Try this quick test: Write down
the first word that comes to mind in response to this statement:
In less than one term, George W. Bush turned the largest government surplus in history into the largest debt in history
What did you write?
Most Dems look at the national debt and they instantly think of Bush's "incompetence," "failure," "corruption." All true.
But according to
George Lakoff in his book
Don't Think of an Elephant!, if progressives want to regain political terrain, they need to look at the debt and start thinking about Bush's "achievement," "success," and "vision."
What? Debt as achievement? How can this be?
Of course, Lakoff is not suggesting that we stop being outraged by Bush's approach to economics and the harm it will cause. Rather, he wants us to look at the language we use when we react to the debt. Our words indicate a key difference between Dems andRepublicans.
Where we see
policy, the GOP sees
strategy.
For Lakoff's, Dems will never gain ground in politics unless we stop thinking about policy, and start talking about strategy.
Thinking in Tanks
The $100 word that will soon be on everyone's lips is
hypocognition, which according to Lakoff means "without ideas." In Lakoff's estimation, the problem isn't that Dems don't think. In fact, Dems think all the time, but they do it in a haphazard way and in isolation.
The GOP thinks in tanks.
Since the defeat of Goldwater, the GOP has been establishing policy think tanks, organizations whose sole purpose is to bring intellectuals, politicians and policy wonks together and support them. Once in the tank, conservative intellectuals don't just generate individual policy ideas. Their goal is to generate the broad conservative vision and the strategies for implementing that vision. Think tanks are, in fact, strategic initiative institutes. The GOP has tons of these, we have very few.
In the worldview of the conservative think tank, individual policies do not stand alone. Each policy is part of a strategy, an attempt at putting a particular conservative frame in place and setting a strategy in motion.
"Tax Relief" is a great example of how this works. The GOP devotion to reducing taxes is not just about "payback" for corporate support. Sure, greed is part of the occasion, but the GOP doesn't have the monopoly on that great American tradition. The real vision behind "tax relief" is much bigger, much more profound than money.
The goal of cutting taxes is to implement the GOP vision of dismantling the social welfare state. That's right. When the GOP talks about "tax relief," their goal is to re-frame the entire idea of government.
The real culprit in all of this? Opinions will differ about the origins of the social welfare state. I tend to think that the phrase "tax relief" is designed to wrestle this country out of the hands of Lyndon Johnson's vision of a "Great Society." Lakoff argues, however, that by cutting taxes, the GOP sees itself as battling a frame first put in place by FDR--the idea that the government provides a social safety net that provides for citizens in times of need.
Tax Relief is about FDR
The real culprit in all of this? Opinions will differ about the origins of the social welfare state. I tend to think that the phrase "tax relief" is designed to wrestle this country out of the hands of Lyndon Johnson's vision of a "Great Society." Lakoff argues, however, that by cutting taxes, the GOP sees itself as battling a frame first put in place by FDR--the idea that the government provides a social safety net that provides for citizens in times of need.
Here's how it works:
Rather than talking about dismantling social programs that the GOP views as a weakness to society, as stealing from "self-sufficient" and "independent" citizens to support the "weak" and the "undisciplined," the GOP floats the idea that taxes are a burden that we all feel. Who among us can disagree? Nobody likes to pay taxes. And so the phrase gets amplified in the media, we use it, argue against it. "President Bush's tax relief is really just tax relief for the wealthiest 1 percent!" was the Democrat's response--and it makes sense. But it reinforces the frame.
And slowly, but surely, the idea that taxes are a burden reframes the political debate enough--is left unchallenged by the assertion of a different frame (e.g., taxes are an investment in our future, they are the responsibility of good citizens, they are the privilege of success, etc.)--and massive tax cuts passes the congress.
Fast forward 18 months. World events transpire. Productivity drops. Tax bases dry up. We now have a huge debt.
And here's where the strategy comes into play: with the frame of taxes as a burden firmly in place, confirmed by years of Democratic reinforcement, and legitimated by hundreds of congressional votes--the GOP now turns to "relieve" the country of it's debt by cutting expenses. Social Security goes on the block. Then Medicare. Sure these are good programs. But are they worth the "burden" of taxes. And at the same time as they argue that we need to cut these social programs to make up for national debt, they argue for more tax breaks.
The more debt we have, the more the GOP can argue that we need to cut social programs, and the more they argue that we need to cut social programs, the more they will push for deeper cuts in taxes. The GOP will keep pushing "tax relief" until the national debt is so high that we have no "choice" but to dismantle the social welfare state altogether. Congress freed of the burden of providing a social safety net for citizens, thus, becomes the equivalent of the British House of Lords. Government for the wealthy, by the wealthy, of the wealthy--and their sons.
Poliseeing vs. Strategery
To coin an SNL Bushism of my own, if the GOP is all about "strategery," then the Democrats are all about "poliseeing." We see only in terms of policy. We need to do both.
How do we get out of this mindset and back into strategic planning?
Lakoff argues the our "empty heads" are the product of our dissipating core principles.
In this recent dKos recommended diary, the argument was made that strategic initiatives first come from thinking in terms of core principles. We must move from core princles to strategies of implimentation, individual policies, then finally the language to use to get them out.
Let me repeat that: the language we use to describe our better policies are the product of a long process that begins with thinking about core principles.
I much prefer the language of "core principles" ot the language of "morality" and "values." But if we decide that the best way to implement our new Dem strategic initiative is to use the language of values, I'll fall in line.
But one thing is for certain, responding to the GOP frame of "tax relief," by pushing our own frame of "tax grief" will never work.
We may agree in policy terms, that increasing taxes for the wealthy is right. But our real goal is not to increase taxes.
Our real goal is to safeguard the social welfare state because a core principle of the Democratic party, today--is still the safeguarding of the very idea of government as being responsible to its citizens--government that believes in the importance of providing a safety net for those who are in need. And we believe in a citizenry that views the financial support of this institution as honorable.
Pushing tax increases will never advance this vision. Instead, they advance the GOP frame of taxes as a burden by responding to relief with grief.
Lakoff's method is so powerful because it begins with the words we use. He is asking us to take our words and put them under a microscope, to have them lie down on the analyst's couch, to sit them down and interview them, to cut them open and operate--you pick your own professional metaphor.
But the key point he also makes is that once you've understood how Democratic language reinforces GOP frames (eeek!), the next step is not simply to make up new phrases.
Framework begins with the radical evaluation of the language that we are using, but then it moves immediately to the difficult process of generating core principles.
For this development of core principles to move forward, it will require a different kind of work and a different kind of productivity--even the emergence of new spaces and new places to do this work.
For those us who practice critique, generating core principles will mean turning our attention to building up new concepts, not just being mindful of those that already exists. And while we are very strong at critique, Dems are out of shape when it comes to the producing new principles.
The water may feel cold at first, but it's time to get back in the tank.