I just came across an excellant article over at Buzzflash about issue framing and specifically the "War on Terror".
The article goes into great depth, detail and example on how we, as Democrats, liberals and progressives can fight back on the issue of national security that has confounded many of us for so long. Guarding the Gate.
The focus of Mr. Feldman's article is for Democrats to first see how message and frame are different. Re-framing, and winning back the national security debate from the incompetance, corruption and neglect of the conservatives and republican operatives. Democrats want to Guard the Gates.
<snip>
When progressives talk about `framing' the political debate, we often confuse `frame' with `message.' We want framing to be a quick path to victory, a magic bullet delivered in the form of a perfect talking point, that brings the opposition to its knees. In fact, framing is not a magic bullet, but a set of tools that empowers progressives to take control of the debate--first by seeing the broad ideas that trap us in a losing position, and then by re-framing the issues in moral terms that speak to ideals of the American people.
<snip>
The "War on Terror", or like we like to call it, a war on a tactic but how do argue this with our Republican friends and co-workers so that we can peel away votes from the GOP?
<snip>
Despite the growing pile of scandals, Republicans still control the debate on national security with one phrase: War on Terror.
`War on Terror' is more than just a phrase. It is a carefully constructed concept--a set of magic words--created by highly-paid consultants to help the Republicans claim the mantle of national security. ... If the President describes the War in Iraq as part of the `War on Terror,' for example, he can accuse anyone who does not support his war of not wanting to fight the people who attacked us on 9/11. And that is exactly what he does. Democrats who try to refute the President's policies, but who still use this phrase `War on Terror,' find themselves trapped in a losing position that turns them into rhetorical contortionists.
<snip>
Re-framing, and winning back the national security debate from the incompetance, corruption and neglect of the conservatives and republican operatives.
<snip>
Long before the UAE port scandal, Americans believed that to guard this country we must prevent bad people and dangerous materials from getting through the gates. And when we saw the port scandal unfold, we saw that President Bush had not only left the gates unguarded, but he had sold the keys.
The phrase `guarding the gates' is a progressive idea that re-frames the debate on national security. It is not the final message, but offers a broad logic for understanding how Democrats can once and for all take back the debate on this crucial issue.
But the issue does not stop there....President Bush watched as Katrina, literally, slowly headed for a full on attack of our nation's unguarded shoreline. He watched and he listened, but as the videotape shows: he did not stand up and insist on doing everything possible to `guard the gates' of our country from this threat.
...
A newly framed Democratic version of national security would sound something like this:
There is a fundamental split between the Republican and the Democratic vision of national security. Republicans insist that the key to national defense is to fight a war on foreign soil, and they tell us that this will prevent terrorists from gaining access to our country. But even as they fight a foreign war, they leave the gates to our country unguarded. Democrats believe that national security begins with guarding the gates at home, and building strong alliances abroad. We see every port, every border and every airport as an opportunity to strengthen our security and guard Americans from those who seek to attack us. And security goes hand in hand with safety. Guarding our shores from hurricanes is just as important as guarding our ports from attacks. For Democrats, safety and security begins with guarding the gates.
That is what it looks like to be in a new frame--to speak about national security in terms that are completely separate from the `war on terror' and in terms that give Democrats the upper hand.
<snip>
And finally, and most importantly, Mr. Feldman provides solid examples of how we, as ordinary Americans can put this message to use in our daily conversations so that it will penatrate and pierce the TV media's stranglehold on information.
<snip>
This phrase can be used when people ask what the Democrats stand for, when recruiting people to vote for Democratic candidates, when working on a phone bank, and when training new volunteers. The power of the "I believe" formula (also called an 'Elevator Speech') is that it presents your big ideas quickly. After that, the discussion on terrorism and the military will be on Democratic terms. And grassroots activists should push to talk about national security and national safety together. "Democrats believe in well-guarded ports and having a plan before the next natural disaster hits our shores."
<snip>
Use the link below to get all of the detail the article provides. An excellant article with alot of great points to easily remember.
Most important, Democrats want to Guard the Gates.
http://www.buzzflash.com/...
The man is editor and chief of Frameshop
http://www.frameshopisopen.com/