Framing Primer: Part III -- Techniques, Rules, and Execution |
We've defined framing and discussed it's vast importance in the fight for ideological supremacy. And we've discussed the differences between the progressive and conservative world views -- necessary for the creation of effective frames. Now it's time to learn how to frame. There are 5 major steps: In the words of Lakoff: 1) Define our basic progressive vision This is the type of depth of understanding that is needed to appeal to the masses. Without it, we as a progressive movement, are flailing in the wind, pointing here and there without any sort of structure, fluidity or connection to a fundamental, moral, ethical, and effective value structure.
The basic progressive vision is one of community -- of America as family, a caring, responsible family. We envision America where people care about each other, not just themselves, and act responsibly with strength and effectiveness for each other.
The ultimate 10-word philosophy will be a part of the language that we develop...but only a part. Again, without knowing our values or being able to describe them with clarity and conviction, there is no language. Communicable philosophy. As a foundation, here is Lakoff's list of progressive values as derived from the progressive vision. Although the list could not possibly contain every value for every progressive, it does provide a core listing of foundational progressive values. * Caring and Responsibility carried out with strength More specifically, the nurturant morality is based on a fundamental ethic of care that says: Help, Don't Harm. From the central values of Empathy and Responsibility, the ethic of care leads naturally to the following set of values that characterizes the Nurturant Parent family:
Values established, here are some principles that naturally evolve: * Equity More specifically... EQUITY: What citizens and the nation owe each other. If you work hard, play by the rules, and serve your family, community, and nation, then the nation should provide a decent standard of living, as well as freedom, security, and opportunity. Perhaps delving too far into the specifics, I would add the following: * Protection for the vulnerable -- children, seniors, disabled, the poor. * Freedom -- freedom to speak any opinion that suits us (barring threats of physical harm and deceitful destruction of reputation). Freedom to marry who we choose. Freedom to a private bedroom. Freedom to choose what we do with our bodies. * People first -- not business, not government, not guns, not taxes... people.
Given progressive values and principles, progressives can agree on basic policy directions. Policy directions are at a higher level than specific policies. While progressives differ on specific policies, we tend to agree on policy directions. Here are some of the many policy directions they agree on. * Economy More specifically... THE ECONOMY: An economy centered on innovation that creates millions of good-paying jobs and provides every American a fair opportunity to prosper.
For me, this is the toughest element to formulate. So many possibilities offer so much potential for controversy. I remember when I first read Lakoff's suggestion for the 10-word philosphy. At best, my response was 'respectful skepticism'. Even after reading his rationale, I was concerned that his philosophy encapsulation was far too vague. Compare the Conservatives 10-word philosophy: 1) Smaller Government ...with Lakoff's progressive 10-word philosophy: 1) Stronger America The conservative list (even without framing) gives a much better idea of what they stand for. The progressive list... well, I don't think 'Stronger America' and 'Better Future' are descriptive enough. In fact, they could easily be argued as part of the conservative philosophy. Lakoff addresses this weakness by arguing that the reason this progressive philosophy lacks bite is because progressives have not yet had time to develop our language and frames. Once we do, then the 10 words will carry a much deeper and more specific meaning. I admit that, after some exposure to the rationales, along with further attempts to refine the philosphy encapsulation, I foun dmyself returning to Lakoff's suggestions. Thus, I thought it a reasonable idea to give it a chance. Here are Lakoff's rationales: TEN-WORD PHILOSOPHIES The conservatives have figured out their own values, principles, and directions, and have gotten them out in the public mind so effectively over the past thirty years that they can evoke them all in a ten-word philosophy: Strong Defense, Free Markets, Lower Taxes, Smaller Government, Family Values. Continuing on that theme, I would suggest that we go one step further and adopt a 12-word Philosophy. Add 'AMERICAN VALUES' to offset the conservatives' claim to ‘Family Values'. Taking into account the archetypical acceptance of Nation as family, assuming the role of American Values (to which progressive values truly equate) as progressive values trumps the Conservatives' claim to 'family values' in the sense that America is our ultimate family. Showing the progressive nature of the founding fathers and the constitution upon which the nation was founded would be a natural endeavor. Essentially, AMERICAN VALUES = PROGRESSIVE VALUES. As a bonus, the assumption of American Values as Progressive Values would put the conservatives on the defense when they refute progressive values. Are they unpatriotic? Remember that right-wing ideologues have convinced half of the country that the 'strict father' family model, which is bad enough for raising children, should govern our national morality and politics. This is the model that the best in American values has defeated over and over again in the course of our history -- from the emancipation of the slaves to women's suffrage, Social Security and Medicare, civil rights and voting rights acts, and Brown v. the Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. Each time we have unified our country more behind our finest traditional values.
Progressives are constantly put in positions where they are expected to respond to conservative arguments. It may be over Thanksgiving dinner, around the water cooler, or in front of an audience. But because conservatives have commandeered so much of the language, progressives are often put on the defensive with little or nothing to say in response. Thus, when responding to conservatives, there are several rules you should follow to ensure maximum effect. * Know the 10 (or 12) -word philosophy and understand each part. Have an idea of what progressive values, principles, and policy directives are. * Stand Strong! Progressive values are the best of traditional American values. Stand up for your values with dignity and strength. You are a true patriot because of your values. * Don't use their language. Stay away from their keywords and phrases: "Tax Relief", "Tort Reform", "Partial Birth Abortion", "Death Tax", "Marriage Penalty". Etc. Using it only empowers them and reinforces the ‘strict Father' world view. * Don't answer their loaded questions, instead, make your response an affirmation of the progressive stance on the issue. * Distinguish between ordinary conservatives and nasty ideologues. Most conservatives are personally nice people, and you want to bring out their niceness and their sense of neighborliness and hospitality. As for the ideologues, you will gain little from a debate with them, unless it is for the benefit of 3rd party observers. * Be calm. Calmness is a sign that you know what you are talking about. * Be good-humored. A good-natured sense of humor shows you are comfortable with yourself. * Hold your ground. Always be on the offense. Never go on defense. Never whine or complain. Never act like a victim. Never plead. Avoid the language of weakness, for example, rising intonations on statements. Your voice should be steady. Your body and voice should show optimism. You should convey passionate conviction without losing control. * Conservatives have parodied liberals as weak, angry (hence not in control of their emotions), weak-minded, softhearted, unpatriotic, uninformed, and elitist. Don't give them any opportunities to stereotype you in any of these ways. Expect these stereotypes, and deal with them when they come up. By the way you conduct yourself, show strength, calmness, and control; an ability to reason; a sense of realism; love of country; a command of the basic facts; and a sense of being an equal, not a superior. * Don't expect to convert staunch conservatives. * You can make considerable progress with those who use both models but in different parts of their life. They are your best audience. Your job is to capture territory of the mind. With these people, your goal is to find out, if you can by probing, about which parts of their life they are nurturant. For example, ask who they care about the most, what responsibilities they feel they have to those they care about, and how they carry out those responsibilities. This should activate their nurturant models as much as possible. Then, while the nurturant model is active for them, try linking it to politics. For example, if they are nurturant at home but strict in business, talk about the home and family and how they relate to political issues. EXAMPLE: Real family values mean that your parents, as they age, don't have to sell their home or mortgage their future to pay for health care or the medications they need. * Avoid the usual mistakes. Remember, don't just negate the other person's claims; reframe. The facts unframed will not set you free. You cannot win just be stating the true facts and showing that they contradict your opponent's claims. Frames trump facts. His frames will stay and the facts will bounce off. Always reframe. * If you remember nothing else about framing, remember this: Once your frame is accepted into the discourse, everything you say is just common sense. Why? Because that's what common sense is: reasoning within a commonplace, accepted frame. * Never answer a question framed from your opponent's point of view. Always reframe the question to fit your values and your frames. This may make you uncomfortable, since normal discourse styles require you to directly answer questions posed. That is the trap. Practice changing frames. * Be sincere. Use frames you really believe in, based on values you really hold. * A useful thing to do is to use rhetorical questions: Wouldn't it be better if...? Such a question should be chosen to presuppose your frame. EXAMPLE: Wouldn't it be better if we had a president who went to war with a plan to secure the peace? * Stay away from set-ups. Fox News shows and other rabidly conservative shows try to put you in an impossible situation, where a conservative host sets the frame and insists on it, where you don't control the floor, can't present your case, and are not accorded enough respect to be taken seriously. If the game is fixed, don't play. * Tell a story. Find stories where your frame is built into the story. Build up a stock of effective stories. * Always start with values, preferably values all Americans share like security, prosperity, opportunity, freedom, and so on. Pick the values most relevant to the frame you want to shift to. Try to win the argument at the values level. Pick a frame where your position exemplifies a value everyone holds--like fairness. EXAMPLE: Suppose someone argues against a form of universal health care. If people don't have health care, he argues, it's their own fault. They're not working hard enough or not managing their money properly. We shouldn't have to pay for their lack of initiative or their financial mismanagement. FRAME SHIFT: Most of the forty million people who can't afford health care work full-time at essential jobs that cannot pay enough to get them health care. Yet these working people support the lifestyles of the top three-quarters of our population. Some forty million people have to do those hard jobs--or you don't have your lifestyle. America promises a decent standard of living in return for hard work. These workers have earned their health care by doing essential jobs to support the economy. There is money in the economy to pay them. Tax credits are the easiest mechanism. Their health care would be covered by having the top two percent pay the same taxes they used to pay. It's only fair that the wealthy pay for their own lifestyles, and that people who provide those lifestyles get paid * Be prepared. You should be able to recognize the basic frames that conservatives use, and you should prepare frames to shift to. EXAMPLE: Your opponent says, "We should get rid of taxes. People know how to spend their money better than the government." REFRAME: "The government has made very wise investments with taxpayer money. Our interstate highway system, for example. You couldn't build a highway with your tax refund. The government built them. Or the Internet, paid for by taxpayer investment. You could not make your own Internet. Most of our scientific advances have been made through funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health--great government investments of taxpayer money. No matter how wisely you spent your own money, you'd never get those scientific and medical breakthroughs. And how far would you get hiring your own army with your tax refund?" * Use wedge issues, cases where your opponent will violate some belief he holds no matter what he says. EXAMPLE: Suppose he brings up abortion. Raise the issue of military rape treatment. Women soldiers who are raped (by our own soldiers, in Iraq, or on military bases) and who subsequently get pregnant presently cannot end their pregnancies in a military hospital, because abortions are not permitted there. A Military Rape Treatment Act would allow our raped women soldiers to be treated in military hospitals to end their rape-induced pregnancies. THE WEDGE: If he agrees, he sanctions abortion, in government-supported facilities no less, where doctors would have to be trained and facilities provided for terminating pregnancies. If he disagrees, he dishonors our women soldiers who are putting their lives on the line for him. To the women it is like being raped twice--once by a criminal soldier and once by a self-righteous conservative. * Call your opponent on their underlying agenda. An opponent may be disingenuous if his real goal isn't what he says his goal is. Politely point out the real goal, then reframe. EXAMPLE: Suppose he starts touting smaller government. Point out that conservatives don't really want smaller government. They don't want to eliminate the military, or the FBI, or the Treasury and Commerce Departments, or the nine-tenths of the courts that support corporate law. It is big government that they like. What they really want to do away with is social programs--programs that invest in people, to help people to help themselves. Such a position contradicts the values the country was founded on--the idea of a community where people pull together to help each other. From John Winthrop on, that is what our nation has stood for. * Your opponent may use language that means the opposite of what he says, called Orwellian language. Realize that he is weak on this issue. Use language that accurately describes what he's talking about to frame the discussion your way. EXAMPLE: Suppose he cites the "Healthy Forests Initiative" as a balanced approach to the environment. Point out that it should be called "No Tree Left Behind" because it permits and promotes clear-cutting, which is destructive to forests and other living things in the forest habitat. Use the name to point out that the public likes forests, doesn't want them clear-cut, and that the use of the phony name shows weakness on the issue. Most people want to preserve the grandeur of America, not destroy it. * Remember once more that our goal is to unite our country behind our values, the best of traditional American values. Right-wing ideologues need to divide our country via a cultural civil war. It is our job to evoke and maintain the nurturant model. Those are a lot of guidelines. But there are only four really important ones: 1. Show respect As a final note, recognize the possible pitfalls and attacks on these frames (For Example, equality must be framed in terms of rights and broad-based prosperity must be framed in terms of opportunity, otherwise the two together are easily framed by the opposition as a quest for communism. CONCLUSION: The bottom line is that framing becomes simple, almost natural as you start to think of the issues in terms of reframing rather than rebutting. It will take time, but the results will cause a paradigm shift in our ability to communicate a compelling message to the electorate -- well worth the investment. Framing: Primer for a Progressive Revolution Framing Primer: Part I -- Philosophy and Rational for FramingFraming Primer: Part II -- The Nurturant Parent Vs. the Strict Father Framing Primer: Part III -- Techniques, Rules, and Execution Framing Primer: Part IV -- Strategic and Slippery Slope Inititiatives Framing Primer: Part V -- Implementation: Respond with 'Value-Based' Answers |



