Skip to main content

Framing the Future
How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People
By Bernie Horn
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
San Francisco, 2008

We’re not for big government, we’re for smart government--the government Americans need to protect freedom, promote opportunity, and provide security--and not one bit more.

**

Who Are the Persuadables?

... In general, they’re the citizens who are least interested in politics. After all, if they paid attention, the would already have taken a side.

To political activists’ ears, that may sound like an insult: it is not. The persuadables are normal people. Instead of fixating on the next Democratic presidential nominee, they are thinking about what to fix for dinner tonight, chores that need to be done next weekend, and how to pay for the kid’s braces next year. Just by reading this book (or by writing it) we’re singling ourselves out as oddballs.

Almost by definition, persuadable voters don’t care a whole lot about who wins elections.

**

Persuadable voters don’t like the processes of government; they like the results. The processes make them think of unfairness, inefficiency, bureaucratic bloat, and endless waste. So talk about the results--freedom, opportunity, and security.


"Politics," says Bernie Horn, "is too important to be left to the professionals in Washington." It’s hard not to love a book that so directly appeals to progressive dedication to participatory democracy--and provides a sterling set of guidelines on how to make our ideals prevail.

Fans of nuts-and-bolts framing discussions should make room on the book shelf for the newest entry into the field by Horn, a senior director for Policy and Communications at the Center for Policy Alternatives. Framing the Future draws on some of the research of Drew Westen as well as some of the theories of George Lakoff. In practical terms, Horn gets down to basics of specific ways to talk about progressive ideas and policies in the way that Jeff Feldman does in his book, Framing the Debate.

Horn proposes a simple, straightforward and easily remembered credo for progressives to hang their persuasive efforts on: the triple notions of freedom, opportunity and security. He argues that these three frames--tested by pollster Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partner--are the counterweight to the right wing’s successful four-part elevator pitch of small government, low taxes, strong defense and family values. The use of freedom, opportunity and security, Horn says, corresponds to the three different reactions we as progressives want from government: non-intervention in private matters, leveling the playing field between the most powerful and the least powerful, and enforcing and regulating when safety is at stake. And like all other "framers," he urges us to discard policy laundry lists and focus on the principles:

The first rule is focus on the value, not the public policy. Emphasize the value of freedom when government action would violate individual rights, opportunity when government should act as a referee, and security when government should be a protector.

Through various issues, Horn illustrates these axioms in action. Anything to do with invasion of our civil liberties falls under the heading of "freedom." "Opportunity" arguments are to be made whenever great disparities are discerned -- in educational access, or tax and wage inequalities. Most importantly, the author argues eloquently for a much broader concept and use of the term, "security," by progressives. The notion should encompass not just defense from enemies or law-and-order policies, but protection from toxins in the environment, efficient response to national disasters and care for the health of our citizens.

I was a bit skeptical about the cure-all power of these three categories when they were proposed early on in the book, but I was believer by the end after reading through his practical applications. My one major quibble is that I would add a fourth element -- justice and/or fairness -- to the pitch. Horn enfolds that idea into the "opportunity" category, but I think it is a powerful concept, deeply grounded in the American psyche, that can stand on its own (and still be applied to all three other classifications.)

Like others in the framing field, Horn bemoans progressives’ tin ear when it comes to discussing progressive values with what he calls the "persuadables" -- those voters who don’t hang on every  political trend, are generally underinformed compared with political junkies and who are busy living complicated lives rather than keeping up with every twist and turn of policy. He delivers some news many progressives are unwilling to hear, and he does so quite starkly at the beginning of the book:

The Generic Conservative Message Works!

Do you wonder why the conservative message is so popular? There’s nothing wrong with their ideas! Who wants a bigger government than we need? Who favors unlimited government? Who can oppose a strong national defense? Who is against morality?...

It is not so surprising that these ideas are popular. What’s astonishing is that progressives refuse to admit it, Let’s understand that government should be limited--in fact, we have principles that lay out government’s proper role. Let’s agree on moral government--we have a few ideas on how to accomplish that. And for heaven’s sake, let’s agree that we’re for a strong national defense. Getting into a debate over whether we need a strong defense is like answering the question "When did you stop beating your wife?" The question is not whether we favor security, it is how to pursue security.

Accept that the generic conservative philosophy is attractive, and from a certain over-generalized viewpoint, the philosophy is right. Let’s not argue against conservative principles, let’s reframe problems so that persuadable voters want to apply progressive principles instead.

Starting with where people are and finding agreement on these core shared values is vital, Horn says, to building a bridge and walking the persuadables over to progressive values. One of the key points in this strategy is recognizing that this country was founded on--and still adores--the idea of rugged individualism. Yes, progressives know that much individualism has been communally subsidized, and yes, progressives want a more "common good" basis for society. But Horn looks the truth in the face and once again does not shy away from the obvious:

... we can’t force a communalistic philosophy on an individualistic nation. Let me be clear. The progressive-liberal-Democratic base of voters would gladly accept and espouse a communitarian philosophy. I, too, wish that American culture were more oriented toward altruism and community. But it isn’t. A realistic progressive philosophy is one that accepts our national culture of individualism and competition and--nevertheless--seeks to make the American dream accessible to all.

The inability of progressives to incorporate some of these core nationalistic beliefs is summed up in several section titles Horn lays out describing some of the reasons the liberal message isn’t resonating: "We Inform When We Should Frame," "We Talk to Persuadables Using Our Language Instead of Theirs," "We Use Ideological Language Even Though Persuadables Are the Opposite of Ideologues." He also offers some insightful--and message-tested--advice about how to talk more productively about our values and our policies:

Americans are more likely to support a plan framed as protecting people from being denied something important than on framed as giving or providing that same right or benefit. For example, they are much more favorable to a law that "prohibits pharmacists from denying" contraception to women than one that "requires pharmacists to provide" contraception--even though it means the same thing.

In a section entitled The Free Market Isn’t, Horn provides a pitch-perfect quick list--worth the price of the book--on how to talk about the plentiful ways in which the "free" market is gamed in favor of the rich and multi-national corporations, with concrete examples of direct subsidies, indirect subsidies, sweetheart contracts, phony markets, noncompetitive markets, broken markets, protection from imports, tax avoidance, barriers to labor organizing and corrupt markets.

His prevailing message is uplifting--our ideas are great and embraceable!--while still cautionary, particularly to those progressives who stubbornly insist on policy prescriptions and ideological theories when trying to persuade:

It is possible for people to reject an old set of beliefs and embrace a new one, but it usually takes a catastrophic event or years of exposure to new information. A political campaign is not the place to educate voters--it’s the place to persuade them. Politics is not a battle of information; it is a battle of ideas.

Perhaps the best message of all to take from this excellent how-to book is this one:

We need to provide voters with a bridge from the preconception to our solutions. Our goal is not the change people’s minds, it is to show them that they agree with us already.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 05:49 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Attacking "big government" is a bad plan (0+ / 0-)

    The processes [of government] make them think of unfairness, inefficiency, bureaucratic bloat, and endless waste.

    This sounds like Grover Norquist to me.

    Kill me before I have to think again!

    by Jacob Freeze on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 05:58:03 AM PST

    •  Reducing government waste (9+ / 0-)

      and bureaucracy does not have to be a Norquist format.  It is not necessary to eliminate agencies, rather streamline them and untangle the boondogle known as Homeland Security.  

      My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:06:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Democrats enlist in the tax rebellion? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fifth Generation Leftist

        "Reducing waste" is just another Republican slogan that depends on bullshit about "wasteful bureacracies." There are no real facts to back up this stereotype, and a few anecdotes about useless programs just prove that nothing is perfect.

        Democrats can't run social programs without taxes, and it's ridiculous to pretend that they can find money for infrastructure repair and renewable energy by digging around under the sofa cushions.

        Kill me before I have to think again!

        by Jacob Freeze on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:05:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It seems you may be missing something though... (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          StuartZ, drewfromct, CParis, seabos84, spencerh

          When you take into account the extreme wastefulness of the bulk of military spending and the unconscionable spending on the corrupt, dangerous, complete failure and total rip-off known as the "war on drugs," and then combine all that with the, to quote you, "few anecdotes about useless programs," (of which even one is one too many... remember, we're talking about the forcible taking of money by the government from individual citizens)... after you account for all of that, it would seem reasonable to conclude that, properly redirected, taxes on the working class could be reduced, AND important infrastructure issues could be addressed successfully, and important research could be supported, and programs designed to try and help those not fortunate enough to be able to independently care for themselves could continue to be funded and probably even expanded.

          "My way is not very sportsmanlike." -Fezzik/ Andre the Giant (No, not Dick "Cockeye" Cheney... and not Mike "Quailbane" Huckabee either)

          by The House on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:28:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  i agree with Jacob (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            drewfromct, spencerh

            to bash government as inherently wasteful is a Republican meme.  government is not inherently wasteful (although some waste is inevitable in ANY large organization including "efficient" corporations), but CORRUPT government sure is. instead of talking about reducing the government we should be talking about reducing the corruption and cronyism that the Repubs installed in every part of our government.

            Entire American corporate segments now operate with as bad or worse effectiveness than many government agencies, including insurance/HMOs, energy (Enron, blackouts), and the mortgage industry. The auto industry is going to get its ass kicked again on the fuel-efficiency issue.  Meanwhile the CEOs rake in millions and ordinary hard working Americans get laid off.  Many modern corporations have become vehicles for enriching a handful of top executives: these organizations and their leaders have no loyalty to either their country, their communities, or their employees. They thus function best with some - often close - government regulation.

            We should be talking about how Medicare delivers health care with a much lower overhead rate (3%) than the HMOs (10-15%?) This is not my specialty, so the exact figures may be off.

            Hillary

            See SusanG's review of my book The Lifelong Activist here.

            Hillary Rettig is author of The Lifelong Activist: How to Change the World Without Losing Your Way (Lantern Books, 2006), www.lifelongactivist.com

            by lifelongactivist on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:10:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't equate taking the position that the (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              StuartZ, drewfromct, seabos84, spencerh

              establishment of the lowest possible taxes on working individuals (whom I do not count CEO's among) is a good and desirable thing with "bash(ing) government as inherently wasteful".

              "My way is not very sportsmanlike." -Fezzik/ Andre the Giant (No, not Dick "Cockeye" Cheney... and not Mike "Quailbane" Huckabee either)

              by The House on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:19:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  If being like Norquist (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The House, certainot, angelino

      means getting our message out in a language that resonates with voters, winning elections, and implementing our agenda, then I'll take it.

      The Norquists, Atwatwers, and Roves of this world may be evil, but no one can deny how effective they are. How about some effectiveness for the good guys, for a change?

      Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

      by drewfromct on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:36:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  some counterarguments (0+ / 0-)
        1. the guys you mentioned are unprincipled thugs who made the country worse. if we become them, then what are we fighting for?  would you want to be responsible for creating what these people created - Iraq, New Orleans?
        1. despite their evil tricks, their "permanent revolution" lasted a bit over ten years (1994 - 2006) and they are about to lose power for 2 generations.
        1. in my view, DK is all about aggressively ceasing power and expanding progressivism without sinking to the Republican's degraded level. history is filled with examples of how this is done. we don't have to sink to their level because what we are offering - equality, justice, etc. - people truly do want.

        please don't hold these degraded people up as examples.

        Hillary

        Read SusanG's review of my book The Lifelong Activist here.

        Hillary Rettig is author of The Lifelong Activist: How to Change the World Without Losing Your Way (Lantern Books, 2006), www.lifelongactivist.com

        by lifelongactivist on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:27:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fine (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ebohlman

          stick with the Bob Shrums and Donna Brazilles--and keep losing.

          I never said, or meant to say, that we should adapt the Rethug tactics of lying or dirty tricks--the truth about the Rethugs is dirty enough. But I do agree with Horn that our message needs to be clarified and put in simple language that undereducated and hard working Americans can understand. The Rethugs know how to do that. We should also not be afraid to aim our message squarely at the so-called "Lowest common denominator" of the electorate. That's another tactic that the Rethugs successfully employ to win elections

          If we haven't learned by now that you can't beat the Rethugs by taking the high road and playing nice, then we might as well just give up. If you can't do what it takes to play to win, then it's time to get out of the game.

          Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

          by drewfromct on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:42:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  no (0+ / 0-)

            Drew -

            With all respect, you do yourself and the movement no good by falsely dichotomizing between ruthless-but-effective Republicans and righteous-but-ineffective Democrats. (And I'm not sure how righteous Shrum or Brazille are, anyway.)

            DK itself is filled with great examples of people-powered movements that do not fall into that false dichotomy - Webb, Tester, Trainer, etc. Even the big players, the presidential candidates, are running their campaigns radically different than in the last election.  The odious Shrum and Brazille will continue to make money as pundits (one reason I don't own a tv :-)) but their days of real influence are over.

            We won the 2006 election, what more proof do you need?  And although the current Democratic congress is a great disappointment, 2006 was a great victory, and we're going to have a greater one in 2008 and beyond where we start to throw out the ineffective Dems and put in real fighting progressives.

            I share your anger at the Democratic establishment, and you and I are joined in this struggle. I respectfully urge you to take a more nuanced look at the field.

            Hillary

            Read SusanG's review of my book The Lifelong Activist here.

            Hillary Rettig is author of The Lifelong Activist: How to Change the World Without Losing Your Way (Lantern Books, 2006), www.lifelongactivist.com

            by lifelongactivist on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:51:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Generally I would agree, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              drewfromct, CParis

              but I'm not sure about the reasons for the Democratic victory; for example, did the Democrats win because of their resonant, concise, and appealing message?

              In my opinion, the Democrats did not win solely or even primarily because of their strategy but by the simple virtue of the Republicans becoming so glaringly ghastly that an alternative - any alternative, but especially one that promised both to end the war and help the common man during the worsening economic situation - seemed very appealing.

              I might certainly be wrong, especially as an interested observer, but that was the impression I obtained. Which is why tactics matter! Yes, the Democrats may win 2008 and, heck, even 2012 but if the victory is due to the opponents' ineptitude and not due to your success, you are in a prime position to lose in an extreme and painful manner when your opposition regroups. That is my concern.

              Just thought I'd throw in my 50 cents' worth.

              Omne malum nascens facile opprimitur, inveteratum fit plerumque robustius. - Cicero

              by Dauphin on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 09:00:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  i promise you (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dauphin

                that the democrats earned their victory.  aided and abetted by the obvious corruption and incompetence of the admin, but they worked hard for it and that should be acknowledged.

                it's common on the left not to own victories, or to be ambivalent about saying "we won."  it's a bad trait, in my view, in that it is disempowering.  When a pro sports team wins the ratio of celebration to anatomization/analysis is much higher and that's a good thing.

                this is not to disagree with you that tactics matter.  in my book i point out that they actually matter more than the rightness of one's position, in terms of effectiveness.

                principled progressives will always have a bit of an uphill battle, because the money and evil are on the other side.  but as MLK pointed out, the arc of the universe inclines in our direction.

                Hillary

                Hillary Rettig is author of The Lifelong Activist: How to Change the World Without Losing Your Way (Lantern Books, 2006), www.lifelongactivist.com

                by lifelongactivist on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 10:46:20 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Sorry, but (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CParis, The House, spencerh

              I'm unconvinced, to say the very least, that it's a false dichotomy (although I wholeheartedly agree with your remark about the questionable "righteousness" of the corporate Dems). Remember Saxby Chambliss' ads that morphed Max Cleland into Bin Ladin? Instead of decrying it, we need to take note of the fact that Cleland lost that election. Playing nice with the Rethugs is a losing strategy.

              What the Rethugs excel in is promoting their message aggressively. Sincere or not, they come across as vigorous believers in what they say. We may now have some of that on our side, but we sure as hell need more of it.

              As for adopting "Rovian" tactics, I see that you and I may have more in common than we might think:

               1.  Modern marketing and sales are, literally, the most powerful persuasive techniques ever devised.

                2. What corporate marketing and sales harms, progressive marketing and sales heals.

              So long as we stick to telling the truth aggressively, we should not be afraid to use their own tactics against them.

              Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

              by drewfromct on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 09:18:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  i absolutely agree... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                drewfromct

                ...and not simply because you're quoting my own book back at me!  :-)  (Thanks for that, btw.)

                Obviously there's a huge difference between telling lies aggressively (the Republican way) and telling the truth aggressively (our way).

                Hill

                Hillary Rettig is author of The Lifelong Activist: How to Change the World Without Losing Your Way (Lantern Books, 2006), www.lifelongactivist.com

                by lifelongactivist on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 10:42:23 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Final quibble: (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  The House

                  telling the truth aggressively (our way)

                  should read as

                  (our future way)

                  imho. As far as I've seen, we may be making progress, but we're not there yet in terms of aggressively taking the fight to the enemy. My take is that much of the blame for this lies in the problem of concentrated corporate media ownership and the resulting over-influence in the media by and for the elite moneyed interests. It's awfully hard to broadcast your message over the enemy's radio. Aggressive liars like Limbaugh are cast in the conventional wisdom as fearless fighters, while aggressive Democrats are spun as whiny wimps having  hissy fits.The other problem is that we have too many Democrats who see this writing on the wall and so choose to walk tippy-toed through the minefield, rather looking for a way to fight on around it or  call in the engineers to destroy it.

                  As for 2006, if the Dem congress ran or was elected on the hope of stopping the war and the Bu$hCo agenda, what positive truths do we have to aggressively tell voters about ourselves in 08?

                  And, finally finally:

                  i absolutely agree...

                  ...and not simply because you're quoting my own book back at me!  :-)

                  is without a doubt the coolest reply I've ever gotten here :-)

                  Peace.

                  Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

                  by drewfromct on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 11:10:38 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  can't frame outhouse w/out Fairness Doctrine (2+ / 0-)

        biggest political blunder the last two decades was progressives ignoring the power of talk radio.  the roves and norquists got to do the framing because of the uncontested repetition to 50MIL+ while progressives read and listened to music.

        air america and independent progressives were at least as important in the last elections as the internet.  but today the RW TR monopoly and the giant megaphone it gives the GOP continues to determine the media flavor of america and keep the dems from a veto proof majority. it is very effective keeping wayward GOP reps in line and has a lot to do with which political stories are moved to the top of the line.  it provides lazy media whores a smorgasbord of prechewed talking points and oneliners that wouldn't go anywhere near as far on TV and in print if they didn't have the certainty and repetition of limbaugh and hannity and co behind them.

        we wouldn't be in this mess if we still had some kind of a Fairness Doctrine. progressives who continue to leave the GOP talk radio monopoly out of the equation or think it can be offset by some other advantage are strategizing in a vacuum.  they're trying to play politics without a front line. the genius of rove and norquist is nothing more than their ability to get their talking points blasted to every corner of the country 24/7 week after week.  their ability to trash the dems constantly without answer while making excuses for the GOP. their ability to undo the work of thousands of citizens on local or national level with a few blowhards with microphones.

        the TR machine will swiftboat whoever the dem candidate is and because of it elections that shouldn't be anywhere near close will be in question or lost.   most of the republican protestors at the next vote recounts will be called out on talk radio.  the center of power of the GOP is at your local talk radio station.  boycotters and sign-waving protestors might want to start there.

        the only good thing about it is that it allowed the greediest and most power hungry freaks in the GOP to bring down their own party.

    •  Big Goverment sounds bad, period. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drewfromct, The House, seabos84

      And smaller, more efficient government sounds good.

      But it's not the result we are arguing about it's the method of achieving it and what it actually means.  

      Grover only uses those phrases because they sound good, the result he really wants is castrated government that is forced to turn over it's cash to private corporations who he thinks should actually rule the world.

      Just so we're clear: I favor Obama

      by David in Burbank on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:54:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you, SusanG (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CParis, Randolph06, The House

    for this terrfic book review.  Among all the issues, this one struck a chord:

    It is possible for people to reject an old set of beliefs and embrace a new one, but it usually takes a catastrophic event or years of exposure to new information. A political campaign is not the place to educate voters--it’s the place to persuade them. Politics is not a battle of information; it is a battle of ideas.

    We had our catastrophic event on September 11, 2001.  Unfortunately, it appears that people rejected their old set of beliefs in the  Constitution as our foundation of law.  The Republicans framed the corrusion of the first three Articles and the Bill of Rights as keeping Americans safe from terrorist attack.

    I think many are beginning to understand the ramifications of the second catastrophic event: the Bush Administration.  I am not sure progressives and our Democratic leaders have found the right persuasive frame.  Hating Bush has not been enough.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:03:17 AM PST

    •  And it seems so diabolically ironic that Bush (0+ / 0-)

      used fear-mongering to get the country to do exactly what he so duplicitously said we should not do, which was to allow the terrorists to change our way of life. The Man touted freedom, and tricked us into giving up our own liberty. If I am correct in calling this ironic, I think it is the most devastatingly ironic thing I can think of in 46 years of my life.

      "My way is not very sportsmanlike." -Fezzik/ Andre the Giant (No, not Dick "Cockeye" Cheney... and not Mike "Quailbane" Huckabee either)

      by The House on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:34:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe responsible government should be the goal.. (0+ / 0-)

      along with civic responsibility.

      I personally would like to see the 40% for defense be re-assigned to more productive programs - education, health care and global climate control.

      I also think we need to pay more in taxes in conjunction with responsible spending both on the federal, state and local level.

      It would take a really shrewd politician to convince Americans on the above and then to rule long enough to see his/her program initiated.

      We get the government we deserve.

  •  For the Record, before I even read the review, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sidnora

    I am making an official announcement: I am never again going to read a book with a subtitle that begins with the word "how", when the word "how" should either be replaced with "that" or simply deleted.

    God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
    by Christopher Hitchens (Author)

    Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost Its Mind and the Other Lost Its Nerve by Bernard Goldberg (Hardcover - April 17, 2007)

    Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart by Patrick J. Buchanan (Hardcover - Nov 27, 2007)

    There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese (Hardcover - Oct 23, 2007)

    Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole by Benjamin R. Barber (Paperback - Mar 10, 2008)

    War on the Middle Class: How the Government, Big Business, and Special Interest Groups Are Waging War on the American Dream and How to Fight Back by Lou Dobbs (Paperback - Sep 25, 2007)

    The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America by Ronald Brownstein (Hardcover - Nov 1, 2007)

    You can spot this title instantly, and it always, I am convinced, originates with an agent or publisher with dollar signs in his or her eyes.  It is an abuse of language intended to make the book seem "Active" or "useful" or something.  In fact, it just vexing, and indicates the writer does not understand grammar.

  •  Elections are not decided by thoughtful people (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drewfromct, The House, gchaucer2

    Elections are decided by marketing campaigns.

    Sorry, just had to write a reality check.

    The Clintons are soooooo last decade.

    by Walt starr on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:11:29 AM PST

    •  Yes, but there are marketing campaigns and there (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CParis

      are marketing campaigns. Marketing campaigns are run by thoughtful people, and they seek to attract people to adopt a point of view that typically requires at least a little thought. Marketing campaigns typically seek to grow, and in order to do so they require the creation, in effect, of more thoughtful people.

      "My way is not very sportsmanlike." -Fezzik/ Andre the Giant (No, not Dick "Cockeye" Cheney... and not Mike "Quailbane" Huckabee either)

      by The House on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:42:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sounds good, but I wonder if this is right: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Randolph06, The House, pelagicray

    The progressive-liberal-Democratic base of voters would gladly accept and espouse a communitarian philosophy. I, too, wish that American culture were more oriented toward altruism and community. But it isn’t. A realistic progressive philosophy is one that accepts our national culture of individualism and competition and--nevertheless--seeks to make the American dream accessible to all.

    More to the point, I wonder what "accessible" means in the phrase "seeks to make the American dream accessible to all".  That's a common enough turn of phrase (it goes along with "opportunity") but there's something wrong with it.

    The American dream is accessible to all.  Anyone can become a financially secure by having the right idea or being in the right company at the right time.  The problem is that the American Dream just cannot, even in priniciple, be accessed by all, or most.  And making the American dream something that can be accessed -- actually, really had -- by most people all at once would require precisely the communitarian philosophy we're supposed to keep quiet about.

    I supposed that's part of the point; but I think in the quoted passage there's a confusion about framing and reality.

  •  We need to expose these hypocrites (7+ / 0-)

    Do you wonder why the conservative message is so popular? There’s nothing wrong with their ideas! Who wants a bigger government than we need? Who favors unlimited government? Who can oppose a strong national defense? Who is against morality?...

    Unlimited government?  How about warrantless wiretaps, torture, kangaroo courts, no right to counsel, confining people for years without charges?  Anyone, even the persuadable, can be designated an unlawful combatant and disappear.

    Strong National defense?  What has the Iraq war done to our Army?  Our crippled Army makes our military power weaker than ever before.

    Morality?  Larry Craig, David Vitter, Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, and that creep from Florida who endangered teenage boys.

    "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars." William Jennings Bryan

    by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:29:06 AM PST

  •  I'm not sure that I care for the implication... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The House, lifelongactivist

    ... that I'm not "normal" because I give a damn.

    "To lodge all power in one party and keep it there is to insure bad government and the sure and gradual deterioration of the public morals." - Mark Twain

    by The Damned Yankee on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:32:12 AM PST

  •  Now,how does one.... (4+ / 0-)

    How does one address Congress and the inability to stand up to the Boy King? And if not inability, then refusal or fear of?
    I've heard on Democracy Now in interviews with Democratic members of congress citing Fox News attacking them as reasons to not stand up to Dubbya? How, how do I tell someone democrats will change anything when they see stuff like that? After the general election will lack of accomplishments be blamed on Fox News? And if it is Fox News, why is the merger between Sirius and XM being so belabored while Rupert Murdoch buys every newspaper and tv station across the country being approved in minutes? Can't the democratic congress just use current laws to protect themselves from such attacks?

    I have been asked repeatedly about H.R.676 and why it is just sitting there. How does someone like me explain that? A veto could be over ridden. Or is single payer healthcare cutting out to many campaign contributors?
    See, skeptics don't vote as well.
    They don't vote because they lay claim that there is no difference between the parties. And as Iraq stays the same, no debate in congress takes place on health care issues, Bush's budget gets approved with a smiley face on it-how do we look at someone who isn't going to vote SINCERELY and say " Democrats will induce change"?

    Its easy to criticize republicans, but when someone is fed up with the political process it isn't easy to defend democrats and their promises since 2006.

    People who scream and yell about a third party make a bit more sense to non voters right now, and they make just as much sense to progressives.
    There has been no change since 2006, Bush hasn't even hit a speed bump in getting anything passed-so, please, explain to me how to fight these arguments when they are so hard to disagree with.

    •  The only way I can think of to 'frame' things... (5+ / 0-)

      is the way it was framed in the begining; "Governments are formed for the common good."  Who profits if we go to war? Who profits if we deny health care to everyone? Who profits if we let our environment be destroyed? I don't. You don't. The people don't. It is individuals and corporations that profit. Until we show people that the rights and property of the citizen are being stolen by corruption and cronyism they will continue to go along to get along. We need to yell "Stop, thieves!!"

      Everybody eats, nobody hits.

      by upperleftedge on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:12:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  or, as some of us like to call it . . . (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        drewfromct, The House

        Who profits if we go to war? Who profits if we deny health care to everyone? Who profits if we let our environment be destroyed? I don't. You don't. The people don't. It is individuals and corporations that profit. Until we show people that the rights and property of the citizen are being stolen by corruption and cronyism they will continue to go along to get along. We need to yell "Stop, thieves!!"

        . . . "the class struggle".

        ;)

        Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

        by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:35:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  exactly, upperleftedge (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CParis

        we want effective government, and the reality is that the work that the government does is much harder - and usually much less profitable - than what corporations do.  

        At the heart the conservative view is not just selfish, but childish. This idea that "if I'm okay and I'm taken care of everything must be okay."

        Thanks for putting that so well.

        Hillary

        Read SusanG's review of my book The Lifelong Activist here.

        Hillary Rettig is author of The Lifelong Activist: How to Change the World Without Losing Your Way (Lantern Books, 2006), www.lifelongactivist.com

        by lifelongactivist on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:33:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Borders, Balance, Freedom, Population (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          drewfromct

          What Is:

          Too many human beings,
          Corraled into service for the criminal elite,
          With elite's wealth as god,
          Crushing natural abundance and trust,
          With political boundaries drawn regardless of resource flows.

          What Could Be:

          A stable population around 2 billion,
          Free to benefit from community association,
          With the welfare of "seven generations" primary,
          Balancing needs and natural productivity,
          Organized into participatory governance councils related to resources.  

          We can move this direction intentionally, and try to reduce suffering as much as possible, or we can hope that future generations will be able to build What Could Be from the rubble of the collapse.

          Moving this direction intentionally will require a decision on what to do with the criminal elite.

          If we let them continue and drive things to collapse, will they survive like cockroaches, and just start over on the same predatory model? Would elite survivors have an epiphany and reform?  

           

          (PC: -5.75, -6.56) Good men through the ages, tryin' to find the sun, still I wonder, still I wonder, who'll stop the rain? -J. Fogerty

          by RichRandal on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 10:07:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  nice to see this book out there (5+ / 0-)

    Thanks for the review and thanks to everyone for taking the time to support progressive authors!  It amazes me that Ann Coulter writes the same book year after year and it sells a brazillion copies, while Horn's book (and the others mentioned in this post...ehem), barely have a pulse in sales. It's really important to get this stuff into circulation so that progressives beyond the DC beltway can be a part of this conversation.  And we do that by buying copies.
    </shameless pitch>

    The big hurdle that the left still faces is getting the public into the discussion about communications and getting policy wonks to stop holding that up.  Once that happens on a wide scale, there will be a real renaissance of progressive ideas because the conversation from the bottom up and back will be thriving again. Horn's book will do a good job convincing think tank folks that it's ok to talk like people again and to stop hiding out in wonkish anti-conversation that alienates people.  And when that happens, progressives will be a much better at generating real solutions again, which is how we win.

    Also, this book is hitting the shelves while there is an active campaign out there using all the framing principles.  The O campaign talks values (Lakoff), connects to historic frames (Feldman), hits emotional registers (Westin), and stays away from policy lectures (Horn).  It's quite an object lesson in how well these methods can work, and who tends to embrace them.  It's no mistake that the most idealistic part of the electorate (boomers, 18-25) get it, while the more skeptical (Gen X) tend to hold back a bit. That skepticism is healthy, too, and is a hallmark of the left.  

    Thanks again, Susan!  I wish there was a link to all these reviews somewhere on the site...

    •  One of the things ... (7+ / 0-)

      big progressive platforms like Daily Kos is doing -- I hope -- is helping to support other arms of the movement in other mediums. Being a book lover, I'm loving taking on the cause of promoting authors and their works -- we simply must create a sustainable authorial base where ideas can be explored at length and then promoted outward in media appearances and on blogs.

      So I couldn't agree with your ideas about promotion more. And thanks for your part in this cause. It's invaluable.

    •  as a Kossack author I heartily agree!!! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jeffrey Feldman

      and thank SusanG, who is one of the strongest advocates on behalf of progressive authors!

      Hillary

      Read SusanG's review of my book The Lifelong Activist here.

      Hillary Rettig is author of The Lifelong Activist: How to Change the World Without Losing Your Way (Lantern Books, 2006), www.lifelongactivist.com

      by lifelongactivist on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:35:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Progressives vs Conservatives frame (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drewfromct, Randolph06

    From my diary today
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    the Republicans are now the party of those who want to conserve old money, not create new money (what my people call 'Progress').  To create money you need infrastructure: good roads, educated workers, law enforcement/market regulation.  A quality government and infrastructure requires tribute from those from those who earn money.

    Please read my series on Labor, the GOP's #1 fear. Organized, we shall overcome!

    by try democracy on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:02:17 AM PST

  •  Fairness/Justice (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Nose

    I agree with Susan on the importance of fairness and justice, but I think that fairness and justice must be framed in terms of Horn's concepts of Opportunity and Security in order to complement the progressive message. A good example of this is Bush's claim that SCHIP was "not fair to the pharmaceutical companies." When people don't share the progressive belief in the importance of opportunity and security, it is possible for conservatives to pervert the idea of "fairness" into anything they want it to be, just like Bush did in his bizarre argument against SCHIP.

    •  i think this would fall under the advice (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drewfromct

      that Lakoff gives that step #1 is developing a frame that encompasses both your view and your audience's.  by doing so, you haven't frightened or alienated your audience and established the bond that will allow you to take the slow baby steps to bring him or her over to your viewpoint.

      this is in contrast to what many activists do, which is to try to bash people over the head with their viewpoint and all the reasons it is right.

      in my book, The Lifelong Activist, I quote Saul Alinsky (Rules for Radicals) and other activists side by side with Dale Carnegie and other sales guru, all giving the same advice on how to persuade people - and they all basically agree with Lakoff's approach in Don't Think of an Elephant.

      A major reason the Left was on its knees for so long, in my view, was that when Dr. Lakoff's views achieved wide notice during the 2004 presidential election, they were treated by the Democrats like some amazing revelation.  but, as I frequently say, similar concets are taught in the first class of "sales and marketing 101" and the Right has of course always known and used them.

      it is wonderful to see the Left catching up, especially as we can offer not just shallow platitudes (security) and false hopes (opportunity), but the real thing.

      Hillary

      Read SusanG's review of my book The Lifelong Activist here.

      Hillary Rettig is author of The Lifelong Activist: How to Change the World Without Losing Your Way (Lantern Books, 2006), www.lifelongactivist.com

      by lifelongactivist on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:43:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "framing" doesn't mean diddley . . . (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TracieLynn, The Nose, The House

    if people see for themselves that the Dems and the Repugs share the same basic agenda.

    As for all the talk about fairness and justice and equality  etc etc etc, it doesn't mean diddley in a national security state.  And both Dems and Repugs are rushing us headlong down the road to a militarized national security state, at the head of a global empire.

    Until we reject "America Invicta" in all its forms, the most we can do is argue with the Repugs over the best way to implement the agenda, not over the validity of the agenda itself.

    If progressives want people to see that we are different, we need to BE different.  Not just a kinder, gentler version of the same thing.

    Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

    by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:24:41 AM PST

  •  "Republicans Think You Are Stupid" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drewfromct, The House

    That would be my response to all their smears and hoaxes and nutty emails.

    People are sensitive to this especially if they really are stupid.

  •  Maybe what we need to persuade them of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The House

    is that the reason government exists is because the greates threat to security, opportunity, etc. is the individual.

  •  defensive framing (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TracieLynn, The House, pelagicray

    Stuff like

    We’re not for big government, we’re for smart government

    just seems to riff on GOP frames and frankly "smart gov't" is kind of geeky and uninspired. We're the wonks telling you how to live. I have always thought the way to go is to challenge the "big govt liberal" head on. We want to increase or at least preserve the public sphere in health, media, schools, land, you name it. People have been very wary of privatization, well connected people grabbing up pieces of public resources and making a killing.

    I think the public/private theme works better than this big/smart. The public sphere has been attacked and shrunk so over the past few decades that if dems came out and said we're drawing the line of privatization and are dedicated to protecting the wealth we hold in common, we'd have a winner. But this would entail the dems being substantially different in their policy goals than they are now-- we'd need a return to New Deal philosophy. I think a New Deal-type coalition is out there waiting to be built (and would include some pubs attracted to folks like Huckabee) but the dems are so compromised that they hope they can simply win on competence.

  •  I will definitely buy this book today! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The House
  •  A few quibbles: (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, such framing may be effective, but only to a degree. My observation has been that the conservative message can be simple because it is extreme: For example, they hate government, since, according to them it is ineffective suae naturae causa.

    Why can't we follow suit? Because our message, simply put, generally doesn't resonate with myth or a collective fantasy, if you will, but instead stems from both ethics and pragmatism. We don't have a Horatio Alger on our side; we have life in all its gritty horror, with all of its myriad tragedies.

    Furthermore, because of these two reasons our message has to be complex, since any attempt to dumb it down into a sound-bite so would simplify it into absurdity: For example, we do not hate government programs (at least I'm assuming that's the position of the majority of people here) but we do not support a monstrously complex government apparatus (again, I assume so) - the very duality of this position requires clarification.

    To finish, we can learn a something about framing our message from the book, yes, and we can certainly render it more effective, but this is a battle of ideas, and the Republican fairy tale must be discredited, both with, well, propaganda and with cold, hard facts. If we hold Republican principles to be (entirely) correct we concede the field: If there is no opposition, there is no conflict, which gives the Republicans an advantage: They seem to be the real deal and we appear to be copycats. It is much more difficult to defeat an enemy on his own territory, after all.

    Sure, stress the importance of individualism - but point out the importance of society in an individual's success and failure. Without an ordered system, who could succeed?

    Omne malum nascens facile opprimitur, inveteratum fit plerumque robustius. - Cicero

    by Dauphin on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:58:15 AM PST

  •  Smart Government (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StuartZ

    Yes! I'm going to send this review to my progressive book club so we can read it together. We've read Lakoff and Feldman - this one seems like it will help us continue building our talking points.

  •  some issues... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StuartZ, greeseyparrot, Dauphin, certainot

    I'm a huge fan of framing, and write about it extensively in my own book The Lifelong Activist. But I've got issues with statements such as this:

    Who Are the Persuadables?... In general, they’re the citizens who are least interested in politics. After all, if they paid attention, the would already have taken a side.

    What exactly makes them persuadable, in that case? Someone with this world view - and most Kossacks probably spent time with such people over the holidays - sounds to me not very persuadable.  If there are subcategories to that designation, maybe...but that's not indicated here.

    Another big field that uses framing is marketing and sales.  On the first day of marketing 101 you learn the importance of characterizing and segmenting your audience because it is vital that you identify the ones most likely to buy your product (or cause). On the first day of sales 101, you learn to characterize and segment still further ("qualifying"). These are the essential, foundational activities that lead to all future success. Are these activities incorporated in the Framing the Future model, and if so, how did the limited, self-absorbed "persuadables" Horn describes - as opposed to passionate youth, members of liberal churches, union members, single-issue zealots whose reach could be broadened, etc. - become our target?

    I also strongly object to this characterization:

    To political activists’ ears, that may sound like an insult: it is not. The persuadables are normal people.

    Not only is the word "normal" inadvisable to use when referring to people in almost any context, it is objectionable in this context. Does this mean that those of us who care about politics are abnormal?  If you use abnormal as a synonym for "healthier individuals who are not living in denial and escapism, and more responsible citizens" I might agree. Otherwise, I consider it a calumny.

    Those whom Horn designates as "normal" have actually been victimized by a corporatist society that actively works to keep people poor, destroy opportunity, and destroy authentic community, while turning active (and potentially difficult to control) individuals and citizens into the overworked and underconcerned "consumers" the author refers to as "normal."

    My third and most serious objection is that the author's thesis appears to violate a cardinal rule of framing by adopting the opposition's frames.  Taking an active role in the power dialogue within one's community is both healthy AND normal - I can say the latter with some authority, having a lot of experience with diverse cultures. Celebrating the passive, self-involved consumer whose idea of freedom is Coke vs. Pepsi - well that seems to fit neatly with the Right's agenda.

    To take another example, as SusanG pointed out:  emphasizing security and opportunity, and demphasizing justice and equality?  That's a conservative framing - to adopt it is to cede the battle.

    Am I misreading something?

    Hillary

    Read SusanG's review of my book The Lifelong Activist here.

    Hillary Rettig is author of The Lifelong Activist: How to Change the World Without Losing Your Way (Lantern Books, 2006), www.lifelongactivist.com

    by lifelongactivist on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:01:24 AM PST

    •  My interpretation of the ''persuadable,'' (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CParis

      based on my experience, is that you could divide them into two segments: Those who don't give a flying fuck (pardon my language) about anything outside their immediate lives - party animals, self-absorbed housekeepers, overworked people who can't spare the time, etc. - and those who follow politics but for one reason or another remain unaffiliated.

      The problem, of course, as you've pointed out, is how to capture their attention and win them over. How do you persuade someone who just doesn't care, is so beset by stereotypes that he won't listen to reason or is so overworked he doesn't have the time to listen? Certainly not by adopting the opposition's position.

      Oh, and in my experience this type of people is normal - as in the most prevalent. A sad state of affairs, but a little abnormality has never hurt anyone, did it. Of course, personal experience is rarely correct; you'd need a study and a statistically significant sample to determine trends with any degree of accuracy.

      Omne malum nascens facile opprimitur, inveteratum fit plerumque robustius. - Cicero

      by Dauphin on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:10:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Direct from the GOP Playbook (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dauphin

        From Karl Roves nightstand

        ".....(The press') readers can be divided into 3 groups....First, those who believe everything they read....the first group is by far the largest...the sate...must exercise strict control over the press...(to insure) uniformity and constant repetition......it must not be confused by the drivel about so called "freedom of the press."

      •  Lakoff answers your questions (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greeseyparrot, Dauphin

        Dauphin - George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant will tell you how to persuade, and my book The Lifelong Activist has an entire section on it.

        Please remember that it's important always be compassionate.  I advise you to seek out a party animal, self-absorbed housekeeper, the overworked, and really listen to how they got into that state. some possibilities:  

        - many underachievers (the party animal) were told at a young age that they wouldn't amount to much.  or, they could be so insecure that they can't bring themselves to do something uncool or unconventional like take a public stand.

        - self-absorbed housekeepers. i have a whole chapter in my book on "avoiding perfectionist housekeeping." You would be amazed at the societal (Madison Avenue), interpersonal (family) and internal (fear) forces that can cause someone to constrict their interests to their home.

        - overworked. as I said in another post: it's in corporate interests to keep us all overworked and stressed - which leads to compliance.

        Compassion is not just ethical and progressive, but it makes us more effective activists and persuaders, as it enables us to reach out to our audience and establish a bond. When pondering others' limitations it is always helpful to ponder our own at the same time. It gives perspective, because we are all in the process of growing and learning.

        What does your Cicero quote translate to, and are you a classicist?  Here's another classical quote, from Philo of Alexandria:  "Be kind, because everyone you meet is fighting his own battle."

        Hillary

        Read SusanG's review of my book The Lifelong Activist here.

        Hillary Rettig is author of The Lifelong Activist: How to Change the World Without Losing Your Way (Lantern Books, 2006), www.lifelongactivist.com

        by lifelongactivist on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 09:02:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not a classicist, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greeseyparrot, drewfromct

          although I did go to a classicist high-school (mandatory Latin). The quote translates roughly to ''All evil is easily killed when growing, when matured it is somewhat more tenacious.''

          I agree with your analysis on persuasion, but I believe the problem is often deeper-seated: As a law student, for example, I find that more than 50% of the population - in a profession whose subject is to a large degree dependent on politics! - is almost entirely apathetic and disgusted with politics. As long as they get good grades, are able to party, and have the prospect of a cozy job/earning truckloads of money, they're content. And why bother with politics? After all, ''it's all corrupt and it's all the same,'' as they so often put it. This coming from people who should know better!

          In my view, it's this mentality we must overcome.

          Omne malum nascens facile opprimitur, inveteratum fit plerumque robustius. - Cicero

          by Dauphin on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 09:09:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  you might be misreading it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drewfromct

      I've been in a room many times when a presenter used some version of the line, "You're not normal--because you think about politics everyday. Normal people don't do that."  100% of the time, the potential candidates and activists in the room giggle and write it down. For many people, in my view, that basic observation is the first time they realize that the challenge is to speak with people, as opposed to speaking at them.  Particularly for new candidates, that is an 'ah, ha!' moment.

      ---
      Support kossack authors! Buy Framing The Debate...

      by Jeffrey Feldman on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:14:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Correcting misinformation (5+ / 0-)

    I was flipping through the latest Skeptical Inquirer yesterday at a bookstore and glanced at an article that described psychological research showing that attempting to correct a misperception in someone's mind can actually reinforce it under some circumstances. That's apparently why so many people still think Saddam was involved in 9/11.

    Wish I had read the article more carefully, but it seems like a problem that needs to be addressed when talking to the "persuadables."

    News is what they don't want you to know. Everything else is publicity. --Bill Moyers

    by RobLewis on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:07:36 AM PST

    •  cognitive dissonance (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greeseyparrot

      People in general want strongly to see themselves as wise, principled and consistent in their views. That is why correcting one fact can be so difficult: it can bring the whole edifice of their beliefs down, or at least make them feel uncomfortable about the inconsistency (cognitive dissonance). Most people don't want to face that, and so protect themselves by being resistant to new facts.

      This leads to the cornerstone of Dr. Lakoff's recommendation: that when persuading someone, you begin by creating a new frame that encompasses both your frame and your audience's.  So you don't call people names or vilify them for their priorities - you admit that those priorities make sense in a certain context (which they almost always do), and you understand and share that context a bit. And then, little by little, very gently, you work to move the discussion over to your frame.

      This is all also marketing and sales 101 - and Saul Alinsky says the same thing, btw. (In my book, The Lifelong Activist, I quote him and Dale Carnegie side by side giving almost identical advice re persuasion.) Ultimately persuasion is about forming a positive relationship with your audience, so that they trust you and open up to your viewpoint. (Because people aren't going to be convinced by someone whom they feel dislikes or disrespects them.)

      Hillary  

      Read SusanG's review of my book The Lifelong Activist here.

      Hillary Rettig is author of The Lifelong Activist: How to Change the World Without Losing Your Way (Lantern Books, 2006), www.lifelongactivist.com

      by lifelongactivist on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:20:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Big story on the Iraq issue: (0+ / 0-)

    "It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush"

    by gotalife on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:15:35 AM PST

  •  voting to keep the game going (0+ / 0-)

    Still unsure who they want to see as the nominee, voting for Clinton to keep Obama from wrpping it up quickly.

    Democratic Candidate for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)
    Court certified Marijuana Expert

    by ben masel on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:17:12 AM PST

  •  Dems are idiots (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StuartZ, drewfromct

    And so are Republicans.

    THAT is why so many reasonable people tune out of politics.

    Progressive?  What, like Nancy and Reed?  After this last election and it is looking more and more like the next one is going to be the same I think I will tune out too.  "Our" idiots are different than "their" idiots but both screw the middle class in favor of the rich.

    I used to figure that at least Dems knew that the more people made, the more there was to steal whereas Republicans would kill everyone for one days earnings but now, I just don't see much difference and have a hard time giving a $&%@!

    Want to watch Republican economic theories in action? Look at Iraq.

    by Michaelpb on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:19:33 AM PST

  •  The worst form of government (2+ / 0-)

    My general feeling about the "normal people" who have plenty of time to devote to knowing everything about their favorite sports but can't be bothered with the most basic responsbility of citizenship-being informed-is that they should be encouraged to continue to ignore politics on election day and just stay home.

    Won't happen, of course, (they have a right to have their voices heard, no matter how ignorant) which is why I'm willing to settle for second best: using the same dishonest but effective advertising tactics of the Right to fool them into voting for our side. The difference being the Right fools them into voting against their own interests, while we must fool them into voting for their own interests.

    But then Democracy truly is the worst form of government-except for all the others.

    And yes, I'm feeling especially cynical today.

    •  You just saved me the effort (0+ / 0-)

      of having to write:

      I'm willing to settle for second best: using the same dishonest but effective advertising tactics of the Right to fool them into voting for our side. The difference being the Right fools them into voting against their own interests, while we must fool them into voting for their own interests.

      Took the words right out of my mouth.

      Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

      by drewfromct on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:59:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  i agree with the first half of your statement (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greeseyparrot

      which is why I think we should sell politics using some sports frames.  Remember the elementary school teacher you had who just droned on about math or science or whatever, and the one who made it seem fun and lively and relevant?  We should be emulating the latter.

      You're right - as progressives we don't have the option of disenfranchising millions. (What the conservatives have basically done.)  So let's figure out how to best enfranchise them.

      Don't feel cynical trdraicer - there's lots to feel hopeful about, including the fact that young people are becoming moe engaged, and overwhelmingly Democratic!  Even the Republican youth are inclining toward the populist Huckabee (NYT article yesterday about that schism.)  In other words...we're winning.  

      Hillary

      Read SusanG's review of my book The Lifelong Activist here.

      Hillary Rettig is author of The Lifelong Activist: How to Change the World Without Losing Your Way (Lantern Books, 2006), www.lifelongactivist.com

      by lifelongactivist on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 09:08:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree with your characterization (0+ / 0-)

      ... of "normal people". You seem to be saying that anyone who does not agree with you is automatically an irresponsible citizen, is not informed, and needs to be "fooled" into voting for our side.

      In my experience I have run across a number of thoughtful and open minded people who have voted Republican in the past and have valid reasons for wondering if any Democrat could be effective. Bombarding them with ideology only compounds their impressions. I've used some of the framing that Lakoff and Horn suggest and have found that when I show a willingness to give people the respect of listening to their views that I get respect in return.

  •  Since '78 with Prop 13 I've wondered WHY (0+ / 0-)

    the fuck the liberal pooh-bahs couldn't see this kind of stuff.

    of course, I was only 18, AND, my family was on welfare and I was on financial aid to go to college

    AND life was 1 long hurry up and fill out paperwork and hope like hell you were approved so you could get on with life!

    and, hello IDIOTS - I KNEW that without those programs our family would be living under the bridge and I'd never have an education and never have a shot at much more than ... ripping off rich people to survive?

    BUT - whenever I'd talk to Dems (I moved to Boston in '78 to go to college from my decayed mill town of holyoke ma - there are LOTS of educated Dems in Boston ...)

    about how fucking inept gov't ran, AND, how this ineptness just created a HUGE opportunity for the fucking lying stealing fascists

    I'd get pooh-poohed as some unwashed dipshit who obviously would never make it to the K-School.

    fast forward to 2005 ... how many donuts have I got for ridiculing the holier than thou fucking idiots running our LOSING campaigns?

    our messages are straight from the Crown-Of-Thorns playbook

    We Are Noble - We Aren't Unethical!
    We Are Honest - We Don't Steal!
    We Are Truthifull - We Don't Lie!
    We Are Selfless - We Help the Helpless ...

    yawn ... oh, fuck ... did I fall asleep?

    I'm gonna reco this book !!

    thanks mucho for the review

    rmm.

    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 10:35:19 AM PST

  •  Susan this is why i still read kos! ty (0+ / 0-)

    Susan - what a helpful, succinct, punchy review.

    I get tired of the childish name-calling on here and the incuriosity about differing points of view, but reviews like yours keep me coming back.

    You (via Horn) have helped me to be a more effective progressive.

    Will be sending this link to friends.

    Thanks! - a.

  •  Kind of Pollyanna (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Janet Strange

    Don't get me wrong.  I am very on board with the need to readjust the method of persuasion and properly frame our ideas.  The problem I have is the notion that all we need to do is roll XY and Z frames out and all will be well.

    Here's the problem.  Framing is a process of communication.  Since it involves communication, it needs a vehicle over which that communication is broadcast.  The 'presuadables' get their information from the idiot box and the OpEds of their local paper and talk radio, and if the mere existence of DK and TPM and MediaMatters and AirAmerica shows us anything, it is that the talking heads on the idiot box and the corporate dominated editorial boards of newspapers and radio conglomerates have allowed one set of frames go unchallenged for decades, despite complete lack of factual basis.  

    Any cursory review of Republican frames reveal they amount to spraying Glade on a turd and calling it a daisy.  There's no truth to any of these alleged principles.  In fact, these are extremely destructive government policies covered over by flowery language.  But more importantly in this conversation, the media conglomerates have taken an active role in not only spraying the glade, but picking up the turd and spreading it on Democratic faces.

    It's not just that Republicans are for 'small government,' it is that Democrats are for 'big government.'  It's not just that Republicans favor tax cuts, it is that Democrats want across the board tax increases.  It is not just that Republicans want a strong defense, it's that Democrats don't give a hoot about national defense.  It's not just that Republicans are for 'family values,' it's that Democrats want incestuous bisexual sodomy orgies on the House floor.

    So I look at a prospective attempt to create positive frames on what is already sound governmental policies and I imagine what would happen within the punditry circles.  I am left laughing at the notion that Democrats would be able to frame the definitions of "freedom, opportunity, and security" in a beneficial way, much less have those words routinely applied to Democrats, much much less have the Republicans simultaneously painted as against "freedom" and against "opportunity" and against "security."  Quite the opposite actually.  These are already terms with their own frames defined and used by Republicans, and the conglomerate media has consistently told the persuadables that Democrats are against these things.  

    But perhaps even worse is the suggestion that we should try to become the daisy bearers while trying to rehabilitate what daisies actually smell like.  We can stand on a corner with bunches of daisies screaming "get your daisies here" all we want, but the persuadables are still going to think that a daisy actually looks and smells like a Glade covered turd.  Chances are, not too many people are going to buy what we are calling daisies.

    "Freedom, opportunity, and security" are terms that already have definitions in this discussion.  The persuadables are thoroughly convinced that the smell of a daisy is what we know to be a Glade covered turd.  We go talking daisy, and the persuadables are going to think of the smell they have known for 20 years, not an actual daisy. We need to stop talking about daisies unless it's in the context of revealing to the persuadables that what they thought was a daisy is actually a Glade covered turd.

    Further, the people the persuadables listen to will not allow the Democrats to define the terms and create their own frames like they do the Republicans.  The people the persuadables listen to will completely scoff at the notion that the smell of daisies is something different then they have been telling people for twenty years.  They will staunchly defend what they have been telling us is the smell of daisies.  

    We must first reveal the Glade has been sprayed and that it was covering a turd while attempting to begin a discussion about roses.  Later on, when the smell of Glade covered turds is out of the persuadables memory, we can start to convince them that we have daisies, they are real daisies, and they smell very very good, much better than the daisies you may remember.

    •  Well, after GWB... (0+ / 0-)

      ...maybe they're, well, persuadable.   You seem to be saying that the people Bernie Horn is calling persuadable aren't, really.  Are you really sure that none of those people realizes that something's not right?

      Besides, there are as many definitions of "freedom", "opportunity", and "security" as there are people, when you think about it.  From what I can tell, people vote GOP because people use their own definitions and project them upon what the GOP is saying.  Why not do the same, and then point out how liberal policies actually accord better with voters' own definitions?

      •  Not at all (0+ / 0-)

        I am not saying the persuadable really aren't.  I am saying the persuadables won't be persuaded by trying to ascribe new frames to words already framed.  Yes, there are many definitions of those terms, but not in this context.  In this context the persuadables have been pounded with frames for these words for three decades.  Specifically they have these definitions:

        freedom - the right to drive an SUV
        opportunity - low taxes will lead to more jobs and Walmart will let me stretch my dollar
        security  - those brownies are out to get us

        They have these definitions because of deeply entrenched frames.

        With the realization that the vehicle used for creating frames (conglomerate media) will resist our attempt to introduce new terms with definitions we seek to attach to them, I find it hard to believe they will willingly go along and let us blow up those definitions, detach those positive terms from one party, create entirely new definitions for those terms and attach them to the other party all in the course of 10 months.  

        This process must happen.  It's either naive or arrogant or both to think we can just skip right to the last two steps.  Framing these terms to our advantage is a long term goal in a time of immediacy.  Perhaps the book does touch on other areas, but as described above, it ignores the difficulty we will have creating our own frames and the need to stop every conversation that feeds into the BS positive frames the conglomerate media showers upon the other side before we will ever have a chance of redefining those terms.

        Further, what you suggest kind of misses the point of framing.  Lakoff would say that these kind of quibbles are exactly what we have been doing wrong all along.  We can't start arguing that 'our definition of security is a better definition, here's why we provide it, please love us because we are the one's who provide freedom, opportunity and security.'  The persuadables will instantly tune us out.

        I have no problem with the ideas, but we need to find our different terms to conjure those ideas in the minds of the persuadables.

  •  Bernie Horn sounds "wordy" (0+ / 0-)

    Something about the tone sounds wordy and wonkish.......glops up the works.

    "The Science of Propaganda" http://www.nypl.org/ and search NYPL website for "Lakoff"

    by LNK on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:55:05 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site