Friday, April 01, 2005

Framing is for idiots, Part 3

Ezra Klein demonstrates that it is possible to criticize Lakoff in a specific fashion and not come off sounding contemptuous of the entire concept of framing.

Geroge Lakoff -- I'm sorry to say -- is absolutely horrible at framing things. No, I mean it, the guy is atrociously fucking bad at it. He's a perfectly good guru because he understands what framing is and why it's important and I'm glad that Democrats are realizing we need to put some thought into our language, but Jesus Christ, has anybody actually read his book? He's the worst goddamn framer I've ever read. Democrats should be the nurturing parent? Are you kidding me?

It's a harsh assessment, but it is one that I am also coming to believe. Lakoff is good at reading the X-Rays, but damn if I would go to him to get a prescription for my headaches. He might recommend aromatherapy.

I was fortunate to have a brief conversation with a colleague of Lakoff's just last weekend and she brought up many of the same criticisms of Lakoff that Ezra details. She said that Lakoff set out with the best of intentions, to find a metaphorical model of equal value to progressives as the Strict Father model is to conservatives. But his Nuturant Parent model violates all of the cardinal rules that Lakoff himself lays out. First of all, it appears to be nothing more than a counter-model to the conservative model rather than a self-sufficient model in its own right. But even worse, the Nurturant Parent model actually validates one of the core conceits of the conservative model by being just another variation of the "Nations Is Family" metaphor.

I'm tired of political models that treat citizens like children.

Rather, I think the progressive vision is more akin to the "It Takes a Village" model. The well-being of The Village depends on the well-being of The Individuals that comprise it, thus it is rational for The Village to nurture The Individual so that The Individual can better contribute to the well being of The Village. This is in contrast to the conservative model that says that The Individual is responsible for their own well-being and that The Village will benefit only when The Superior Individuals assume control of The Village. The Lesser Individuals in The Village, in this model, are impediments to the overall security of The Village because they impede the ability of The Superior Individuals to protect The Village against The Savages In The Woods (how, precisely, is usually left to the imagination). The progressive vision, on the other hand, says that all Individuals can contribute to the protection of The Village, but they can't do so so long as Predatory Individuals (who disguise themselves as Superior Individuals) prey on their weaknesses.

For example, the Pentagon has fired Arabic interpreters because they just happened to be gay. The conservative vision says that the presences of these Lesser Individuals brought down the overall security of The Village (I guess their gayness somehow leeches the strength from The Superior Individuals around them). The progressive vision says that the security of The Village has been weakened because the skills of these Individuals is no longer available to The Village. Thus the issue of homosexual rights can be re-framed as an issue of national security.

The "Nation as Village" model fulfills many of the same purposes as Lakoff's "Nurturant Parent" model, yet it does not undermine itself by validating the conservative "Strict Father" model.

Hmmm. Maybe it's time I actually read Hillary's book? :-)

Framing is for idiots, Part 2

The framing wars continue and a lot of very sensible people are falling into the same trap that ensnared Joshua Green. Today's example comes from Brad Plumer, who labels Howard Dean a "madman" for saying that he wants to "make George Lakoff the Democrats' Frank Luntz". Says Brad:

[...] first you need to make the ground ripe. Otherwise, you're just coming up with a goofy new name for something�which is why, notice, the phrase "personal accounts" have never caught on.

So please, no Lakoff. Not yet. Figure out how to do all that other stuff first. But depending on framing and framing alone will condemn the Democrats to irrelevance for decades to come.

I challenge Brad to cite any statement by Dean in which he says that Democrats should "depend on framing and framing alone." Of course that would be a ridiculous idea. But Dean has never said that. Nor has Lakoff or anyone else that I am aware of. In fact, the only ones who have said anything like that are those who feel the need to mischaracterize proponents of framing. Dean and Lakoff have repeatedly said that framing isn't enough. Why then do critics choose to criticize them as if they are saying exactly the opposite?

Brad's underlying point is a good one: you need to build the foundation ("make the ground ripe") before you can strike with a good talking point. But Lakoff has said much the same thing on many occasions.  Framing is not the be-all and end-all of what we are trying to accomplish. But it is a necessary component and frankly, Democrats have been terrible at using the right words to explain their ideas.

The Republican frames have worked because they have spent the last 30 years seeding them throughout our culture ("We're from the government and we're here to help you!"). Then, when they go on the air, they only have to say a couple of words to activate the frame and 80% of their work is done. "Death Tax" worked as a frame not simply because it was a magic phrase but precisely because it was based on a long-term program to subconsciously program to respond to the phrase. Brad seems to be arguing the same thing. But he also seems to think that advocates of framing aren't aware of this.

I have yet to see a criticism of the new interest in framing that has not (1) mischaracterized what framing proponents have said and (2) advocated, in opposition to framing, positions that are actually at the heart of what framing is all about. I have no problem with specific criticism of specific attempts at framing (I myself have criticized Lakoff's "Nurturant Parent" model on more than one occasion). But what Joshua Green, Brad Plumer and others are doing is making blanket condemnations of the entire concept. It is disrespectful of our intelligence for Joshua and Brad to think they need to step in and stop us before we do something foolish.

Give us at least a little credit guys.

Thursday, March 31, 2005

Republicans defending the vote!

Voter fraud may become an issue in the 2006 election and it may be the Republicans who benefit from it!

Check out this post over at AmericaBlog. The short of it is that Republicans are using the proposal to require photo IDs at polling places to give the appearance that it is the GOP that is championing the issue of fraud at the ballot box. Not since Bill Sammon wrote a book claiming that it was Al Gore that tried to steal the 2000 election have I seen such a colossal act of hubris. But what is really sickening is that it just might work.

If the Democrats don't get on the ball quick the Republicans will probably succeed in painting themselves as the defenders of vote integrity while the Democrats are the party that wants to make it easier for felons to gain access to the ballot box.

It's all about DeLay

Check out this dKos diary on how the Republicans in Congress have apparently decided to circle the wagons around Tom DeLay. The apparent strategy is to push the public's perception to think that the attacks on Tom DeLay are attacks on the Republican caucus and are thus attacks on Republican ideology. Message: Tom DeLay didn't do anything wrong, the Democrats just can't come up with any good ideas on their own so they have fallen back to attacking DeLay's character.

This is a strategy that could work, if it weren't for the fact that Tom DeLay is such a personally unappealing individual. The more people come to know him the less they like him.

Let me put it this way: he ain't no Dubya.

Josh Marshall comments on this as well and makes an astute point:

When DeLay says 'bring it on' to his critics and marshals the full host of movement conservatism to defend him, I can't imagine that worries his critics a wink. I don't say that because these folks are impotent or can't raise a ruckus; they can. It is rather that in purely partisan terms the aim of the people leading the charge against DeLay is to raise his profile, to make him the face of the Republican majority on capitol hill -- with all his full measure of snarl, extremity and venality.

So if DeLay's cronies want to go to war with Public Campaign or the Campaign for America's Future or anyone else, I can't imagine they mind. Because that's just another way to drive home the reality that these groups are trying so hard to demonstrate: that Tom DeLay is the Republican majority -- extreme on a few key 'culture' issues and, beside that, on the block for the highest bidder.

The Republicans want to make Tom DeLay out to be just another Republican who is being unfairly attacked by those mean Democrats. But Tom DeLay is not just another Republican. He is Tom DeLay. And the more the Republican caucus embraces him the more they will all begin to look like him.

Framing is for idiots

Joshua Green has a new article in the Atlantic Monthly ("It Isn't The Message, Stupid") that is the most direct assault yet on the growing popularity of Lakoffian style messaging within the Democratic party. I haven't digested it completely, but I was immediately struck by the sneers of condescension that just drip from Green's pen. He refers to messaging groups as "Masonic cabals". Fans of Lakoff are called "disciples". Lakoff himself is labeled a "self-appointed guru" (as if his popularity doesn't have anything to do with the validity of his work) and a "potential savior".

In fact, Green's article is a text-book example of using framing to deride something you don't like. Instead of simply laying out a case for why messaging won't help the Democrats, Green starts with the assumption that it won't and then uses a slew of metaphors to paint messaging practitioners as disciples of a flim-flam man.

I will be the first to agree that Lakoff should not be followed religiously. His deconstruction of progressive messaging is incredibly weak, especially in comparison to his brilliant deconstruction of its conservative counter-part. No blind-follower am I. Shouldn't Green be open to the possibility that us fans aren't just lock-step devotees of some traveling rainmaker? Can't he respect us enough to allow that we might actually be able to recognize some of the deficiencies in Lakoff's work and improve on them?

Besides, I have yet to meet any fan of Lakoff who would even remotely qualify as a disciple.

I've read and heard thoughts like this before. Green's is not the first missive I've read that questioned the wisdom of following Lakoff's advice. I even had a conversation this past weekend with a woman who is a colleague of Lakoff who doesn't like him. Though she managed to make some good points in her criticism without openly mocking the messaging effort.

What I find most interesting about the criticisms of the new "fad" is that a lot of it seems to be premised on the idea that it will be used badly therefore it should be knocked down. The critics like to cherry-pick Lakoff's work, find some of his sillier stuff, and then use that to label the whole messaging effort as a pointless distraction. But the message underlying this kind of criticism is that messaging is a tool that we will fuck up (because we are just foolish devotees of Jedi-Master Lakoff). So it is up to people like Green to stop us before we make fools of ourselves.

Green comes across as one of those practical sorts who thinks that ideas should be sufficient. The central thesis of messaging is that ideas are for shit if you can't present them in a compelling fashion. It is not, as Green suggests, that "how you frame an idea largely determines the response to it." It is that no idea, no matter how good, will sell if you don't frame it correctly.

The framing doesn't sell the idea. It just gets the foot in the door.

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Talking Points Tuesday: A Declaration of Progressive Principles

Last Dec. 8th, Governor Dean gave a speech at George Washington University on the future of the Democratic party. The following passage really stuck with me:

There is a Party of fiscal responsibility... economic responsibility.... social responsibility... civic responsibility... personal responsibility... and moral responsibility.

It's the Democratic Party.

We need to be able to say strongly, firmly, and proudly what we believe.

Because we are what we believe.

I liked this passage so much that I adopted "We are what we believe" as the motto of this blog.

There has been a lot of talk since the election about messaging, framing, talking points, etc. But most of those are just tools. The tools are important, no doubt. But they are pointless if they aren't used to express something deeper. What it comes down to is that, if Democrats are going to be able to convince the electorate to buy into their positions, then Democrats are going to have understand what they believe at a deep and profound level.

This is the primary advantage Republicans have today. They are so in tune with their "values" that they can express them in a reflexive manner. They don't need to second-guess their own pronouncements. Thus they come off looking "comfortable" talking about their beliefs. And you know what they say about sincerity. If you can fake that, you've got it made. There are some Democrats who can do this, Dean among them, but it is a skill that has atrophied within the general Democratic leadership.

With that in mind, I'd like to direct your attention to The Principles Project. The stated goal of the project is to tell Americans what progressives believe and why they believe it. The people involved in the project (anyone who signed up on the web site) cooperatively drafted a Declaration of Progressive Principles.

As stated on the declaration page:

The Principles Project aims to capture the common goals and shared beliefs of a diverse but like-minded group of people with a Declaration of Progressive Principles.

Creating such a document is not an exercise in group think, nor is it an effort to try to convince everyone else that you alone are right. It is an exercise that attempts to determine what unites a group of people and then to find a way to express that common vision in just a few hundred words.

Here you see the results of our work to date.

The four corners of the declaration are these: Defending Dignity, Strengthening Democracy, Promoting Progress and Embracing Leadership. The Declaration goes into more detail about what each of these mean, but it avoids specific policy language, which has bogged us down in the past. The overriding message of the Declaration is one of "shared responsibility".

I recommend reading the Declaration. It should not be viewed as the end point in this discussion. But it may provide you with the framework for drafting your own personal declaration. Do so. Memorize it. Live it. Express it in political action. Eventually it should become second nature to you.

And then you will be the ones who can speak with sincerity and conviction.

Sunday, March 27, 2005

Best use of bathroom imagery to make a political point

Awarded to Atrios:

I don't actually disagree with the general proposition that the Democrats need a bit of piss and vinegar in their foreign policy, but they have to figure out where to aim that piss. Peter Beinart and Joe Biden and the rest of the gang didn't aim their piss, they let George Bush grab their dicks and point them towards Baghdad. And, now, two years later, they want to lecture the rest of us on how to be perceived as "strong."

Even babies know how to piss. It's hitting the pot that matters. Every Democrat wants the party to have a strong national security policy. But many of us want it to be a Democratic policy, not warmed over Republicanism. Thanks to Atrios for pointing out why it is "warm".