Following the President's address to school children, Joe Watkins appeared on MSNBC's Dr. Nancy to present the republican response and to defend the shenanigans that led up to the speech. On the merits his piece was not very successful; rhetorically his response was a case study in careful framing and message discipline. Rather than disregard his remarks as the disjointed ramblings of a republican foot soldier, we should take note and perhaps a lesson in the power of framing and rhetorical battle.
You can see the segment in full here:
I hope this works. I'm having trouble embedding.
So what is going on here? Let's break it down, step by step.
Step 1: Establish the President as a powerful orator.
This step establishes the potential danger, that the President is exceptional in his ability to make people change their beliefs. With this assertion comes obvious historical parallels to world leaders who were/are rhetorically exceptional but also nefarious in their intentions. Mr. Watkins is saying that the President is too skilled - too powerful in his abilities - to be allowed to speak to children (i.e. the President is so good that when he speaks, only skilled adults can maintain their sense of right and wrong).
Step 2: It's not about this speech.
Concede that the President didn't say anything objectionable today (read: I don't want to talk about education; I'm redefining the boundaries of this discussion); we should be afraid of what the President may use his magical skills to persuade children about in the future.
Step 3: Pivot to something scary.
This step, to the reasonable, seems to be a non sequitur, but when taken in the context of what Mr. Watkins intends to accomplish makes perfect sense. Watkins raises the Defense of Marriage Act as a possible topic of a future speech by the President to school children. Put aside for the moment the fact that there is no basis in reality for making such a claim and follow me to Step 4.
(In the interest of disclosure, I am personally very much in favor of the repeal of DOMA, but that is a topic for another diary.)
Step 4: A battle for hearts and minds.
Next up, frame the issue in terms of parents competing with the President for the "hearts and minds" of their children vis-a-vis controversial culture war issues. Raise the specter of the United States competing for Iraqi "hearts and minds" with insurgents/terrorists. Cast parents on the side of good and the President on the side of evil. Taken in conjunction with Step 1 the President is cast as a powerful opponent in the competition for children's "morality."
Step 5: Close strong.
Watkins closes strong; he says, "you may be concerned that that persuasive, popular figure has unfettered access to your kid." Leaving aside the misuse of the word "unfettered," Watkins puts it all together here. Think for a moment about the types of people that you wouldn't want to have "unfettered access" to children...go ahead, I'll wait.
Putting it all together.
So in less than five minutes Joe Watkins has presented the President as so rhetorically powerful as to be terrifying, reframed the debate to include any possible social issue, moved on to assert that the President wishes to indoctrinate children about the morality of gay marriage, cast the possible conflict between parents and the president in terms of the "GWOT," and not so subtly implied that the President can be rightly compared to a pederast. Meanwhile, Ms. West is still engaged in a debate that was displaced back in Step 2. She has ceded control of the discussion and appears as if she is unable to respond to the sucker punch that has just been delivered. Adopting a dismissive tone, if you're honest in your assessment of her performance, falls flat.
So what does it all mean?
There is a stark contrast between the approach of Mr. Watkins and Ms. West. Ms. West is concerned with debating the substance of the matter at hand; Mr. Watkins sees only an chance to deliver some message. To the former, the TV appearance is an opportunity to talk about education, to the latter, it is 6 minutes to say whatever is most politically advantageous. If I were judging the debate in terms of political effectiveness, Mr. Watkins wins on points, easily.
Mr. Watkins has a clear plan at the beginning of this segment:
- The President is so good at convincing people of things it's scary.
- What the President said today doesn't matter.
- The President is in favor of the "homosexual agenda."
- The President is like a terrorist.
- The President can be described with the same words we use when talking about a pedophile.
Ms. West's plan:
- What the President said today is good.
Once, Ms. West's point is conceded by Mr. Watkins, she's out of firepower; she has no more weapons.
This is not an insignificant point. Sure we like to think that voters in this country are rational, fair-minded people. The truth is, they are not. Dr. Lakoff has, on this site and elsewhere, implored us to realize that people are more associative in their political thinking, and we must accept this and get on board or risk losing on issues that we care deeply about.
It has been said, I believe by Dr. Lakoff and perhaps Bill Maher, that the "public option" sounds like a place to sh!t. I'd tend to agree. To win the healthcare debate and pass something like solid healthcare reform, we need a new vocabulary. I hope this diary acts as a catalyst that allows us as a community to develop new vocabularies for talking about progressive issues.
I'll get us started: Instead of talking about a "public option" we should begin talking about a "portable, individual option." Playing off the fact that private insurance companies are not very good at delivering quality affordable health insurance to individuals, and the fear that job loss results in termination of health benefits. Further, a "portable, individual option" is pro-entrepreneurial. Government is probably the only mechanism that can feasibly produce such a product, but by making the plan about the individual, we obviate the lines of attack about socialism, government take-over et al.
Imagine having six minutes on national cable news to talk about the dire need for an affordable, portable, healthcare option for individuals looking to start their own businesses or removed from the system by the unemployment crisis. We could change the game. [Un]Fortunately, the numbers of unemployed and under employed, in our current "jobless recovery" nearly outnumber those employed in the healthcare industry.