We're Framing the Debate all wrong. The debate is NOT about Obama. It should be about the Future instead. Future Opportunities. Future Growth. Future Health. Future Security.
The kind of Future we want in front of us. The kind of Future we want to leave our Children.
Conservatives are winning that War of Words. They have been for quite a while. They know what kind of "world view" they want their kids to inherit. Do we?
Free Market. No Tax Burden. No Govt Intrusion. Self-initiative. Anyone can make it. National Security. America is Number One.
-- these are all powerful Frames, powerful Word-Pictures, powerful Value-Slogans.
Unfortunately they are the Hot Buttons, that Conservative Talkers mostly push, to rile up their base. Where are our Hot Buttons, at the ready?
Notice something about these Conservative Frames, none of them mentions "a Person". Until they want them to. Only after they've hooked their audience, at some gut level. Then they cast their aspersions (generally speaking).
Those Frames are directed at the "internal emotions" of the listener instead. To the extent we are all "the products of our society" -- is the extent that such Frames will resonant -- ring true -- in mind/soul of the random listener.
To be honest -- Conservatives have been kicking our ass, in this Framing Game for a long, long time now.
Here's the thing -- When a Conservative frames a Talking Point, the last they care about are the Facts. No instead, they are constantly looking for the emotion, for those internal common values, that will strike a chord, right in the heart and soul of the America Dream participant (alternately, the American Myth).
You know those High Ideals that we all grew up with -- Conservatives will always try appeal to those first. Selectively of course, because most of their Ideals revolve around the gravitational Pull of Money. From the Greed side of the Concept -- not the Empowerment side.
For the counter points, at the alternate end of the political value-spectrum, we Democrats/Progressives, we appeal to 12 Point Plans, and this or that Study, or some obscure point in History. We don't strike emotional Chords. We clank out Duds, time and time again. Far too often, we fail to connect, at a gut level.
It is long past time Dems learned to start: Fighting Framing, with Framing.
Dems do have a few "experts" on Framing, ala Frank Luntz on the right. One of my favorites is George Lakoff. He has given us sound advice, time and again. Far too often it falls on deaf ears. Still the advice is worth revisiting, assuming you have the time or inclination.
I would suggest reading the entire pieces from which I reference below -- each post has much food for thought -- including the links out from those, such as this one:
"The 'free market' doesn't exist"
Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics
by Bonnie Azab Powell, UC Berkeley - News Center -- 27 October 2003
[...]
How does language influence the terms of political debate?
Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like "revolt," that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame.
If you then add the word "voter" in front of "revolt," you get a metaphorical meaning saying that the voters are the oppressed people, the governor is the oppressive ruler, that they have ousted him and this is a good thing and all things are good now. All of that comes up when you see a headline like "voter revolt" - something that most people read and never notice. But these things can be affected by reporters and very often, by the campaign people themselves.
[...]
You've written a lot about "tax relief" as a frame. How does it work?
The phrase "Tax relief" began coming out of the White House starting on the very day of Bush's inauguration. It got picked up by the newspapers as if it were a neutral term, which it is not. First, you have the frame for "relief." For there to be relief, there has to be an affliction, an afflicted party, somebody who administers the relief, and an act in which you are relieved of the affliction. The reliever is the hero, and anybody who tries to stop them is the bad guy intent on keeping the affliction going. So, add "tax" to "relief" and you get a metaphor that taxation is an affliction, and anybody against relieving this affliction is a villain.
"Tax relief" has even been picked up by the Democrats. I was asked by the Democratic Caucus in their tax meetings to talk to them, and I told them about the problems of using tax relief. The candidates were on the road. Soon after, Joe Lieberman still used the phrase tax relief in a press conference. You see the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot.
So what should they be calling it?
It's not just about what you call it, if it's the same "it." There's actually a whole other way to think about it. Taxes are what you pay to be an American, to live in a civilized society that is democratic and offers opportunity, and where there's an infrastructure that has been paid for by previous taxpayers. This is a huge infrastructure. The highway system, the Internet, the TV system, the public education system, the power grid, the system for training scientists -- vast amounts of infrastructure that we all use, which has to be maintained and paid for. Taxes are your dues -- you pay your dues to be an American.
Simple, concise. Value-laden. Strikes an emotional chord. [My take on the topic.]
Those are the ABC's of constructing a Frame, that can move the masses, of people too busy to follow the day-to-day political details.
On the specific Frame of advocating for our Environmental world views (a keen interest of mine) -- Dems have our work cut for us too, on that rhetorical battle field, at least according to Professor Lakoff. The good professor posts on DailyKos, from time to time too. A speaker, that we should all be following ... imho.
On Environmental Communication
by George Lakoff, DailyKos -- Sep 27, 2010
[...]
Negating a frame activates that frame. Using conservative language to argue against conservatives just reinforces conservative framings. Environmental language must avoid activating anti-environmental frames and anti-environmental language. For example, defending science activates the idea the science needs defending and so is questionable. Go on offense, not on defense.
All Politics is Moral The system of concepts used in political discourse is grounded in conceptions of what is moral. Every political leader claims he or she is doing what is right, not what is wrong. But Conservative and Progressive moral systems differ profoundly (see The Political Mind and Moral Politics). Parts of the conservative moral system contradict environmental values -- Man over Nature, Laissez-faire markets, personal not social responsibility, etc. Environmental values derive from a moral system centered on empathy and social responsibility.
[...]
Moral Versus Merely Factual Arguments Facts matter. But for their importance to be communicated at all, they must be framed in moral terms. Facts by themselves are not meaningful to most people. Just arguing the science of global warming is not effective. If done defensively, it can be self-defeating.
Business is central to the effort Business can save, and hence make, a lot money by going green and developing green technology.
[...]
Ecological development creates jobs and prosperity People want to live, and business want to locate, in places that are ecologically attractive and responsible, and the conversion to such values means new businesses will thrive.
Those are a few of the Offensive tacts, that Professor Lakoff suggests would be good moral Frames, for going on the offensive in the Environmental world view Debate. Facts are boring [not scary], whereas having safe, clean, sustainable places to live, are not so much. Good Advice. I must admit, to being too Fact-focused myself most of the time. And arguing far too often, on the Defensive Turf myself, rather than the Offensive high ground -- the common-sense common-ground that appeals to American Ideals. I'll have to work on that some more.
In any event I started writing this Post -- in hopes of getting us ALL to think about Framing Democratic/Progressive values, in short, sweet statements, that might resonant with the wider public at large. I would invite you to join in with your own Framing Ideas, Phrases you think, have relevancy to the Average Voter, at large. That Average Voter -- much too busy surviving, to pay much attention to the Minutia that turns into Mountains, here in the center of Blogland.
Soooo, I will suggest two Categories -- for constructing and submitting your Frames:
1) Short Slogans or Statements -- that will fit on a Bumper Sticker.
2) Two-word Phrase -- that stand alone, to capture the Moral/Value Concept you hope to sell.
(3 words, are Ok too. But the Conservatives almost always boil theirs down to just 2.)
Here are some of my Framing ideas. (Feel free to "borrow them" if you want).
1) Short Slogans or Statements [think Bumper Sticker]
Workers built this Country.
America IS about Helping People.
Paying Taxes is Patriotic.
Opportunity should not be just for the Rich.
It's time to Help Main Street, not Wall Street.
End Welfare for the Wealthy -- Raise the Capital Gains.
Restore Worker Dignity.
Everyone that wants a Job, should have a Job.
End Tax Breaks for Offshoring Jobs.
Consumers are the Job Creators.
If Corporations are People, why do they live forever?
2) Two-word Phrase [think Debate Topic]
People Matter.
General Welfare.
Social Good.
Public Interest.
Fact based.
Clean Energy.
Old School.
Tax Fairness.
Full Employment.
Just Society.
Corporate Heist.
Corporate Welfare.
Corporate Responsibility.
Corporate Patriotism.
Worker Rights.
Retirement Insurance.
Me Society.
We Society.
Price of Civilization.
Scientific Advance.
Common Humanity.
Have at it. The Floor is yours. Frame away. Goodness knows, we need it.