Democrats and liberals are beginning to appreciate the power of
rhetorical framing, which conservatives have already exploited marvellously. This technique employs the metaphors inherent in loaded terminology to channel debate along a desired axis, as with "tax relief", "death tax", "climate change", "War on Terror", etc. One rather edgy line in Kerry's Detroit speech yesterday caught my eye because of its possible utility in this regard.
We speak often about deficit spending, but I've always felt we haven't found the right words. Highlighting the raw numbers doesn't work, because people lose all sense of proportion amid the cascade of zeroes. Academic appeals to economic theory are by turns too obscure and (nowadays) too alarmist, pace Krugman. Even the idea of "having to pay it off down the road" doesn't faze an American public for whom maxed-out credit cards and second mortgages are a way of life.
But now look at what John Kerry had to say in Detroit:
Four years ago, America's fiscal discipline was the envy of the world. Today, we have to go hat in hand to countries like China and Japan to borrow money because George Bush chose to pass and propose trillions of dollars in spending without paying for a dime of it.
He goes on to say much more about deficits, but I'm convinced this is the rhetorical linchpin: Re-frame deficit spending, not as "borrowing for/against our future", but as "Beggar America Pleads for Foreign Handout!" It's not just that we're spending money we don't have: by issuing US bonds so prolifically, we're
indenturing ourselves to foreigners! In the mind of the consumer, the bank is always more sinister than the loan.
I'm well aware that such an approach can be criticized as harnessing xenophobia (or even nebulous racism) to demonize a legitimate aspect of the global market. But, like it or not, you sometimes have to go with what resonates in order to get a point across.
And in this post-9/11, post-outsourcing climate, xenophobia is in. Voters may not appreciate (or may choose to overlook) the dangers of spending on credit, but they will hate the image of a weakened America kneeling in the gutter with a tin cup, throwing itself upon the fiscal mercies of Asia and Old Europe.
Our soi-disant conservatives have adroitly negotiated their own sea change from deficit hawkery to reckless profligacy through skillful framing and message control, and they have done so with hardly a peep from the faithful or anyone else. But that silent passivity could easily evaporate if someone reminded populist fence-sitters and uneasy Republicans just how thoroughly they distrust "foreign" influence and control.
I do have serious misgivings about using even an implicit "Us vs. Them" message, whether it's applied to nations or to ethnic groups. That kind of argument rarely (if ever) facilitates or improves rational discussion and debate. Given the prevailing zeitgeist, however, it does seem very likely to work politically. And it's become obvious to me that we must fundamentally change (i.e., reclaim) the political and rhetorical landscape before we can hope to have a rational public debate about anything ever again.