In response to yesterday's diary, A Perfect Conversation: Framing is FundamentalFraming, citizen k made the following comment:
well, you could start with some specifics (0+ / 0-)
For example, what should the President have done? What would the costs have been?
What could the President do about Sherrod Brown and Debbie Stabenow helping the Republicans on the EPA?
(don't know about that? why not?)
How bad is the 2010 budget compared to 2008 - what's the perspective?
How safe is Planned Parenthood against an override proof vote if the President had played it that way? Do you know?
Which specific cuts did you hate the most? Do you oppose the cut from DOD? Don't know about that? Why?
value added
by citizen k on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 06:54:41 AM CDT
These are all excellent questions. Well thought out. Very reasonable. Very rational. Wonky as all hell.
And completely missing the forest for the trees.
First off, these are the types of questions that result in the pie fights. Here's how it works. Now, I don't know jack about citizen k. I don't know his/her stances on the issue. I don't even know his/her gender (as you can see by they way I'm writing.) But let's assume for the moment citizen k is an Obama defender. After I answer the questions, citizen k responds by trying to rebut. All very reasonably. Then I respond, then k responds. Again, reasonably, but maybe a little strained. It goes back and forth, slowly building up until we're both pissed off at each other and flinging donuts like nobody's business. The problem here is not that one of us is right or not. It's how we frame our positions.
And that brings me to point number two. Framing is about the way in which the questions are posed and answered. For example, if Republicans were to answer these questions, you can be certain they'd use "socialism." No matter what Obama did, the actions and results are all socialistic and Obama is a socialist. That's their frame.
So, I'm not going to answer citizen k's questions. They're a trap. I'm not saying citizen k set out to intentionally trap me into starting a pie fight or something. As far as I'm aware, they were asked in good faith. (And as I said above, I don't know which side of the debate citizen k is on, either, so it would be disingenuous of me to remark on it further.) Rather, they're a trap of the mindset that has subsumed this site with the pie fights. And if we're going to get out of that, we have to find a new frame. Because there will always be those of us who disagree with the President, no matter what he does. So it's better to have a frame that we can always use to argue that while we think what the President does is not helping, we still want him to do well and are rooting for him.
A Perfect Conversation is a group for republishing diaries that:
A) Challenge the DK conventional wisdom.
B) Provide information which may lead to new ideas.
or
C) Push for action that is innovative or not just playing defense.
The point is not to agree (or disagree) with these diaries. It's about challenging ourselves to rethink our political philosophies, activities, and issue positions.
Please remember to not look at the GOSian curve as you make your way past.
A full list of all diaries republished to A Perfect Conversation can always be found
here. Feel free to check it out at any time.
Rec List from the Eclectic Boogaloo - April 11, 2011:
Prologue
Lyrics