This diary is a response to Hudson's
earlier diary on framing. Hudson introduced the term "fencing" to a type of super-framing whereby you create mental barriers between a target audience and a competitor such that the audience will never consider what the competitor has to say. I think that Hudson touched on some important ideas that deserve further discussion.
I'm going to risk introducing yet another metaphor here. Traveling.
Let's say you live in New York and you making plans to go to Disney World. When you are researching airline tickets, there are two basic questions you will ask. First, "Does this airline fly to Orlando?" Second, "What are they offering (i.e. price, meals, leg-room, direct flight, etc.)."
Now, the first question is a critical, threshold question. If the answer is "no" you do not ask the second question. If you want to go to Orlando you don't care if Aeroflot is offering discount, non-stop flights to St. Petersburg with free meals included. You want to go to Disney World.
Politics is no different. Voters ask two questions of politicians. "Where do you want to take us?" and "What is your plan for getting us there?" When voters are shopping for politicians, like when they are shopping for airline tickets, the first question is vastly more important. It is the threshold question. And it is where fences can be constructed.
Allegory of Two Airlines
Imagine there are only two airlines that fly to Orlando from NY. Let's call them Red Air and Blue Air. Both airlines have TV ads. Blue Air runs the following ad. "All of our flights are non-stop. Red Air stops in Atlanta. Blue Air has hot meals. Red Air serves cold cuts. Blue Air has 25% more leg-room. Red Air offers no overhead storage. Our flights are always the least expensive." You might think, "Wow, Blue Air sounds great."
Then you see a Red Air ad. It shows Red Air and Blue Air flights taking off. Then rain clouds roll in. The Blue Air pilot radios in to for permission to land, but the control tower (with a slight French accent) tells them to keep circling. The Blue Air pilot gets nervous about the rain and diverts to Tampa. The Red Air pilot radios down and says (with a slight twang), "I've got a bunch of passengers that need to get to Orlando, we're coming in." The ATC responds, "You're all clear!" Tagline: "With Red Air, you know where you are going to land."
Next you talk to your neighbor. He says, "I was just listening to talk radio. Blue Air doesn't even fly to Orlando. There is a group called Blue Air Pilots For Truth. They are former Blue Air pilots that are saying that Blue Air deliberately schedules flights for Orlando but intentionally lands in Tampa to save money. "
Now, you think, "Jeez, the service with Blue Air sounds great, but I really have to get to Disney World. That story about the pilots sounds crazy."
A week later, you are watching TV when the spokesperson for Blue Air is being interviewed about the rumors that Blue Air doesn't land in Orlando. The spokesperson doesn't sound very convincing: "We're not going to address those crazy stories. Jon Carey, the CEO of Blue Air, even used to be a pilot himself and flew to Orlando many times. We're going to focus on service. Travelers want good service and Blue Air has a plan for providing the best service. Just go to our website..."
You think, "Hmm. They denied these rumors but shouldn't they be a little angrier if Red Air is making up lies about them? Shouldn't there be a lawsuit or something? I can't take a chance with Blue Air. I don't want a hot meal on my way to Tampa. With Red Air, I know where I am going to land."
Does all this sound familiar?
Blue Air could frame the issues of price and service all it wants. It could roll out a new campaign about how "you deserve a hot meal" that polls very effectively. But if Red Air can convince potential customers that Blue Air might not take them where they want to go, the question of how they will get there becomes irrelevant. Blue Air will be fenced out.
How Voters Think
Believe it or not, most people are perfectly happy assuming that most laws do basically what the proponents of the laws intended the laws to do. That is to say, while some laws may have been poorly drafted or unforeseen events may have frustrated a law's purpose, most of the time laws do what they are supposed to do. If you want to know what a law does, it is easier to look at the motives of the proponents than to look at complicated statutory language. Chances are the proponents were smart enough to figure out how to accomplish their goals.
Which brings us back to fencing. If you want to fence out your opponents, call into question their motives, integrity, and objectives. Don't bother proceeding to the second question of "How are we going to get there?" until you've first addressed the question of "Where are we going?"
This means that Kerry should have spent much more time attacking Bush/Cheney's motives. I think Democrats are very bad at doing this in a subtle fashion. They feel forced to choose between messages of either "Bush is a liar" or "We're willing to work in a bipartisan fashion." But that is a false dichotomy. There are a million ways, through statements and acts, to signal to voters that the other side is NOT TO BE TRUSTED without engaging in rhetoric that risks turning off voters because it is heated.
Dick Cheney is actually a master of this. Instead of screaming, "liberals are trying to destroy America." He calmly says, "We just have a different philosophy for this country. I believe X and my opponent believes Y." The catch is that "X" is inevitably something like "America should protect itself against its enemies" and "Y" is "America needs the approval of countries like France before it can defend itself. Cheney's calm demeanor makes it sound as if he is actually trying to accurately state his opponent's position. When the Y position is revealed to be utter insanity, the listener can't help but conclude that Cheney is on the side of good and Cheney's opponent is on...a different side.
Instead of attacking Bush's values, Kerry attacked Bush for screwing up. But that isn't effective. People will always forgive those on their own side for making mistakes. Kerry needed to drive the point home that Bush's "mistakes" weren't mistakes at all. They were the natural consequence of Bush's out-of-touch beliefs.
Ways to Fence the GOP Off:
Do young men and women question whether Social Security will be there when they retire?
"They should question whether it will be there because George Bush wants to end it. Only the Democrats will stop him."
How about the Bankruptcy Bill? Don't get all "People Versus the Powerless" populist here. Broaden the argument.
"Lenders want to make profits. There is nothing wrong with that. That is their duty to their shareholders. And they have the right to petition the government for laws that will help them maximize their profits. Again, there is nothing wrong with them asking for favorable legislation. But sometimes the government needs to say no. The government should be a referee between competing interests, not a cheerleader for one industry. That is a fundamental difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. The Republicans don't believe the government should act like a referee."
See? Having the government be a fair referee is where we want to go. The GOP doesn't want to go there. End of story.
Chapter 7? Chapter 11? Who gives a fuck? If you can convince people that the bill is designed in bad faith then you do not need to argue the merits.
Is it well designed? Will it be effective? If it's designed to fuck the voters, they don't care if it's well designed. Hell, they will hope that it isn't effective.
One last thing. This might all seem obvious. It should. But every time I turn on the TV or read the paper I see Democrats conceding that Republicans are acting in good faith. Or else they are attacking Michael Moore, who, despite being a sloppy filmmaker at times, has done more to question the fundamental integrity of the Bush administration than almost any Democrat.
Remember: "Where do you want to go?" Answer that first, last, and always.