Framing ourselves as defenders of good, not obstructionists
Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 07:08:44 AM PDT
I am tired of being called an obstructionist, and I have yet to hear many good responses from Democrats to this Republican charge. When Harry Reid referred to Republicans as "destructionists" he had one-half of the answer. I want to suggest another half.
We need to refute the label of being "obstructionists," and advance the idea of Democrats being the last defenders of what is good about America. Just as importantly, we need to be blunt and aggressive about it. Tyranny is creeping up on America from within and destroying what has made America great, and the Democratic Party and Harry Reid are our country's last defense. If Republicans think that we are hindering them, they haven't seen anything yet! If they try to dismantle our constitution, our system of checks and balances, and our civil rights and democracy, then Republicans will have to go through us! If they plan to destroy social security, public education, health care for veterans, good relations with our allies, then they have an all out fight on their hands.
The labels of Republicans as "destructionists" and Democrats as "defenders" can be used hand in hand. However, the problem with only using the term "destructionists" is that it mainly casts Republicans in a bad light, and it does not go far enough to state that Democrats are the solution. The use of the word "defenders" does much more to frame Democrats as a positive force. There are already enough people that dislike and even hate Bush, but we need more people that see Democrats as alternative that will protect what is good about America.
When the two phrases are used together, Republicans as "destructionists" and Democrats as "defenders of what is good about America, this creates a frame of Democrats as the underdogs and Republicans as the overconfident bullies; Democrats as the heroes and Republicans as the villains; and Republican policies in terms of what our country will loose.
Let me explain how I reached this frame of democrats as the "last defenders of what is good about America." When your opponent demonizes you with a label for doing something, we must find the positive aspect of that action, choose language that emphasizes that positive and invokes the desired frame, and then use that language as a rallying cry for our side. For example, how is obstructionism positive? Well . . . if we are obstructing the evil of the world, then it is a good thing. Actually, then we are not being obstructionists at all. We are defenders of good. By default this implies that republicans are an advancing evil force, and if you want to live in a decent world then you need to support democrats.
However, if we accept the label of obstructionists, then we let our opponents define the debate as republicans being an advancing force for good and Democrats as being in their way. This is a frame that I will not accept.
Also, despite the brilliance of George Lakoff, I have not seen him suggest many hands-on-methods that can be generalized to different debates and used to find the best words over and over again. Most, but not all, of his writing is an explanation of the theory of framing and then many specific words and frames to use on specific topics. I hope this diary contributes to the theory of framing by offering techniques that can be used in many different circumstances.
I need to note that the idea about finding the positives about activities with a negative label is an adaptation of a concept that was advocated by Saul Alinsky decades ago. He very wisely pointed out that for most negatives there are positives.
In solidarity,
Bryan E. Burke
Eastern Washington Voters
Pullman, WA
P.S. If you like our posts and especially if you are from Washington state, please consider joining Eastern Washington Voters.
Permalink | 17 comments