I've been reading George Lakoff lately, and find his ideas echoing in my mind as I follow the Terry Schiavo case. I wanted to get the take of others here in thinking about how Ms. Schiavo's case has been "framed" by those on the right and how progressives might seek to reframe it as well as how we might thereby reclaim a whole host of issues at the intersection of life and liberty.
Basically, you see a lot of people crying "hidden agenda" by the right ("they're just using this to align social conservatives in the service of their economic program") or hypocrisy ("this is in direct conflict with their position on [pick one] Iraqi lives, poor peoples' lives, the lives of equally brain-dead patients in Texas, etc."). And these things are all true, but in the Lakoffian view, the problem is that facts don't really change anyone's position if the facts are in conflict with a mental "frame" that the person is comfortable with. E.g. if you are the sort of person who is impressed by the notion of "a culture of life," who thinks that a "culture of life" sounds like a very good thing indeed, you aren't going to change your mind because someone points out that politicians are using the idea hypocritically or that their position conflicts with other actions and positions they or their allies have taken.
If you are a genuine pro-lifer (anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti war, anti-assisted suicide, etc.), you might even think that, okay, the government has been wrong not to care about all the loss of life in Iraq, but you might say to yourself that, thank God, they are at least prepared to save poor Terry Schiavo's life. You might actually see it as a step in the right direction of a "culture of life" in spite of the evident hypocrisy. In short, the facts are just going to bounce off your frame and leave it in place.
And I think with this kind of situation, "culture of life" rhetoric is always going to sound better than what sounds like a cold calculus of "liberties." At the same time, I believe we have a critical opportunity at this moment to reframe the Schiavo case and with it, the entire complex of issues that arise when life is narrowly defined (e.g. unborn American babies, good; Iraqi children,who cares?), and when the preservation of any state of human biological existence (at least for preferred classes of people like Americans, unborn babies, probably straight people, etc.) is seen to trump all other considerations. I'm calling on all Kossacks to help reframe this issue.
Lakoff says that reframing is not, or at least not only, about language. It's about having good ideas and a powerful way of articulating them. I confess, I don't have a good idea for this one, but welcome any and all suggestions. My plan is to forward the strongest ideas to the Rockridge Institute (a think tank that Lakoff is affiliated with that works to generate frames for progressive issues). So please provide your ideas, and rate your favorites so I'll have some input on what to communicate to Rockridge.
Thanks in advance.