| FRAME YOUR MESSAGE Framing your message is important if you intend to win your argument. Proper framing gives you a better chance of winning the debate before the debate even starts. Understanding framing is the key to understanding how to develop strategies that work. Right wing strategists understand and use UNETHICAL framing to their advantage. They use the emotions that their framing connects with, in order to create barriers in the brains of the people they've used the framing on, so that any logical, rational argument, no matter how accurate, will BOUNCE OFF. That's how they "sell" you on smoking cigarettes even though you know that smoking them is going to KILL YOU. You can download Frank Luntz's Republican Strategy Playbook from 2004, on how Republicans can "frame" their messages so they can manipulate public opinion and spin their policies to make them more appealing by LYING ABOUT THEM. http://www.yuricareport.com/BushSecondTerm/Luntz.pdf Left wing strategists need to understand how to use framing ETHICALLY, so that they can have the same impact as the unethical framing tactics which Republicans use, but which are instead actually connecting factually accurate information to their framing messages so that you can connect your message to their values, and validate the policies you support. While this seems simple and easy to understand, it is much more difficult to apply. AND framing works better on people WHO DON'T THINK LOGICALLY, or DON'T THINK AT ALL. (That's why Liberals are so resistant to using framing techniques. They don't understand how powerful it is, because it often doesn't work on Liberals. They don't understand that the Framing techniques that Right Wingers are using, are being used on people WHO AREN'T NECESSARILY Liberal, and who don't think the same way that they do! That is why most liberals will hear a Republican Frame and recognize a "disconnect" between their "logic" and their target's values, and won't fall for the CON. They don't understand why Republican supporters DO FALL for the CON, because it makes NO SENSE to Liberals.) And if you think that what I just stated makes no sense, and that Republicans couldn't possibly be doing something so underhanded, you might want to hear what Republican strategists understand. It comes from "House, M.D." on the FOX Network: "Rational Arguments don't work on Religious people otherwise there would be no religious people." Hugh Laurie as Dr. Gregory House from “House, M.D.” on the FOX Network And that is exactly why Karl Rove targeted religious people with his unethical framing. They don't ask questions, even when they don't understand what they are being told. They just do what they are told by someone whom they consider to be an authority figure, out of FAITH, because it makes their lives easier. And that is EXACTLY why we need to use Framing in an ETHICAL manner to get the TRUTH out, to counter Republican spin, so we can actually accomplish something on behalf of the people we represent. Some of the Best Examples of How to Frame your Debate Can Be Seen On Boston Legal during James Spader's (as Attorney Alan Shore) Closing Comments. Here are some samples: You can see more at ABC's Boston Legal Website: or: Lakoff on Framing Budget deficits are a ruse, as we've seen in Wisconsin, where the governor turned a surplus into a deficit by providing corporate tax breaks, and then used the deficit as a ploy to break the unions, not just in Wisconsin, but seeking to be the first domino in a nationwide conservative movement. Deficits can be addressed by raising revenue, plugging tax loopholes, putting people to work, and developing the economy long-term in all the ways the president has discussed. But deficits are not what really matters to conservatives. Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life. In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens. The conservative worldview rejects all of that. Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility. But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from? The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally. The market itself is seen in this way. The slogan, "Let the market decide" assumes the market itself is The Decider. The market is seen as both natural (since it is assumed that people naturally seek their self-interest) and moral (if everyone seeks their own profit, the profit of all will be maximized by the invisible hand). As the ultimate moral authority, there should be no power higher than the market that might go against market values. Thus the government can spend money to protect the market and promote market values, but should not rule over it either through (1) regulation, (2) taxation, (3) unions and worker rights, (4) environmental protection or food safety laws, and (5) tort cases. Moreover, government should not do public service. The market has service industries for that. Thus, it would be wrong for the government to provide health care, education, public broadcasting, public parks, and so on. The very idea of these things is at odds with the conservative moral system. No one should be paying for anyone else. It is individual responsibility in all arenas. Taxation is thus seen as taking money away from those who have earned it and giving it to people who don't deserve it. Taxation cannot be seen as providing the necessities of life, a civilized society, and as necessary for business to prosper. In conservative family life, the strict father rules. Fathers and husbands should have control over reproduction; hence, parental and spousal notification laws and opposition to abortion. In conservative religion, God is seen as the strict father, the Lord, who rewards and punishes according to individual responsibility in following his Biblical word. Above all, the authority of conservatism itself must be maintained. The country should be ruled by conservative values, and progressive values are seen as evil. Science should have authority over the market, and so the science of global warming and evolution must be denied. Facts that are inconsistent with the authority of conservatism must be ignored or denied or explained away. To protect and extend conservative values themselves, the devil's own means can be used again conservatism's immoral enemies, whether lies, intimidation, torture, or even death, say, for women's doctors. Freedom is defined as being your own strict father -- with individual not social responsibility, and without any government authority telling you what you can and cannot do. To defend that freedom as an individual, you will of course need a gun. This is the America that conservatives really want. Budget deficits are convenient ruses for destroying American democracy and replacing it with conservative rule in all areas of life.
What is saddest of all is to see Democrats helping them. Democrats help radical conservatives by accepting the deficit frame and arguing about what to cut. Even arguing against specific "cuts" is working within the conservative frame. What is the alternative? Pointing out what conservatives really want. Point out that there is plenty of money in America, and in Wisconsin. It is at the top. The disparity in financial assets is un-American -- the top one percent has more financial assets than the bottom 95 percent. Middle class wages have been flat for 30 years, while the wealth has floated to the top. This fits the conservative way of life, but not the American way of life. Democrats help conservatives by not shouting out loud over and over that it was conservative values that caused the global economic collapse: lack of regulation and a greed-is-good ethic. Democrats also help conservatives by what a friend has called Democratic Communication Disorder. Republican conservatives have constructed a vast and effective communication system, with think tanks, framing experts, training institutes, a system of trained speakers, vast holdings of media, and booking agents. Eighty percent of the talking heads on TV are conservatives. Talk matters because language heard over and over changes brains. Democrats have not built the communication system they need, and many are relatively clueless about how to frame their deepest values and complex truths. And Democrats help conservatives when they function as policy wonks -- talking policy without communicating the moral values behind the policies. They help conservatives when they neglect to remind us that pensions are deferred payments for work done. "Benefits" are pay for work, not a handout. Pensions and benefits are arranged by contract. If there is not enough money for them, it is because the contracted funds have been taken by conservative officials and given to wealthy people and corporations instead of to the people who have earned them. Democrats help conservatives when they use conservative words like "entitlements" instead of "earnings" and speak of government as providing "services" instead of "necessities." Is there hope? I see it in Wisconsin, where tens of thousands citizens see through the conservative frames and are willing to flood the streets of their capital to stand up for their rights. They understand that democracy is about citizens uniting to take care of each other, about social responsibility as well as individual responsibility, and about work -- not just for your own profit, but to help create a civilized society. They appreciate their teachers, nurses, firemen, police, and other public servants. They are flooding the streets to demand real democracy -- the democracy of caring, of social responsibility, and of excellence, where prosperity is to be shared by those who work and those who serve.
George Lakoff is the author of The Political Mind. His website is GeorgeLakoff.com. FRAME YOUR MESSAGE TO WIN THE DEBATE Dear Rockridge Community,
After a week's absence for the 4th of July, This Week at Rockridge returns with news of our recent writings, a new reading list on framing and cognitive science, and upcoming opportunities to advance the progressive vision.
The July 1 fundraiser in Point Reyes Station was a great success. The venue was filled to capacity and the response to George Lakoff's remarks was fantastic. Rockridge, Mainstreet Moms, and the Mesa Refuge all benefited from this fun evening.
Recent writings include Joe Brewer's Thinking Points installment, Politics and the Psychology of Blame, and Eric Haas's Framing Education: Why does NPR repeat the conservation production model? Join the discussion on these disparate topics.
This week, we introduce a new addition to the Rockridge Institute website. We now recommend a variety of titles related to framing and cognitive science. And we have established a partnership with Powell's Books in Portland, Oregon by which Rockridge receives 7.5% of the proceeds on all online purchases from Powells when you purchase through a link on our site. This is a great way to support Rockridge and one of the nation's leading independent bookstores. Check out this new feature.
Help us spread the word about progressive framing by requesting and responding to Rockridge Action Alerts. Alerts will include the latest from Rockridge and simple steps to expand our community and strengthen progressive activism, such as clicking to recommend our articles online. We will soon begin issuing Rockridge Action Alerts (as often as daily), but only to those who specifically request them. Please request your Rockridge Action Alerts:
Not yet a Rockridge Nation member? Please sign up for membership in our online community and choose Yes under Receive Rockridge Action Alerts.
Already a Rockridge Nation member? Please log in and edit your profile by choosing Yes under Receive Rockridge Action Alerts. Then, click on Save at the bottom of the screen.
We regularly receive email messages from people who are excited to have discovered Rockridge. One such message recently expressed the wish that all progressives could hear about our work. By signing up for and acting on our alerts, you can help bring our progressive vision to far more people.
The annual fund drive continues. Your support makes all the difference.
Bruce Budner Executive Director Rockridge Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A progressive political think tank whose mission is to reclaim the political debate, the Rockridge Institute depends upon support from the progressive community.
Our postal address is 2105 Martin Luther King Jr. Way First Floor Berkeley, California 94704 United States
Professor George Lakoff Speech at Centennial Hall Milwaukee Public Library
Sponsored by Harry W. Schwartz Bookstores
Professor Lakoff started off with saying that he had spoken with a top Conservative strategist who had worked with Ronald Reagan. This strategist said that "people who didn't like Reagan's views on anything would still vote for him because they liked him."
They liked him because:
• They Identified with him • He appeared to them to have similar values • They Trusted him • They found him Authentic
Issues are symbolic of what people are, but the values are where it starts.
Why? Because your positions on issues depend on your values.
Professor Lakoff went on to say that Lewis F. Powell, who was supposedly a Conservative Democrat, wrote a memo at the height of the Vietnam War prior to his nomination to the Supreme Court by President Nixon. It is variously referred to as the Powell Manifesto or the Powell Doctrine.
In it he stated that "the American economic system is under broad attack."
The full text of the memo and an analysis of it can be found here:
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/powell_memo_lewis.html
His recommendation to this "attack" was that conservatives should pool their money to create fellowships in universities to counter liberal influences, and if they couldn't have enough influence that way, they should build their own universities, and they should create their own think tanks to come up with ways to combat liberal thinking.
Nixon's Secretary of the Treasury started up the process by creating the Heritage Foundation in 1973. By 1999, this had grown to 40 Think Tanks. In 35 years, with $400 million spent per year, Conservatives have worked to change public opinion by learning about language and how the mind thinks, so that they could more efficiently manipulate public opinion.
In short, they learned how to FRAME and argue every issue.
There was a time when "Conservative" was a bad name and the Republican Party was on the ropes because there were so few people that believed in the positions that they held on so many issues. But over the years they managed to turn this around by making "Liberals" a bad name.
They coined phrases like, "Tax and Spend Liberals", "Hollywood Liberals" and "Latte' Liberals" to ridicule liberal thinking and Liberals in general.
They used child rearing training to raise a new generation of conservatives who were conditioned to think the way they wanted them to.
How did they do this?
People think intuitively.
Every word is defined by a conceptual concept called a "Frame".
Words evoke an image, a frame, a conceptual context.
Once the meaning of a word is remembered, it is physically created in the synapses of your brain. The picture in your mind that is created when a word is used, the feelings evoked, and the beliefs that make you who you are, are hardwired in your brain.
That is why, when particular words are used, a specific context is evoked, that goes beyond a dictionary definition.
When you use the word "relief", it evokes the context that you are relieving someone of an affliction, an illness or pain. So when you use the frame "Tax Relief" the mind then sees the phrase as "Tax is an affliction that you need Relief from."
Even if you don't believe the frame you become part of the frame if you repeat the frame.
Professor Lakoff spoke to Democratic legislators three years ago, when he presented this information on framing to them so that they would be better prepared to fight against Republican framing, particularly in response to their use of "Tax Relief" when giving tax breaks to the people who least needed them. Unfortunately, in spite of the information that they had, Democratic Legislators released their response to the Bush Administration's Tax Relief Plan, as the "Democratic Tax Relief Plan". Obviously, they didn't learn the first lesson in fighting a frame.
That first lesson is: Don't Use the Frame when you are arguing against it.
Why? Because by using the same Frame (phrase that evokes an emotional concept), you've just reinforced the Frame and all your arguments against it are neutralized.
Frames are very powerful, and they go beyond and below the surface frame. Unless you understand how they work and how powerful they are, when used on the people they are directed to, you won't understand how to combat it. People who don't relate to the frame, who are able to recognize the manipulation behind it and don't buy into it, try to use the logic that they used for themselves to defeat the frame. But that strategy won't work on people who are deeply, emotionally attached to the concepts that the frame evokes in them.
People think in terms of Metaphors.
For example:
Achieving a purpose is seen as accomplishing a goal or obtaining a desired object.
Time is referred to as physical space.
i.e. When moving a meeting date "ahead" two days, it is interpreted differently based on your frame of reference. Some see "ahead" as being closer to where they are. Some see "ahead" as being further away from where they are.
Your interpretation of the frame is based on how you think, what your frame of reference is.
For example: Bill Kristol used the following "frame" which can only be understood by people who can relate to it; "Why should the best people be punished?", when referring to taxes.
The frame refers to a popular conservative belief that "those who make the most money, did so because they worked hard for it and deserved it, and that those who don't make enough money or are poor, are poor because they are lazy and deserve their lot in life."
If you believe that, then you would believe that the best people who "achieved the most by making the most money, are being `punished' for their success."
Lakoff described framing as a cognitive science problem.
"Both political parties see the other as irrational, yet both are consistent within the manner in which they view the world."
Metaphors are random, but systems of metaphors are consistent.
Between birth and 5 years old, ½ of the brain's neural pathways die. Which ones die are the ones that aren't used. The ones that are left behind are the ones that are physically reinforced by creating new "hard wiring" of neurons through repetitive use and consistent re-associations so that they fire together.
This is important because how you were raised early in life determines how you view the world and how you respond to particular frames.
Intimacy is referred to as a physical space – how close you are to someone else.
Nations are referred to as Motherland, Fatherland, so a nation has a conceptual frame as a family.
Homeland Security refers back to images and concepts of home and family.
How you relate to family, home and intimacy, is dependent on how you were raised, whether by a Strict Father Family or by a Nurturing Parent Family.
Depending upon which family model you belong to, your response to a particular frame is consistent with that family model.
Professor Lakoff said that he first spoke on the topic of framing in 1994, to about 500 people, two of whom were friends of his from the Christian Coalition. They spoke to him after the lecture and told him that there were a few errors that he had made in his explanation of how framing worked. They also said that they didn't understand how it was that he hadn't heard of framing before and didn't understand the points that they felt he had gotten wrong.
They went on to explain to him that James Dobson, the Conservative Preacher from Colorado Springs had written so many books and articles on child rearing for conservatives, that he had his own zip code for the staff that he needed to deal with writing and distributing his literature.
Dobson had written a book called "Dare to Discipline"
The concepts he taught were that
"You need a strict father to protect you from evil." "There are always winners and losers" "You have to be a winner to support your family." "You are born bad, and you have to be punished in order to have an incentive to know right from wrong and do right even when doing wrong is more fun."
Dobson, who is the more liberal of the conservative preachers in the spotlight today, says "There is never any reason NOT to hit a child below 15 months of age."
Conservative tax policies appeal to strict father personalities because they believe that:
"If you are not prosperous, it is because you are not disciplined. If you are not disciplined, you are not moral. Therefore, social programs which help those who aren't prosperous, are immoral."
Grover Norquist says "Starve the Beast", or cut programs that give assistance to "immoral people".
Strict Father proponents believe in the Father as the moral authority. They believe that Father is inherently good and knows right from wrong.
From that, it makes sense to them that the "father" should not have to ask a court to protect you by using warrentless search and seizure and wiretaps. Of that "father" doesn't need to ask the U.N. for permission to attack another country that "he" sees as a threat.
Lakoff suggests that you read "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think" for more information on their different thought processes.
On the issue of Abortion, according to conservatives, "Father" should know and approve, if "Mother" wants the abortion. And if "daughter" needs the abortion, she should be punished.
Why are Kansas people, who've probably never met gay people (knowingly), be against gay marriage? Because their strict father morality is threatened.
Liberals on the other hand have different family beliefs and characteristics.
They believe in:
Empathy and Nurturing Connection to a child to know what all the sounds of a child mean Be responsible for yourself and others Care about others
Progressive ideas have ideas regarding protection.
Treat people fairly.
Live a fulfilled life, but in order to do that you require the freedom to do so.
If there is no freedom, there is no opportunity or general prosperity.
Leaders are people who care about others and work with others.
Basic Progressive Values
Trust Cooperation Honesty Fairness
When looking at the Strict Father vs Nurturing Parent models:
Both family models are present in both groups of people on either side of the political spectrum.
Most have an active concept in one area and a passive concept in the other.
Reagan Democrats voted for Reagan because he appealed to their basic progressive values, not because of his stance on issues.
In talking to conservatives, you need to understand where their priorities are, not just on the issues, but on what family model is the predominant concept for those issues.
Therefore, Progressives talking to conservatives might, for example talk about the enduring values of community and environment in sustaining our National Parks.
Religious Evangelicals want to protect God's creation.
On Health and Family Health, find a case where the people you are speaking to are nurturing in some part of their lives, and identify where your values are in them.
Evoke those same nurturing values in them.
End of Lecture.
Q&A
What is the problem with Democrats in office and why aren't they doing a better job in defending us?
Lakoff: I've meet with the Democrats in Congress and I like them, but I believe the problems have to do more with the system that they are in.
When the Republicans made their "Contract with America" under Gingrich, they cut the staffs of Congress, so that members of Congress don't have the resources to do the proper research necessary on bills being presented for a vote. Of course, Republicans had the assistance of the 40 Think Tanks doing the work for those staff members that were eliminated, so that they didn't need their own staff.
Bills are usually only provided on the day that they are voted on, so if you present a 1000 page bill that people don't have the time to read, or the staff to read, they don't know what is in them unless they've written the bill themselves, or were provided the information ahead of their presentation for vote.
Republicans have a team of Think Tanks, Strategists, Pollsters, and schedulers to do their work for them. Democrats don't.
The other issue is a matter of "Cognitive Constraint"
Most Democratic elected officials are college educated, and they believe something that just is not true.
Progressives believe the myth that people are rational and that when given the facts, they will think through the issues and vote in their best interests.
He quoted Al Gore in a speech he made. "What makes us human beings, is that we are rational. That's why we can govern ourselves." HE WAS WRONG. Progressives believe that "it is irrational to be against your own material interests." Yes it is irrational, but people often do vote against their best interests.
Progressives assume that all of our beliefs in our world view are literal. They aren't, they are metaphorical.
Telling people the facts, doesn't lead to people rationally "getting" the issue.
Once a frame has been created and accepted in your brain, facts bounce off the frames, because frames selectively censor facts that don't fit the frame.
On the Social Security Issue, Conservatives had absolutely no facts on their side in arguing their case, but they used fundamental frames to manipulate their audience. Building on their concept of big bad Government hurting corporations:
1. Government interferes with corporations 2. Individual Initiative made this country great and developed great corporations 3. Lawsuits are bad and should be prohibited from taking money from corporations
They extrapolated that basic belief to attract individual supporters with:
It's your money, you can spend it better than the Government can.
Democrats used facts to support their arguments, but had NO FRAMES to make any sense of it. They ended up winning, not because they had a better argument, but because people identified with Social Security as a stronger frame. Democrats didn't win that argument. Republicans lost it.
On the Schiavo issue, Conservatives lose the argument because people identify with personal medical decisions, without interference from government. Programs built on issues based on polls, don't work without defining the VALUES and building the FRAME. The biggest problem is that Republicans control and use push polls to direct public opinion. The push polls are worded in such a way as to guarantee a predetermined response. Democrats use those same Republican designed polls to go to where they believe the people are, but they make the mistake of using Conservative Defined Frames when polling themselves so they get the Wrong Answers. People in the middle of the political spectrum, are generally bi- conceptual. The uses both models in making their decisions. It is the people in the middle who are being manipulated. Talk to the middle the way you talk to your base except in two situations: 1. When Orwellian Language is being used. Conservatives won't call things what they really are because if they tell the truth about what they are really doing, they would lose votes. They can't call "Clear Skies", "Dirty Skies" or "Healthy Forests", "Leave no tree behind". Conservatives tell you where they are weak on policy and where they should lose on issues, by giving their policies Orwellian names that say the opposite of what they are actually doing. Don't use their frames. Reframe the issue to define it for what it really is, so that you aren't reinforcing their arguments. 2. Conservatives will refer to people that Liberals like when talking about an issue that they want Liberal support for, but then they try to con you into believing that the person they are referring to would have supported the conservative position, when that isn't the case. You need to reframe the argument so that you can show that the person they refer to really doesn't support their position. Conservatives and Progressives have different points of view on what causes societal problems. Conservatives believe in Direct Causation. Progressives believe in Systemic Causation. Example: Conservative Populism John Edwards and Al Gore didn't understand what conservative populism is so they couldn't get economic populism moved forward. Conservatives believe that they are oppressed by Liberals. (Hard for Liberals to believe, since Liberals aren't generally the ones in mansions and living tax free.) i.e. Anti Sprawl laws preventing an individual from selling their farm to a developer. Conservatives argue that they have the right to sell their property to anyone they want to regardless of the urban sprawl that might develop because they don't see their one transaction as part of the greater problem. or Anti-snowmobiling ordinance in Yellowstone because of the destruction of fragile environments by so many snow-mobilers. Conservatives argue that their one snowmobile isn't directly responsible for all the damage. They don't see that they contribute to the overall destruction. When conservatives argue for their own freedom, argue against them by using much more common and widespread ideas regarding freedom for everyone, in order to beat them in your debates and convince them that your approach is the better one for them to adopt. (They might argue that they have the right to smoke wherever they want to and that their rights as smokers are being denied. They don't see that your rights as a non-smoker to be able to breathe smoke free air is just as valid as their argument individually, and if there are a lot of non-smokers, that they would be infringing on many more people's rights as well as exposing them to second hand smoke that could kill them because of it.) Some Democrats are listening and starting to use framing, but their campaign teams have a vested interest in not listening to advice on using frames because they make their money by having contested elections. Dean has the right idea in restructuring the Democratic Party from the ground up. Lakoff goes on to say that your best bet is in developing grassroots organizations to develop messages with framing and building networks. Push your messages out to gain public support before going to legislators demanding their support. Rockridge Institute is an independent 501c3 Think Tank and works with any Progressive organization that wants to understand and use framing. They are non-partisan. They will have a Rockridge Manual for Progressives available for free download on their website, sometime this summer (2007). They also are starting up Rockridge Action Network, to network groups of people who are speaking out. Visit their website to get more information. http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/
He commented on MoveOn.org's efforts to get people to write letters to their legislators as being successful, but that they are writing about issues, rather than using frames to help the letter writers argue their case with language.
He also said that "Politicians need cover. They need support. They need a large community to say…'Yes, you are right.', to support them right away when they are attacked for their stands on issues that bring out the conservatives in droves.
To win campaigns and policies we need teams of
Bookers – Booking agencies to have speakers available to address mass media.
Event Planners to organize free media events and push a policy.
Writers to write and get published to a large audience.
Another book that Professor Lakoff wrote was "Philosophy in the Flesh". He said that that was a labor of love that took him seven years to complete.
Here is more on framing from Jeffrey Feldman from Frameshop:http://www.buzzflash.com/feldman/06/03/fel06001.html
March 9, 2006
Frameshop: The Message Is Not the Frame
To Reframe National Security, Democrats Must First See How 'Message' And 'Frame' Are Different
by Jeffrey Feldman
When progressives talk about `framing' the political debate, we often confuse `frame' with `message.' We want framing to be a quick path to victory, a magic bullet delivered in the form of a perfect talking point, that brings the opposition to its knees.
In fact, framing is not a magic bullet, but a set of tools that empowers progressives to take control of the debate--first by seeing the broad ideas that trap us in a losing position, and then by re- framing the issues in moral terms that speak to ideals of the American people. Framing, in other words, makes us better readers, better listeners, and better participants in day-to-day politics, thereby enabling us to become the kind of citizens that are most effective in the culture of media driven politics.
A key area where the Democrats need to use framing is national security.
`War on Terror'
Despite the growing pile of scandals, Republicans still control the debate on national security with one phrase: War on Terror. `War on Terror' is more than just a phrase. It is a carefully constructed concept--a set of magic words--created by highly-paid consultants to help the Republicans claim the mantle of national security. `War on Terror' is still repeated over and over again by President Bush with the goal of trapping Democrats in a losing position. If the President describes the War in Iraq as part of the `War on Terror,' for example, he can accuse anyone who does not support his war of not wanting to fight the people who attacked us on 9/11. And that is exactly what he does. Democrats who try to refute the President's policies, but who still use this phrase `War on Terror,' find themselves trapped in a losing position that turns them into rhetorical contortionists.
The phrase `War on Terror' should be avoided in debate because it traps Democrats in this simple metaphoric logic: [terrorism] is [an enemy army]
But what is `terrorism' really? It is a tool used by enemies--a method--but it is not an enemy itself. We can no more fight a war against `terrorism' than we can fight a war against the evil in men's hearts. And in fact, the real war President Bush is fighting is a war to establish a permanent American foothold in the Middle East, and the war to claim as much power for the executive branch of government as possible. But we never get to those ideas when we are constantly forced to defend ourselves against charges that we are `weak' in the `war on terror.'
Re-framing: Guard the Gates
So how do we get out of this trap? How do we re-frame the debate on national security?
The answer to this question has been difficult to see--until recently. The so-called UAE port deal scandal, however, revealed to the nation exactly how President Bush's `War on Terror' was so radically different from the understanding of national security held by most Americans.
When the port scandal broke, most Americans were shocked to to learn that these vital entries into our country were being turned over-- whether in part or in full--to a foreign country. While accused of being racist for this reaction, in fact the concern over the ports is founded in a very basic idea. The protect the country from those who seek to harm us, we must prevent those people from gaining access. To do that, we must guard the gates.
Think about this for a moment. After America learned that the country had just been attacked by ordinary looking men who boarded planes with coach-class tickets and carry-on luggage--what was our major concern as a nation? We were afraid that more terrorists would board the planes. And so, to protect the country, we created a massive security system to guard the gates at our airports.
Imagine if we were to suddenly discover that the agency responsible for airport gate security was owned in full or in part by a foreign country, running that service for profit? We would be outraged because we would suddenly wonder if the gates were really guarded. Long before the UAE port scandal, Americans believed that to guard this country we must prevent bad people and dangerous materials from getting through the gates. And when we saw the port scandal unfold, we saw that President Bush had not only left the gates unguarded, but he had sold the keys.
The phrase `guarding the gates' is a progressive idea that re-frames the debate on national security. It is not the final message, but offers a broad logic for understanding how Democrats can once and for all take back the debate on this crucial issue.
But the issue does not stop there.
Iraq and 9/11, But Also Katrina
For when we talk about re-framing the debate, we need to think big. When we begin to repeat the idea of `guarding the gates' as the key to national security, we see how President Bush has not only weakened national security, but also compromised national safety. The lack of vigilance and concern by President Busy in the days leading up to Hurricane Katrina speaks to a broader problem that we begin to see when we talk about the importance of `guarding the gates' to the well-being of America.
President Bush watched as Katrina, literally, slowly headed for a full on attack of our nation's unguarded shoreline. He watched and he listened, but as the videotape shows: he did not stand up and insist on doing everything possible to `guard the gates' of our country from this threat.
Obviously, a terrorist attack and a hurricane are two very different things. But to take control of the debate on national security, Democrats must see national security--and talk about it--in much broader terms than just the war on Iraq.
A newly framed Democratic version of national security would sound something like this:
There is a fundamental split between the Republican and the Democratic vision of national security. Republicans insist that the key to national defense is to fight a war on foreign soil, and they tell us that this will prevent terrorists from gaining access to our country. But even as they fight a foreign war, they leave the gates to our country unguarded. Democrats believe that national security begins with guarding the gates at home, and building strong alliances abroad. We see every port, every border and every airport as an opportunity to strengthen our security and guard Americans from those who seek to attack us. And security goes hand in hand with safety. Guarding our shores from hurricanes is just as important as guarding our ports from attacks. For Democrats, safety and security begins with guarding the gates.
That is what it looks like to be in a new frame--to speak about national security in terms that are completely separate from the `war on terror' and in terms that give Democrats the upper hand.
Putting It To Use
To understand how to put the 'guard the gates' frame to use, it is critical for Democrats to start seeing political debate in terms of different core situations. Not all debate is the same. There are different situations that involve different people and have different outcomes.
Situation 1: Grassroots Activism
To use this new frame in grassroots work, try creating a basic 'I believe' statement that can be repeated quickly and with conviction: Democrats believe that safety and security begins by guarding the gates.
This phrase can be used when people ask what the Democrats stand for, when recruiting people to vote for Democratic candidates, when working on a phone bank, and when training new volunteers. The power of the "I believe" formula (also called an 'Elevator Speech') is that it presents your big ideas quickly. After that, the discussion on terrorism and the military will be on Democratic terms. And grassroots activists should push to talk about national security and national safety together. "Democrats believe in well- guarded ports and having a plan before the next natural disaster hits our shores."
Situation 2: Democratic Staffing
A staffer in Congress or in state government is charged with the task of preparing our elected officials to speak persuasively. To re-frame national security in terms of 'guarding the gate,' the staffer needs to tell their principals two key points so that they understand the big picture:
1. 'War on Terror' is a Republican phrase. It traps us in a losing position. Don't use it.
2. 'Guard the Gates' is a Democratic phrase. It gives us the advantage. Use it.
This basic preparation should be enough to get your boss's attention. Next the task is provide a few key phrases to be used in speeches and interviews:
• To secure the nation we must first guard the gates.
• The safety and security of America both rest on how well we guard the gates.
• To protect America we must guard our ports, plan for disasters
These phrases are just a beginning, but the key point is to see the importance of a two-step process for staffing. First, tell the elected official which phrases are controlling the debate, then give him or her messages to use.
Situation 3: Candidates Running For Office
Candidates running for office must understand that their ability to control the debate on national security will not result from how much they talk 'issues,' but from how well they keep the debate in their frame.
Do not take the bait of responding to accusations that Democrats are 'weak on defense' and undermining the 'war on terror.' Instead, steal the ball in the debate this way:
Weak on defense?
Democrats would never invade a foreign country without making sure our gates were securely guarded at home
Weak on defense?
We cannot be strong on defense until we see every port, every airplane gate, every border crossing as an opportunity to strengthen our national security, rather than a potential business deal.
When accused, that is one way to throw the debate into the 'guard the gates' frame. And it can work if you do not get distracted by the 'war on terror' frame.
In those moments when there is no opposition with barbed questions, candidates have a chance to state what we believe. I always like to use the formula of moral accounting--phrases that use the word 'deserve' or 'earned' as follows:
Americans who live hard and play by the rules deserve a government that guards America's gates to keep us secure from attacks and safe from natural disaster.
There are many variations of that kind of message, which can be used as a starting point for entire speeches on the Democratic vision of a safe and secure America.
Situation 4: Individual Citizens, Dinner Table Debates
At the dinner table with a Republican cousin or sister, be careful not to let your anger get the best of you. Anger can be intimidating, but it does not reframe a debate. When someone confronts you with the accusation, '...yeah, but Democrats are weak on defense,' remember that the Democratic frame is designed to take control of this entire issue--not to refute it point by point.
Try saying this at the table:
Look, I hear what you are saying, but I believe that safety and security begin with guarding America's gates. Democrats want to take every point of access to this country, every port--and every border--and we want to make sure we are prepared for whatever comes our way, whether that is a group of terrorists or the largest hurricane in history. I believe that safety and security begins with guarding the gates.
Then help yourself to another helping of turkey and mashed potatoes. So long as you do not raise your voice, but listen to what your Republican family members say, and respond with a clear frame, you will not lose the debate. You may hit a stalemate, but you will not lose. And remember, the people listening to the debate- -the other people at the table who are not talking--are often the ones we persuade, even if the debate ends in a stalemate.
Remember, the messages that work best are developed by our own attempts to apply the frame. It is always best not to confuse the 'frame' with the many different 'messages' or talking points we produce from that frame. A solid Democratic frame will give rise to many great phrases that invoke it. When you find one that works, run with it.
The key is never to let the opposition set the terms.
© 2006 Jeffrey Feldman
Jeffrey Feldman is the Editor-in-Chief and Founder of Frameshop. First established in late 2004 on several large blogs and launched as an independent website Jan. 1, 2005. Dr. Feldman has a Ph.D. in Cultural Anthropology which he applies broadly to the analysis of politics and communication. He lives and teaches in New York City, conducts workshops on framing throughout the country, and is s a regular guest on the national syndicated radio show The Thom Hartmann Radio Program.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/16/93627/8068
Frameshop: Feingold Frames Debate, GOP Takes The Bait by Jeffrey Feldman
Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 07:36:27 AM PDT
As of 9:00am March 16, 2006, I am proud to announce that the Republican Party no longer controls the National Security debate. That's right. While the media is foaming at the mouth at what they think was a huge blunder in calling for the censure of the President, and while many in the blogosphere are crying in their beer at the caution of the Senate Democrats, Russ Feingold has managed to hammer in the last nail in the GOP coffin.
Feingold has framed the debate, and the GOP has taken the bait...
The Frame: National Security Is Not Politics
For years, now, Democrats have been trying to make the case that the White House left the gates into America unguarded so they could launch a political war in Iraq. Even before Bush was elected, the argument went, he had decided that he would invade Iraq. A war in Iraq, Democrats have argued, was launched not to protect the American people, but to re-elect the President. And when that goal of re-electing the President came under fire, the President broke the law in a deadly game of political revenge.
For George W. Bush and the Republican Congress that supports him, the safety and security of the American people has been sacrificed on the altar of politics.
Getting To The Frame: Port Scandal, Then Censure
Just saying that Republicans have made politics out of national security has not worked. The question has been: How do we get the nation into the new frame?
The first step was the port scandal that revealed a Republican Party that not only ran off to fight a war while leaving the gates unguarded at home, but then hired an untested foreign ally to guard those gates for us. It was a devestating revelation and in response to learning about it, public support for the President and the Republican Congress collapsed.
The next step was to force the Republicans to revert to form--to force them to debate on our national security terms.
The censure motion by Feingold did just that. In response to Feingold's measure, the Republicans did nothing--could say nothing-- until they saw the concern of the Democrats in the Senate.
What did the Democrats fear? Well, they fear a political smear campaign. In every news story and every article and every talking- head discussion about Feingold's motion, the same idea has been repeated over and over again: The Republicans will jump on this issue to attack the Democrats politically.
Playing politics with national security. The Republicans cannot resist.
Holding the Frame: National Security Is About Winning Elections The keys to winning this debate are right before us if only we can see it and believe in ourselves.
What Republicans fear is a national discussion about the crimes of a Republican President.
And so, when American people begin to lose faith in their President, when the American people begin that debate about the crimes of their President, the GOP attacks the Democrats for being weak on defense. Playing politics with America's national security.
First they run headlong into an unplanned war in Iraq.
Then they try to sell the gates into our country to the highest bidder.
Then they play politics with national security.
Kudos, Senator
So, join with me. Get up out of your chair and give Senator Feingold a round of applause.
The national security debate is now firmly in our frame, and the Republicans have taken the bait and are thrashing around helplessly in it.
The rest is up to us.
| |