Frame Words and Phrases - A Discussion

[DK666]

After reading yesterdays buzzflash headline lets start a thread on "Framing works and Phrases"


http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/01/int04003.html


Here an example - Faith Based = Right Wing Christian

So when they talk about a "Faith Based" they are really talking about Right Wing Christan issues that are driven by the church.

The problem is the media picks it up on the spin cycle and it becomes an everyday media word. Then (Gasp) the Democrats start using it and we fall into their nasty trap.

So lets hammer away and I invite all DUers to provide input.

[kentuck]

1. "The Republicans do not know how to handle your money..."

Howard Dean says this in just about every one of his speeches and it is very effective, imo. Because, it frames the issue of deficits and huge spending that Bush has been criticized for from so many conservatives. This is a powerful phrase, I think.

[cavebat2000]

2. Project For a Nuclear American Century

lol

[ewagner]

3. "Faith -Based" has already framed the issue

If Dems are against using Government funds to promote religion, then they are "against faith", which, in turn, means Dems are anti-religon (godless), anti-christain (immoral) and on and on and on.

If I read the article correctly, we need to refram the debate in a manner that places our point of view in a positive light and perhaps even challenge the term "faith-based" itself.

Example: We can paint ourselves as Preservationists. and define preservationists as those who wish to preserve the constitutional "shall not extablish" clause. A persuasive argument could be made.

[BurtWorm]

18. Preservationists is *good*

Mean and dirty, in the Republican vein, making the progressives sound more conservative than the wingos. I like it. We need a plausible phrase to replace "faith-based" too, something the dummies in the press would lap up just as easily as they lap up most of the wingers' terminology.

[Mike Niendorff]

22. The first rule: never, ever let them choose your words for you.

They are using terms like "faith-based" because their polling and focus-groups tell them that this kind of rhetoric doesn't freak out the public the way that truthful phrases -- like "Government-Funded Churches" -- would.

The first thing progressives need to do on this is to simply start calling a spade a spade. When RWers talk about "faith-based initiatives", we need to immediately point out that this is just a code-phrase for government-funded churches. We need to force them to address this issue again, and again, and again, and again, until their dodge-phrases lose their "dodge" effect, and people start to unavoidably associate the dodge-phrase with the actual policy it's being used to cover up. That association is precisely what they're trying to avoid, and we should *never* allow them to dodge truthful debate through Orwellian phrasing.

The second thing we need to do is to point out that there are other kinds of "faith" that do accurately describe what the Bush regime is really up to. Specifically: Bad Faith on the part of its leaders, and Blind Faith on the part of its followers. Every time GWB lies to the American people, he is relying on the Blind Faith of his supporters to protect him from the consequences of his actions. He is abusing and betraying their trust, and he knows it. Bad Faith relying on Blind Faith. Abusing religion in order to avoid accountability. Replacing honesty, transparency and democratic rule of law with a motto of "just trust me, I know what's best for you". Bad Faith abusing Blind Faith, to the detriment of all of us.


MDN

[Must_B_Free]

4. "Compassionless conservative"

"Iraqi Invasion and Occupation", instead of Operation Iraqi Freedom

"The War Against Fighting" instead of the war on terror

"Service Cuts" instead of tax cuts

"Trigger Happiness" instead of Premption

"Church tax", instead of Faith Based programs

"American Citizens" instead of troops

"Progressive" instead of liberal.

[Bandit]

19. I like the Church Tax one

Republicans want to impose a "Church Tax" on everyone. Has a good ring to it

[BurtWorm]

20. How about "Tax-Supported Religious Charity"

[BurtWorm]

23. Or "Subsidized Charity"

[Mike Niendorff]

24. A couple of thoughts in response:

> "Service Cuts" instead of tax cuts
> ...
> "Progressive" instead of liberal

(1) Personally, every time I hear a Dem talking about "this program" or "that program", it just grates on me. What we're talking about here are public services, folks, not "programs". Every RWer in the country salivates at the thought of cutting "programs" (since most people never think of themselves as having ever really joined a "program"). Notice this: even with how far RW Doublespeak has developed -- with a poll-tested code-word or a new-and-improved phrase for virtually everything and everyone that's on their hit list -- they still are happy to talk about "government programs" in exactly the same terms that most Democrats do. Why is that, I wonder? Simple answer: when they talk like this, the terms of the debate favor them. And they know it.

Progressives need to point out that such debates aren't about "government programs", they're about public services -- a heritage that has been built over generations in order to provide a better life for all of us. Words matter, people, and this one is a biggie.


(2) As to the "progressive" vs. "liberal" thing, I really don't see those two as being the same thing. They have similarities, but there are also important differences. The root word of "progressive" is progress. It stands in stark contrast to "conservative", which stands for keeping things as they are. There is strength in that dichotomy. And it is very, very accurate.

The word "liberal", on the other hand, carries connotations of lack of discipline, lack of restraint, etc, which I think do not accurately represent the progressive movement in general. Furthermore, there are a lot of people who call themselves "liberal" who buy into things that I, as a progressive, do not. For example, I do not consider myself a "feminist" (yep, start your flamethrowers ...). I am an egalitarian, and there is a big distinction there. I also very aggressively reject the milquetoast "political correctness" that so many who call themselves "liberals" seem to buy into. I cuss like a sailor when events warrant it, and I call a spade a spade. I don't tap-dance around the issues, and I don't give a damn if telling the truth offends someone. On the green front, I'm sympathetic to environmental causes (since we all have to live in this shared environment), but they are not my primary focus. Instead, I set my sights squarely on labor and economic issues, since that (imho) is the engine that drives so many other abuses. A healthy environment will never be sustainable as long as big business can continue to use the working class as "human shields" against any reasonable regulation of their conduct.

The point, I guess, is that these two words are not interchangeable (frankly, I'm not convinced that being "progressive" is even a "left-wing" thing). I look at it as more of a "back-to-basics" thing: refocussing on labor, on issues of economic class, on building broad solidarity and of not wasting our time and energy on contrived hypersensivity and a pathological devotion to decorum. It goes beyond that, but I think that at least is a good starting point.

Anyway, your post hit on a couple of my pet issues, so I figured I'd toss this out for further discussion.

</.02>


MDN

[kentuck]

5. They are "Radical Republicans" - not "conservatives"...

This is a phrase that is not so inflammatory as to be an automatic turn-off but at the same time, questions the conservative credentials of the present so-called 'conservatives' in power.

[DK666]

6. Now were on to something

"Service Cuts" instead of tax cuts


This one always gets me. If you provide "tax relief" you must also cut services. But the Dems use the tax cut or tax relief instead of calling a spade a spade and just saying service cuts. They have allowed the reThugs to define our talking points.

Another disturbing trend is the use of the word "Fascist" if the Desm dont do something the reThugs are gonna turn us all into "Fascist"

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/49/articles/is_america_becoming_fascis.html

[Pillowbiter]

9. I like that too

and I will use "Service Cuts" whenever I can.

We all should, get the message out so that in the future a dem can run on "Service Relief" or something better titled.

How about "Demand Side Economics" to go along with it. i.e. give money to the poor and if corporations are producing things worth buying, the wealth will flow upwards, as opposed to the current supply side of giving money to the rich so they could create more jobs, even though they usually cut jobs and increase their profit margin.

I'm a demand-sider who wants releif from service cuts in America!

PB

[NewJeffCT]

17. Not just service cuts

Infrastructure cuts.

The rich use the American infrastructure built up in the 19th and 20th centuries far more than anybody else...

Every Democrat should talk to Lakoff.

[ret5hd]

7. Corporate governance, service cuts, faith-based budget, etc

Corporate governance---can you think of a more negative concept?

[DK666]

8. Man

That one just screams abuse the people.

[BigBigBear]

10. Excellent piece

We should be grateful for Buzzflash. They are outstanding.

[Cat Atomic]

11. Weapons industry... instead of defense industry might be good.

And at the same time, the point that's made in the article is that word play is only a small part of it. You also need a broader movement of some sort to promote your ideas. Many progressive ideas can't be labeled simply now, because they simply aren't part of the public consciousness.

[lostnfound]

16. Or go back to calling it the "Department of War" &War Industry n/t

[GAspnes]

12. enormous coordination is required

As Lakoff points out, it's taken the conservatives 2 decades to get to this point. ENDless hammering of the same phrases and concepts in editorials, articles, white papers, interviews, speeches. First we progessives have to write the hymnal, then distribute it.

[DK666]

13. Im with you.

We need to analyze the enemy and strike the weak points.

[DK666]

14. Kick

Kick

[lapislzi]

15. Taxation, NO..."paying your fair share," YES!

Fairness is a concept everybody can get behind. Taxation is merely the price one must pay for living in this country. The RW is famous for saying "Freedom isn't free." Damn right, it's not. This is an expensive country to run, wars or no wars, space program or no space program.

Do I sound naive and simplistic?

[BurtWorm]

21. You're right, but you'll never get news media to spew it the way they

spew tax relief, faith-based, late-term abortion and all that shit.

[Mike Niendorff]

25. "tax relief", "tax cuts" <-- these are also phony phrases.

A more-accurate phrase: "tax shifts".

What the Bush regime (and Reagan, in an earlier era) have consistently done is to use phrases like "tax cuts" and "tax relief" as a cover for what are actually tax shifts from the upper class onto the middle and lower classes.

Howard Dean (to give credit where credit is due) has really hit the nail on the head on this one when he talks about how the middle class never got a tax cut, despite all of Bush's phony rhetoric. Why? Because Bush's "tax relief" gave massive cuts to the wealthy, drained the treasury and then passed on the red ink to the states, forcing them to cover the shortfall by (drumroll please) raising taxes on the working class. Oh, and by cutting services to the working class, too. Call it the "Bush double whammy".

Of course, Bush & Co. are using a lot of smoke-and-mirrors accounting to cover up this fact -- and the hopelessly corrupt corporate media is playing right along -- but the facts are still the facts. Bush never promoted a "tax cut", he promoted a "tax shift", with the rich getting the benefits and the rest of us getting screwed.

When the Dems start telling it like it is -- standing together and not backing down -- then, just maybe, the RW will start having to actually account for itself on this issue, rather than constantly forcing the rest of us to "defend" against a false claim grounded on completely false terms.

(hey, we can all dream, right?)


MDN

[Mike Niendorff]

26. kick