it is framing, framing, framing. Frank Luntz is great at it, but what makes him *really great* is not his ideas but their dissemination. Alas for us (and contra the ideas espoused in the earilier thread on fox news) there simply is no liberal "wurlitzer" which not only builds and disseminates this garbage, but has the money to back up the underlying issues at election time. Can anyone believe that the republicans wouldn't be playing hardball with "earmarks" (sorry, couldn't resis the mixed metaphor) as described in dAvid obey's letter if fighting for their programs and their "Message" didn't boil down to "he who has the money, makes the rules?" aimai ps sorry for the rush job. Lots of frantic early liberals peeping "Feed me, dress me, educate me." must protect them. Posted by: aimai at October 31, 2003 04:05 AM | PERMALINKConservative leaders are very good at framing issues in binary terms, whereas liberal leaders are more nuanced. Framing issues in binary terms is much simpler for the majority of the people, who are not as interested in the nuances--or, for that matter, in most of the issues. Posted by: raj at October 31, 2003 04:40 AM | PERMALINKAlso, I've noticed that conservative commentators appear to be more than willing to make up "facts" that they believe will appeal to conservatives' prejudices. Posted by: raj at October 31, 2003 04:41 AM | PERMALINKI "frame" the gay marriage issue as: what does marriage do for straights--guys particularly? It gets them out of the bars and off the streets. Attachments reduce deviant tendencies. thelrd in TEXAS Posted by: Larry R Davis at October 31, 2003 05:34 AM | PERMALINKLet's remember the most repeatable quotations from Democrats in the last century or so: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" "Speak softly and carry a big stick" "Ask not what your country can do for you" Could anything like that succeed today, against an administration that uses fear as a tool of public policy, that speaks in a bar-room snarl, that plays everything to self-interest? Dean is trying to refashion Democratic rhetoric, Clark is having a go too with "New American Patriotism". But neither have reached very far yet. Posted by: Thomas Dent at October 31, 2003 06:15 AM | PERMALINKI'd like to second (third, fourth) some comments made upthread: framing is only half the battle. The other half is dissemination, which the left needs to get more strategic about as well. I know they're doing that--but as Lakoff pointed out, those that are doing that haven't talked about framing. Medium and the message. I would amend Kevin's issues to include security (which might take the place of, or supplement family or territoriality). I think adding security is important because that is why Bush has been so successful--fear coming from a general insecurity. The affect of 9/11 on most people's lives was indirect (one of the things I find most amusing is that the folks I know who live in Manhattan are much more stoic about terrorism than those in Manhattan, KS--there is an inverse correlation between the threat from terrorism people face and their fear of it), yet it crystalized a general malaise in the society that came from very different sources. But by addressing security in democratic terms, including everything from making jobs more secure, funding first responders, etc. Other than that, I think most of praktike's points work well--although not the last (for the reasons people later pointed out--too many people in this country believe they'll get rich to vilify the rich). I'd replace that with phil's Republicans are drunken fathers, and you've got some material to work with. Posted by: emptywheel at October 31, 2003 06:20 AM | PERMALINKI hate really long comment threads! Framing is important, but as pointed out above, all sides frame. I strongly believe, to slightly paraphrase, the medium is the message. The right is so much more effective because they have a message, not just a frame. Deep down in their bowls, they decide on something, and then it gets propagated, and propagated and propagated. Is there no better example than Paul Wellstone memorial? It was determined that this was a political hack show, and then well, what was it? I am about finished with the Clinton Wars, and the contrast to current events is so amazing. Read the portions about Blumenethal allegedly leaking the info about Henry Hyde's affair; the uproar, the demand for investigation, the media show. Tiny, tiny, tiny compared to the Valerie Plame affair. You can see it over and over, and moral clarity for the GOP surely means whatever works. Let's try parsing a few State of the Union "16 words", How lying to Congres during Iran-Contra was no big deal. I could write at length on examples of how issues have been framed with no sense of consistenecy, but as long as they message is strong. Who cares (no?) Posted by: Vital Information at October 31, 2003 06:23 AM | PERMALINKI "frame" the gay marriage issue as: what does marriage do for straights--guys particularly? It gets them out of the bars and off the streets. Attachments reduce deviant tendencies ROTFALMAO!!!! Tell it to Newt Gingrich! Posted by: David Ehrenstein at October 31, 2003 06:55 AM | PERMALINKLakoff's "theory" provides a opiate for "progressives" smarting over their poor showing in recent years. It enables them to avoid thinking critically about their ideas because it lets them blame their losses not on the possible inferiority of some of their ideas, but on the inferiority of their spin machine. I do not consider myself a liberal or a conservative and have voted for roughly an equal number of Republicans and Democrats over the years. But it seems to me that if liberals follow Lakoff's advice, they will be like ostriches sticking their heads into the sand to avoid seeing something they don't like. From where I sit, it would be better for liberals (and for the polity in general) to actually come up with some new ideas or refine their old ones rather than simply to find new ways to frame the current ones. Posted by: SRock at October 31, 2003 07:08 AM | PERMALINKDavid Ehrenstein at October 31, 2003 06:55 AM Don't tell it just to Gingrich--tell it to Robert Packwood, Henry Hyde, Helen Chenowith, Robert (?) Livingston, and Dan Burton also. Tell it to Bob Dole, Ronald Reagan, and Bob Barr, too, although it isn't clear whether they were having affairs with women who became their second (and, in Barr's case, third) wives while they were married. For that matter, tell it to Ahnold "Here I come to save the Day!!" Schwarzenegger. Posted by: raj at October 31, 2003 07:17 AM | PERMALINKThis is a nice example of framing that could really work. Echoing the Republican's dividend tax framing, Robert Reich notes that we "Double Pay" for our drugs. Posted by: emptywheel at October 31, 2003 07:52 AM | PERMALINKI don't have an answer, but let me throw some seemingly random ideas at the wall, to cover up my useless ideas thrown there earlier. First .... what Sara said. Second, what Frank Luntz says. Next, recognize the bizarre coalition the dark Next, work on many levels. It's endlessly funny to me that your run-of-the-mill libertarian types (Tacitus and some of his denizens, for one example) confess that they really don't have much use for the irrational, and apparently entertaining ravings of Rush Limbaugh or the wack job apocalyptic Christians like Pat Robertson. But it wasn't rational Tacitus (great writer that he is) who organized and energized the Republican base. So, the rational among us should intone rational musings on "Meet The Press". That's their job. Al Franken can line up the comedians and the liberal body-builders. I'm for something edgier, rhetorically, for now, but I'm willing to kick it up to street-fighting pretty soon. Take two issues ... please. Taxes. I love taxes, particularly the redistributional kind. I can speak in great detail about taxes and could probably reach a compromise with any reasonable Republican on any tax system. But compromise died a long time ago. Grover Norquist, who hates every single one of us, killed it. So, I wonder what it would be like for a critical mass of liberals to just stop paying taxes at all levels as a protest against Republican tax cuts. It would be cool to see Republican anti-tax fulminators turn momentarily away from savaging the safety net to arresting large numbers of true, uncompromising Liberal tax-haters. There is part of one tax I hate: the part that pay's for the health insurance and the food and shelter for Tom Delay's children. Yeah, I know, you want me to go first and let you know how it goes. Second issue ... guns. I hate guns. But I live in an area where frothing at the mouth NRA types got concealed carry laws through, even to the point of steamrolling local jurisdiction. No compromise from them. Now, besides the fact that they want to shoot folks stealing their stereos, there was in the debate the subtext of an armed citizenry shooting grabby bureaucrats, probably liberals (called Commie Stalinists and lately, even godless Nazis.) Oh, yeah, and the guns come from God. So, I'm thinking. What could scare these bullies You want me to go first on that one, too, don't you? Third issue: Heathcare for the uninsured. But I've cluttered up enough bandwidth. But think very edgy political theatre. That might not be theatre. P.S. Not ANSWER. I hate the North Koreans and Grover Norquist. Posted by: John Thullen at October 31, 2003 08:04 AM | PERMALINKAs for the 'keep the gays away from your kids, let them marry' framing - it doesn't have to reflect reality. It doesn't have to be true. It just has to 'make sense,' meaning people instinctively agree with it without thinking about it. On welfare - 'WWJD,' 'We are the richest country in the world, we can afford to care,' and 'it keeps the bums off the streets.' On taxes - 'Support America!' These are just off the top of my head. Surely someone else can do better. But I'm starting to think 'Support America' would be an awesome campaign slogan. People want to start feeling good about themselves and their country again. Posted by: Tripp at October 31, 2003 08:17 AM | PERMALINKGrover hates us. And loves the Saudis. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at October 31, 2003 08:37 AM | PERMALINKraj articulates the always popular liberal theme -people who do not share our political views are stupid. Sometimes this issue is reframed as: If only the masses were not such simpletons. Yes, liberals can frame the issues too! Posted by: kevin g at October 31, 2003 09:05 AM | PERMALINKThere is a wonderful book about framing polictial issues entitled Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making by Deborah Stone. She talks about how liberals and conservatives frame different values, such as "equity" and "liberty" to push forward positions and agendas. - Lisa Posted by: Lisa at October 31, 2003 09:09 AM | PERMALINKSrock, Since you claim that you are an open person, mosey on over to Wesley Clark's website. Then you can apologize for claiming that Democrats have lousy ideas. And if you disagree with Clark's proposals, you can post a lengthy critique with links to support your disagreements. I would be happy to host it. Posted by: tristero at October 31, 2003 09:11 AM | PERMALINKI think Kevin's advice is very sensible and level-headed. When is one of the Democratic candidates going to hire him as their spin guy? In general, the Dems are terrible at framing issues coherently. The real problem, I think, lies deeper--the Democratic candidates often come across as condescending and elitist--"We're smart, we graduated from Harvard, and we know what's best for you." Ordinary people are very sensitive to this kind of holier-than-thou aura and resent it intensely. Clinton, in contrast, had charisma to burn, and could talk to ordinary people effortlessly. Remember the guy's Town Hall meetings? Can you imagine Kerry or Dean doing this? Likeability is the great underrated factor in American politics, covering a multitude of sins. Reagan had it; Clinton had it; Dukakis and Gore did not. People do not wnat an "ordinary guy" as president, but they do want someone who they feel some kind of a values-based connection to. Posted by: Daniel Calto at October 31, 2003 09:14 AM | PERMALINKWhen you say, "if your notion of a concrete idea is to convince
Americans that they should be happy to pay taxes — well, it just isn't
going to work." you have conceded the game to the Norquists of the
world: you admit that taxes are a bad thing that people are rightly
unhappy about. andrew: I agree with some of what you say regarding reframing taxes, but you don't address the level of taxation as a whole. I believe in progressive taxation as a whole, and think your example of Alabama is a telling one. I don't want to live in a place like Alabama or Texas. Germany and Sweden have more progressive taxation than we do, more government services, but their economies are inflexible and moribund, and their voters are demanding reform. In particualr, their pension systems are far too generous and make our Social Security funding problems look small by comparison. In addition, the quality of services matters substantially, as is well demonstrated by the recent California election. Paying taxes for excellent services is one thing, paying for failing educational system and bloated state and city bureaucracies is another. As someone who is not even close to rich (I live in NYC) I pay 7% of my income to the state, 25% to the Feds, 8% for SS/medicare, about 6% to NYC, and 8.5% on all my purchases. That's over half my income. That means I need to triple my income in order to double my take-home pay. To say that people who complain about the tax burden are all rich greedy bastards is simply wrong. To insist that this is true will only alienate many in the middle, especially in such high-tax states and NY and CA, where government services are often fair-to-middling at best and the tax burden is very substantial. I don't like people who cheat on their taxes or evade taxes and think they should be prosecuted, but I don't much like seeing my paycheck shrink by half either. Posted by: Daniel Calto at October 31, 2003 09:39 AM | PERMALINK"Speak softly and carry a big stick" TR was a Republican. Posted by: rachelrachel at October 31, 2003 09:59 AM | PERMALINKI read two articles today, one by a liberal columnist, one conservative, bemoaning the death of Hallowe'en. Both make exactly the same points about the overprotective attitude by parents, unwelcoming neighbourhoods, and the distrust that exists largely due to a media-driven climate of fear (not good wholesome Hallowe'en fear). Aside from the liberal writer pointing out a lack of creativity citing greater commercial interference/reliance, this to me is indicative of the (year round) common ground that most Americans share and are passionate about. That is what I feel should be tapped into. Unless you're targeting a Christian conservative who disapproves of Hallowe'en, of course. Posted by: Chris at October 31, 2003 10:00 AM | PERMALINKI think what Sara said is probably the most important aspect of this all. Republicans have been appealing to the basest concerns of voters for years and years and it has turned everything into a binary issue. Foreign policy- half this country seems to think you can treat the world like a petulant child. Everything else- a "free market" cures all ills. That's absolutely asinine, of course. There's never been a free market since the dawn of currency, and history has shown as that most regulation only improves commerce. I think the problem is precicely that the character of this nation has changed profoundly. We're much, much more selfish, self-absorbed, greedy, and maybe (if it's possible) even more xenophobic than we've ever been. My girlfriend's dad's parents came over from Norway. They were reserved people who simply didn't lie. It wasn't part of their character. Everything they did was with complete honesty and integrity. I'm not waxing poetic, I'm not saying they were the most kind, wonderful people ever (apparently they were quite the humourless hard-asses), just that their character was completely and utterly different from what we have now. Our sense of fairness and equality has been trumped by our sense of entitlement and greed. Those qualities have even been redefined to mean fairness! To the conservative movement fairness means the opportunity to be greedy with no hinderance- the phrase they often use is "build wealth for me and my family". What the hell does that mean? It means "worry about getting rich and screw anyone I'm not personally attached to". How did equality come to mean social darwinism? How did freedom come to mean "complete economic freedom"? I think the last thing the left should do is try to appeal to the same base prejudices because ideals are not founded upon our most base desires. The liberal aim is attain ideals that run counter to our base natures, that's what it's alwasy been; the idea we can rise above our base, individual prejudices as a society and attain something better. Freedom is not a conservative ideal, it's a liberal ideal through and through. It's become the trademark of the republican party precisely because they keep debasing it and the democrats keep trying to figure out a way to debase it, but in a good way. Anway... that's my bit. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" TR was a Republican. He bears no resemblance to the republican party of today, even John
McCain has addmitted that. He can't rightly be called a republican
unless you specifically make a distinction between him and the current
party. Thomas dent: TR, FDR and JFK knew they *what* they were selling, and how: Policies enable something...feeling. With a capital F. Do you think FDR wanted people to remember him for effectively engineering lend-lease or introducing the SEC? Hell no. To answer your other point: Dean, so far, is closest to getting it, but if he gets the nod, his heat will have to broaden, turn to confident warmth, and point upwards. Look at your presidential quotes. Any determination there? Yes. Inclusion? Yep. Idealism? Ubet. Anger? Anger? Exactly. Tristero: Ding-ding. You win the pony. Vital Information: No. No! A "frame" is not something you put purty art in. It is parameters. It's way to own the dimensional and ethical space in which you operate. You cannot *have* a message absent a frame. Oh, linearity.... "Saints preserve us" as as me dear Irish gran used to say. Posted by: fouro at October 31, 2003 10:09 AM | PERMALINKTim, I sorta agree. R's speak the high road and govern via the low. D's can't agree which pizza to order for their strategy meetings. That's where my agreement ends... To the conservative movement fairness means the opportunity to be greedy with no hinderance- the phrase they often use is "build wealth for me and my family". What the hell does that mean? It means "worry about getting rich and screw anyone I'm not personally attached to". Sure Tim. Now go try and convince anyone who calls themselves conservative, or even once considered voting "conservative", to buy your description. They'll kick you in the nuts if they're able. Politics is not making people eat their spinach, folks. Neither is it telling them they "just don't understand." When you figure that out, you stop starving. Posted by: fouro at October 31, 2003 10:23 AM | PERMALINK"...and history has shown as that most regulation only improves commerce." Wow that is a new one. Probably a common thought among those who
travel in the left, but I'd love to see the cite on a claim like that. Come on Sebastian, you remember Bush's steel tariffs. Posted by: Ron at October 31, 2003 10:50 AM | PERMALINKFouro- What does that mantra mean, then? I've seen it countless times online and elsewhere and it has always been in the context of some discussion about taxation: taxation is a burden and akin to theft, it keeps me from getting rich, all I want is a fair chance to build wealth for me and my family. I've seen that sentiment expressed many, many times and I hear conservative politicians speak to it all the time- "build wealth" is the mantra. You tell me what it means. Posted by: Tim at October 31, 2003 10:53 AM | PERMALINKGood points all, and thanks for responding to Lakoff, Kevin. He does make good points on the basic idea of framing issues, but he doesn't account for the power of the conservative/corporate media that censors stories and information naturally without knowing they're doing it. However, Dean and Clark would do well to consider Lakoff's comments when they come out of their primary runs. Gore failed in large part because the media just didn't "like" him as a person — and even reporters who were fond of him wrote viciously trite, repetitive, and sarcastic pieces filled with myth over truth throughout the 2000 campaign. Posted by: Zaine Ridling at October 31, 2003 11:02 AM | PERMALINKRon- You're making my statement an absolute- and it's not. I said most regulation, and for proof I'd cite The Securities act of '33 The securities Exchange act of '34 The Trust indenture act of 1939 The Investment company act of '40 The Investment advisors act of '40 and The Insider Trading and Securities Fraud enforcement act of 1988. All of those acts in the 30s and 40s are brought us out of the depression. They made our markets safe enough (the safest in the world, actually) for foreign capital to flow back in. The OMB has shown that most environmental legislation produces more monetary gains through cleaner air and water, and healthier people than would be realized without the legislation (in other words, with business operating with no environmental regulation). Certainly tarriffs are often a bad idea, that's why I said "most".
Please don't pull a Sebastian and turn everything I write into some
bizarre, undefensible position. My apologies Tim, I was just having a little right wing fun. Posted by: Ron at October 31, 2003 11:08 AM | PERMALINKTim Huh? What the hell does that mean? It means "worry about getting rich and screw anyone I'm not personally attached to". Your words, not mine. I didn't have any problem with "build wealth for my family. Powerful stuff. Good. But you said "fairness to the conservative movement means the right to be greedy without hindrance". That's your opinion, and you're talking about Grover and Newtie and Dubya. Screw them. You're venting your spleen in righteous anger and in your blanket statement you're wetting all over the ethics of the people you need to be on your team: Voters. Voters who tend more and more to vote republican. Why? Cuz somebody got to them first. Who? Conservatives. How? By convincing them Democrats are "prideful and avaricious and they want YOUR money to pay for their elitist arrogance and pet projects." See? A democrat just wrote that. Not so hard is it? Now, if you want my assent to your point of view, then offer a complete point of view. Want mine? Go here . Your serve, Tim. =) Geez, Tim, to you the phrase "taxation is a burden and akin to theft, it keeps me from getting rich, all I want is a fair chance to build wealth for me and my family." sounds like "I've got mine, to hell with you," but to a conservative it might sound like 'I am self-sufficient and capable and if you'd leave me alone I'll do something important and keep my kids safe.' Remember, nobody sees themselves as villians, and they will resent anyone who calls them that. So what if our message is 'we are all capable, and working together,
like the barn raisings of our forefathers, we can do something important
and keep our kids safe.' Well gosh, it's a good thing I'm not running for freaking office then, huh? Can one of you explain to me how it is I personally need to appeal to voters? The topic at hand is the framing of issues and my point was that the gop has managed to frame evrything within our base motivations. I don't give a crap what a conservative thinks he's saying when he goes on and on about the brutality of taxation, my question is what does it really mean? That mantra didn't exist in the 70s. Where did it come from? Where is it coming from? How did it become anthem and how could it possibly encapsulate pretty much the entirety of a gop supporter's worldview? Me, I think it's because the movement conservatives have pushed everything down so that there are no higher ideals beyond our base motivations. They've rewritten the script so that base motivations are the highest ideal. The euqation is freedom = the ability to indulge in your basest motivations with no outside interferance. To me that goes completely counter to the very idea of freedom in the context of nations and cooperative society. What it is in anarchy, and I've seen a lot of self-described conservatives describe their vision of the perfect nation as essentially some sort of libertarian/anarchist mix (no association whatsoever [whether through taxation or any other way] with any groups unless through personal choice). Anyway, I think it's a terrible idea to try to play the same game- appeal to the basest motivations- because it won't work. This country was founded upon the idea that people didn't have to live under the thumb of base motivations (what's a dictatorship, for example, if not one small group living out their most base dreams to the fullest?): We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. I don't know what the hell you're trying to ride me for, fouro, and I'd appreciate it if you'd lay off the "righteous" and "wetting" and shit like that before I get fed up and just start calling you an idiot, because so far you've done nothing but tell me I'm wrong. So what's right then, huh? Tim's comment: Speak softly and carry a big stick" "TR was a Republican. He bears no resemblance to the republican party of today, even John McCain has admitted that. He can't rightly be called a republican unless you specifically make a distinction between him and the current party." So - you can rewrite history by a unilateral interpretation of what a historical figure "should" be identified as?? WTF?! So FDR was or was not a Democrat, Eisenhower was or was not a Republican; Here is an idea: Imagine Theodore Roosevelt magically appeared today (at say, his age of 40). Do you honestly believe that he would embrace the "modern" Democratic party or those Dems running for president? From what I have read of TR - I predict he would physically beat the shit out of the candidates, then arm himself - jump atop a horse and attempt to rally the Washington D.C. Marine Corps. Barracks for a charge upon an A.N.S.W.E.R. rally. Street level characterization of the Dems on national security/Iraq? MMMMMMeeeeeeow. With a capital "P". Posted by: Californio at October 31, 2003 12:51 PM | PERMALINKCalifornio- You're a dumbass. It's not rewriting history, it's acknowledgment that parties change. The democratic party has changed too. Teddy Roosevelt created the first national parks and was adamant about the protection of wilderness, for example. That's not exactly something you associate with anyone in the gop, now is it? Before you come back with another dumbass observation, allow me to point out the key word is "wilderness". There's not a republican in office, to my knowledge, that's the least bit interested in preserving wilderness. ANWAR comes to mind. Yes TR was a republican and yes he was a good president. He's nothing like the republicans of today, though, just as Lincoln is nothing like the republicans of today. Man, what're you 19 years old sitting in your dormroom getting off on being an annoying prick? You're not listening. the gop has managed to frame evrything within our base motivations. No. Conservative's are effective at framing democrats as being base, and amoral, and wimpy, and so on. They're appealiing to base instinct in the sense of measurement: "Exhibit A: Baseness. Exhibit B: A democrat. Gee, tthey look the same? End of lesson. Now vote for us." This works because they get to own the definition of "base" and democrats have no coherent rebuttal. We squeak, "But no, let me explain!" Know what? Up to now, our response has been audible to bats and dogs. Democratic impotence is half our fault for not having a framework that makes sense and that people--center-right and centrists--can identify with. And yes, the other half is smart peole knowing the power of language and mental image: Newt Gingrich and his +/- , Language of controlwords So what's right then, huh? I'm boring these nice people now. I posted the link on what I think we need to do, it's below too. go read it.
The core democratic value is community, which supports and extends the sense of the security that begins in family. It's really that simple. Mark Schmitt at the Decembrist writes on these questions frequently and I really like the way he feels his way toward expressions of the ideological divide. Here's the link to his post on risk v. security as a social issue and an important Democratic theme: http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2003/10/muliplication_o.html Posted by: cs at October 31, 2003 02:23 PM | PERMALINKTristero is right in defending Lakoff against Kevin's charges. Kevin missed the point. --- appropriate quote from someone whose name I forgot: "When the facts don't fit the frame, the facts are rejected." Posted by: Otis Redding at October 31, 2003 03:47 PM | PERMALINK Next, recognize the bizarre coalition the dark Well, if you mean me (rather than godless capitalist types in general) - I voted for Gore, and will probably vote for Clark. Clinton was a better free-trader than Bush. So, I wonder what it would be like for a critical mass of liberals to just stop paying taxes at all levels as a protest against Republican tax cuts. If you want to protest the tax cuts, just send your check right back to the government. Posted by: godlesscapitalist at October 31, 2003 05:25 PM | PERMALINKI'm still hoping someone will explain the difference between framing, spin, and perspective. Meanwhile, I'd like to contend, once again, that Lakoff's "contribution" is, at best, mere vocabulary. As Kevin points out, it doesn't tell us how to proceed. Finally, I'd like to quietly suggest (again), that Lakoff is full of crap. Like Freudianism, the Lakoffian Theory Of Frames gets us nowhere except into meetings with people like Lakoff who are authorized to tell us how the theory applies in our case. There is no evidence that the prescription is efficacious, but there's a distribution plan. He's from the Chomsky school of dualist nonsense, which has crippled the global left for the last 40 years. I'd like to think that Kevin has realized this and that he's just too nice to put it in such frank terms. Though I'm sure Lakoff's a good man. Posted by: JoJo at October 31, 2003 10:00 PM | PERMALINKjojo: spin = facts / agenda authenticity = facts * ambition Posted by: fouro at November 1, 2003 01:25 PM | PERMALINKspin = facts / agenda I appreciate the response, but this doesn't really distinguish framing, spin, slant, perspective... Lakoff has confiscated the word "frame". He's dressed it up a bit ("conceptual framework"), but he, like Chomsky, has done nothing to allow us to deal more effectively with the world. Epistimologically, Lakoff's "conceptual frameworks" are analogous to Freud's "neuroses": Anyone can make one up. Don't cost a cent, you can sell them for money, only worthwhile as aesthetic objects, nothing more than anecdotal evidence required. This puts us on the level of astrology. (A level where a disturbing percentage of the population seeminly feels comfortable.) Posted by: JoJo at November 1, 2003 07:47 PM | PERMALINKOkay, Jojo, explain "love" to me. And show your work. You're looking for rationality where none exists.Gut feel informed by personal preference and experience is how the people we hope to reach make their decisions. Political Science. What a hoot. Posted by: fouro at November 2, 2003 10:16 AM | PERMALINKHere is an example of Lakoff doing an excellent job of framing an issue The question of the L-word keeps coming up. Did the president and his chief advisors lie? I think this is the wrong question to be asking. The real issue is betrayal of trust... ...The real issue is a betrayal of trust. Our democratic institutions require trust. When the president asks Congress to consent to war – the most difficult moral judgment it can make – Congress must be able to trust the information provided by the administration. When the President asks our fighting men and women to put their lives on the line for a reason, they must be able to trust that the reason he has given is true. It is a betrayal of trust for the president to ask our soldiers to risk their lives under false pretenses. And when the president asks the American people to put their sons and daughters in harm's way and to spend money that could be used for schools, for health care, for helping desperate people, for rebuilding decaying infrastructure, and for economic stimulation in hard times, it is a betrayal of trust for the president to give false impressions. Posted by: Norm Jenson at November 4, 2003 02:19 PM | PERMALINKThere's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line. Posted by: Fabian Marie at December 10, 2003 04:13 PM | PERMALINKTo be a human without passion is to be dead. Posted by: Nordeng Amy at December 20, 2003 07:35 PM | PERMALINK'May you live all the days of your life.' - Swift Posted by: Robbin Max at January 9, 2004 02:59 PM | PERMALINKGratitude is the most exquisite form of courtesy. Posted by: Washburn Polly at March 17, 2004 04:26 AM | PERMALINKThe best solution against abortions is education, not snipers. Posted by: Stafford Cassie Dragt at April 28, 2004 09:02 AM | PERMALINKHe who wishes to secure the good of others has already secured his own. Very useful comments - good to read diamond online casinos (online casino) Posted by: diamond online casinos (online casino) at May 30, 2004 03:21 PM | PERMALINKLesbian Adult Movie Matrix - Teen Adult Movie Matrix - Kendra Jade - Krystal Steal - Tera Patrick - Milssa Lincoln - Tranny Trouble - Rate My Tranny - Heavy Knockers - Evil Escorts - Tranny Trick - Milf Hunter Password Posted by: please bang my wife at June 30, 2004 09:13 AM | PERMALINKWOW!!!! This is a great website. Posted by: best online casinos at July 25, 2004 11:20 AM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - Excellent site. Keep up the good work.
http://www.888-online-casino.biz http://www.888-online-poker.biz
http://www.888-online-gambling.biz http://www.888-on-net.biz 8583 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 12:13 AM | PERMALINK333 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 04:52 AM | PERMALINK6209 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 09:18 AM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
