Framing Poltical Conversations - The Art Of Spin

Geroge Lakoff is a Professor at UC Berkley and has written several books about the use of linguistics and psychology in politics. This article in 2003 highlights the predicament facing progressive political candidates and the many ways that conservative political figures have dominated political discussions for the last 40 years.

In Nov. 2007, Lakoff participated in the "There You Go Again: Orwell Comes to America" conference in New York. LinkTV has been airing a few of the panel discussions. Lakoff in particular really impressed me with his description of the problems facing progressive politics in America and the huge mistakes made by the Democratic party for the last several election cycles. I've heard this before and its been pretty obvious that conservatives have done a better job of making political problems into emotional responses.

...conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing. - George Lakoff

What I found really interesting about Lakoff's analysis was that he clearly understood the relationship between politics and the modernist vs. post-modernist mindset. Pointing out the "enlightenment fallacy", he located the mistake of liberals in our trust of the modern enlightenment's appreciation for logic, reason, facts, and data. Drawing on the writings of George Orwell, he highlights that Orwell was wrong because Orwell assumed that if everyone could gain access to good information then they would be able to see the problem and break out of the spell of the empire. The problem is that this simply will not work. No amount of solid facts and figures will change the perspective of anyone who is operating from inside a particular linguistic metaphorical frame. Once the frame for the discussion is cast, there is no going back. You can't forget it. It's there. It's like trying to not think about an elephant when you read the phrase - "don't think about an elephant".

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. - George Lakoff

A classic example in our current political environment is "supporting the troops". Once that frame has been drawn around the discussion, there is a false dichotomy. It's simple. You are for the troops or against the troops. No amount of data about the justification for war will be effective in the discussion once the frame is set. The more we talk about the facts or point to the root problems, the more it sounds like we are missing the whole point of the discussion. The result is that political parties mostly talk past each other and no common ground or positive solutions can be developed. Progressives have not historically tried to recast the framing story. When is the last time you heard anyone frame the war as the "American Occupation of Iraq"?

Democrats have repeatedly failed to cast the same types of emotional frames for the discussion. In fact, almost all the discussion happens within the frames set by conservative thinkers. Progressives spend most of their energy arguing for the negation of the topic rather than offering positive images. For example, you can't talk rationally about women's rights inside the frame of "pro-life" because the issue is no longer about the women, its framed around the image of an "unborn child". You can't talk about responsible fiscal policy inside the frame of "taxation as a penalty for success" (i.e. Joe the plumber) because no amount of data about our national deficits under the Reagan and Bush tax policies will answer the concern about taxes as "penalties", or left over cold-war reactions to notions of "spreading the wealth". This is why Barack Obama has spent more time answering emotional rhetoric and goof-ball allegations and why little real political discussion took place in the debates. It also explains why the answer to "who won the debate" is so elusive when everyone feels like their guy won.

LinkTV has published the entire conference on the internet. I highly recommend the bipartisan panel discussion including George Lakoff along with conservative spin master Frank Luntz (the mad genius of right wing political polling). Frank is a smart guy and willing to own up to some of his tactics. I've read and enjoyed his book "Words that work". Watching this discussion has made me rethink my approach to political discussions. I agree with Lakoff, Orwell was wrong. Simply educating people with the best data will not solve the problem. I've had enough of these conversations with my conservative friends to know the answer is not found by sharing the facts. It is a matter of reframing the discussions.

On a side note, I think this is exactly what Brian McLaren means when he talks about framing stories in his book "Everything Must Change". He's shown that the same issues apply to religious discussions. Brian's approach to hearing everyone speak without immediately damning their framing story is important. He has done a wonderful job of reframing theological discussions to help many Evangelicals hear the rich history of theological discourse from within a completely different frame. At a minimum, he's opened the door for those Evangelicals to realize that their frame has not always been the dominant frame for the discussion.

Not All Politics

Ok, I admit I've been swept up into politics this election season. It was much easier to ignore the hype when I was voting for a nominal 3rd party candidate or selecting the lesser of two evils. Barack Obama has changed that by giving us an intelligent candidate that gets almost every issue right (IMHO). I almost don't know how to act in an election where I actually like a candidate and can't complain about any of his policies or his character. This is really putting a damper on my skeptical, rebellious, and non-conformist tendencies.

anyway...

I'm not completely in a political trance. I've recenty discovered an interesting philosophy and world religions book (my favorite topics). This month I've been slowly working my way through John Hick's, "An Interpretation of Religion: 2nd Edition - The Human Response to the Transcendent". I've been engrossed in the book. Hick has helped me reconcile Christianity with a healthy pluralistic understanding of transcendent reality in all the world's major religions. In the past, I felt conflicted about my love and devotion to following Christ and my intellectual respect of the diverse cultural expressions of God. The recognition of common religious use of metaphors and myths combined with the horrible things that Christians have done in the name of Jesus has often left me wondering if I even wanted to retain the label "Christian" (read the latest disgusting hate speech coming from James Dobson's theocratic cult in Colorado). Like many people, the term Jesus-follower has become more tolerable but not exactly free from stereotypical baggage.

Thanks to the many remaining progressive religious voices, I finally feel at ease with my current understanding of faith (knowing me that won't last long). Hick's presentation of a rationalistic pluralism has done something wonderful for my understanding of Jesus. For me, he's liberated Jesus from the muck of competitive religious battles for supremacy. Jesus has, in my eyes, become free from the horrible superstitions and injustices commonly found in Christianity. In the process, I've seen how truly universal the concept of Christ really is by learning to see the message of Jesus in a variety of cultural and linguistic packages.

more to come after the election...

Blah, Blah, Blah the Environment?

Did he really do that? Did they really cheer about a complete lack of concern about safety with nuclear power? Is this Candid Camera?

Political Assault on Reason

Who is advising Gov. Palin? I don't know if this level of ignorance comes from Palin herself or from the right wing spin machine that feeds her these lines. She is apparently unaware that scientific research with fruit flies has led to valuable discoveries that have boosted autism research and our basic understanding of genetics, as in a study at the University of North Carolina demonstrated last year. Has my Republican Party become a party of ignorance or is it simply banking on the ignorance of the American voter? Did I miss this stuff when I registered as a Republican 19 years ago or has their integrity simply dissolved before my eyes?

read more...

Is Bin Laden Rooting for McCain?

In 2004, Osama Bin Laden issued a statement with his primary method for attacking America.

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.

Unfortunately, George Bush has done everything he can to help make that wish a reality. I don't for one minute think Bush means to bankrupt our nation or support Al Qaeda. I just think he is blinded by idealism and self-destructive pride that ignores common sense (much like the Russians in Afghanistan). It appears John McCain is ready to continue down the same path of endless war and massive debt simply for the sake of pride. The more we spend the more tax cuts he wants to offer to the wealthiest tax payers. That means more debt. American fed Bin Laden during the Afghanistan war with Russia so he knows exactly how to bankrupt a super power. It is hard to fathom how we could misinterpret the history involved here. The path seems clear.

Read more about Bin Laden's goal...

Read about Al Qaeda endorsment of McCain (they endorsed Bush too!)...

Powell's Endorsement

Well said! Not only do I agree with Powell's assessment of Obama. As a registered Republican (now ex-Republican), I'm in agreement with Powell's frustration with the party, their campaigning techniques, the Palin VP selection, and their support (even promotion) of religious bigotry.

Colin Powell Endorses Obama

Colin Powell, one of the country's most respected Republicans, stunned both parties on Sunday by strongly endorsing Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president. I wonder if there is an Obama cabinet position in mind here.

read more...

More Problems for Joe Plumber

As it turns out my suspicions were right. Joe doesn't stand to buy a business that makes over $250,000 net (taxable) profit. In fact, it doesn't look like he even has a plumber's license and he actually owes $1,200 in back taxes. This is more evidence that the Republican party has become little more than an extension of Fox News and their over-hyped propaganda techniques. I'm saddened by the tactics of a party that I had once supported. Didn't McCain consider that people might bother to do the math behind Joe's situation? Didn't he consider that people might actually understand American Tax policy? I suspect that tonight the facts about good ole' Joe and McCain's blunder will be plastered all over TV. If we've learned anything from this election cycle it is that McCain will rush to panic and grasp for anything to help his cause. He put about as much time in considering this attack as he did in selecting a VP candidate (one interview). This is not the man we want in the White House. We need a man that will think before acting.

Read more about Joe's situation...

FYI... I actually did have to call a plumber today. His name was NOT Joe and he makes less than $250,000 a year.

Joe the Plumber's Taxes

The recent discussion of "Joe the plumber" has shown exactly how unfamiliar America is with American tax policy. I wish Obama would have asked John McCain, "Exactly how much money does Joe make?" The truth (straight from the real Joe's mouth - watch the video below) is that his business makes about $250,000 - $280,000 a year. Now, what I wish Obama would have asked him is "Is that 280k in REVENUE or PROFIT?" Only profits are taxed for businesses NOT revenue. So if Joe is making $280,000 in profit (after expenses, materials, labor, depreciation, etc.) then YES, he will pay 3% more on the marginal income over $250,000 (ONLY the amount over 250k). This is how marginal tax brackets work. Every business pays the same rates on the first $250k (even Donald Trump and Exxon Mobile). So bumping into a higher tax bracket does not suddenly destroy your income or overly burden anyone. This works the same way for personal income taxes. If you move up into a new bracket, only the amount of income in that higher bracket is taxed at the higher rate.

For Joe, the potential increase that had him shaking in his boots is $900 annually if he makes $280,000 in total NET profits. How is $900 a year going to keep Joe from buying his business? You guessed it. This was a setup and it is based on misinformation about American Tax policy and skewed logic about Obama's plan. McCain was adamant in the debate that Joe was going to be unable to purchase a business because of a possible $900 in additional taxes. Are you kidding me? Please, somebody in the news media point this out and give America an intro to marginal tax brackets. I run a small business. I've done the math. Yes, I could see a small increase in taxes, but it is a trivial amount compared to the revenue our nation needs from huge corporations making billions. We can't keep running deficits forever. Somebody has to pay the bills and I'm glad to pay more if my company has a huge year. Most businesses (small and large) are able to use the tax policies to their advantage. Many business expenses are deductible and assets are depreciated so that despite 36% or 39% marginal brackets, most companies pay little or no federal corporate income tax. Joe's fears are unfounded and it is a shame that the media is going to once again miss this opportunity to speak truth about tax policy and middle class Americans will make bad assumptions that end up costing us in the long term.

Was Obama a Boy scout?

Well he seems to be well prepared. The one concern I had about Obama was uncertainty in his ability to get his feet on the ground day one. I've heard bad reviews of how Bill Clinton struggled to get his team up and running after his election. Jimmy Carter may have been one of the most intelligent and forward thinking presidents in my lifetime, but he received criticism for his administration skills and his presidency never made up for the problems with his staff selection. George Bush started slow and kept getting worse by making one horrible appointment after another. Fortunately, it appears that Obama is thinking ahead and putting together a well prepared transition team. He's answered many of my concerns. You can read more about the contrasting transition plans of Obama and McCain in the Huffington Post.

ht: Julie Bogart

Don't Feed The Rednecks

I once liked and respected John McCain. I'm surprised to hear this type of crap from him. Normally, candidates make a center move during the election. In a "maverick" fashion, McCain has been moving further right and alienating everyone in the center. Let's see how well the strange VP pick and the extreme right wing rhetoric plays in a general election when the current right wing president is at an all time low in popularity.

Awkward McCain, Decisive Obama

There were several awkward moments in tonight's presidential debate that I'm still trying to understand. I'll chalk it up to an "out-of-touch" McCain trying to stand toe to toe with one of the greatest political speakers in our lifetime. I felt bad for McCain as this format was not physically good for his older, smaller, and more robotic movements. It looked like the people in the room were visibly uncomfortable with McCain's movements and his inability to make jokes or relate to individuals. The only point that went well for McCain was his statement about the need for bailing out families in addition to wall street executives. The problem is that this is the one point that McCain has simply adopted Obama's earlier position. Obama made the case for a bottom up rescue over a week ago and McCain is late to the party. I felt that nearly every debate point ended with Obama closing out on an up note and perfectly rebutting McCain's points. Barack Obama has improved on his conversational tone and each debate seems to move him further ahead of the increasingly irrelevant John McCain. Can anyone say Bob Dole?

3 points:

1) Bob Dole was the last Republican I voted for (stop laughing!)

2) I've yet to vote for a winner in a general presidential election. I hated Clinton. I voted Libertarian in the last election and the DMV lost my voter registration in 2000 so I couldn't vote when I showed up at the polls (I was going to vote for Bush).

3) Until this year, I'd never once voted for a winner in a presidential primary so the latest trend is to break all previous trends.

The Maverick is a Gambler

Not only does John McCain enjoy a night at the craps table, he's been involved with the very powerful Indian Casino lobbyists. Is this the John McCain that wants to keep lobbyist influence out of Washington and hopes to court the religious right with promises of "family values"?

"Mr. McCain has done more than any other member of Congress to shape the laws governing America’s casinos, helping to transform the once-sleepy Indian gambling business into a $26-billion-a-year behemoth with 423 casinos across the country. He has won praise as a champion of economic development and self-governance on reservations.

“One of the founding fathers of Indian gaming” is what Steven Light, a University of North Dakota professor and a leading Indian gambling expert, called Mr. McCain. " - By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr. Published: September 27, 2008 in the New York Times

Read the entire article

I don't have a problem with casinos (I've spent many hours playing poker in those same casinos), however, it seems very hypocritical on the part of McCain. The article does reveal something interesting about the character of these two candidates. Obama prefers poker and McCain prefers craps. You can win at poker because it is a game of skill, judgment, and fiscal responsibility. Craps is, well, a crap shoot. It's is a loosing proposition over the long run (kind of like a surge).

Psychology of Partisanship

Here are a few wise words about how (and possibly why) we divide among party lines and develop distrust of others. It is a well timed discussion considering our national political divide. We heard a bit of this tone in Biden's comments in the last debate when he talked about moving past our tendency to question the motives of others. Unless we start our political debates with the acknowledgment that we all come to the table with good intentions, the debate will fall apart.



Brian McLaren also had a great post about this video.

Real Live Conversation

Gordon Atkinson (many readers will know him as "Real Live Preacher") recently sat down with Marcus Borg for an informal discussion. You can listen to the entire conversation online and read Gordon's reactions. I've enjoyed Gordon's blog for several years now and Marcus Borg's books have been instrumental in my own spiritual understanding and growth. I strongly recommend listening to this interview.

HT: Bob Cornwall

Playing Softball for the White House

Well, tonight we proved that debating on national TV is likely to make you nervous. Both candidates were imperfect and awkward. Palin dodged most of the questions and Biden was solid but non-confrontational. I liked what I heard from Biden and I suspect Republicans felt like Palin salvaged their ticket by not puking on stage or falling off her high heels. After watching Palin for 90 minutes, I think I've seen enough cartoon character winks at the camera to send me for the antacid. Biden won me over (okay, I admit I was already a fan).

The first thing we really learned is that the moderator allowed these candidates to simply regurgitate their stump speeches. It would have been nice to see a few overhand pitches, but we got nothing but change-ups right down the middle of the plate. I guess the norm for debates will now be to ignore the moderator and simply read off the prepared notes. The second thing we learned is that Tbone Pickens is spending millions of dollars to convince Americans to spend billions on domestic drilling and moving our fossil fuel addiction from one scare resource (oil) to another (natural gas). Both sources make him a wealthy man and he's not afraid to throw in a brief illusion of wind, solar, and hydrogen as the worlds most expensive slight of hand marketing campaign. Sorry Tbone, I'm looking behind the curtain and there's nothing but fossil fuels up your sleeve. It isn't enough to move off foreign fossil fuels, we need to be off of ALL fossil fuels and we can do it right now if we can remove oil company influence in Washington. If there is a debate scheduled you can be sure that oil companies are going to buy up all the advertising space. It almost feels like Pickens is one of the candidates (McCain certainly has a lot of his money).

I suspect independents completely checked out after hearing 90 minutes of negative attacks. That could have hurt Biden who clearly landed more solid punches. I would score it a huge victory for Biden on debate points, while Palin exceeded the expectations (that means all she had to do was sound slightly better than Paris Hilton) and solidified her shrinking base of religious extremists and Rush Limbaugh fans by spewing prepared cold war era jargon.

The Politics of a Bailout

I've heard more than one attempt lately to misplace the blame for this financial crisis. Some are simple attempts to avoid blame by suggesting there is no one to blame at all. Some are blatant racism, classism, and partisanship. We need to be honest about what caused this so we can move toward a solution. Sara Robinson at Alternet.org has written a good article on 11 ways that this mess has been used to promote bigotry and push the far right wing political agenda. A week ago, I would have thought her argument was simply distorting the problem with more partisanship exaggeration, but in the last week I've heard real world examples of malicious nonsensical arguments from the far right creeping into mainstream media. It was about time somebody called a spade a spade and provided a bit of fact checking.

Kucinich on the Bailout

In moments of crisis, party lines blur and opponents find some strange bedfellows. This is an opportunity for our nation to come together or to become further divided. I'm not sure what the right answer is for the bailout, but the more this debate happens in a vacuum, the less comfortable I feel about the outcome. At least Dennis Kucinich is willing break party ranks and speak out. This bailout feels a lot like the rush to war. Shock and fear followed by large sums of public money shuffled off to who knows where.