The framing of political debate (Linguistics professor George Lakoff)

[papau]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-et-lakoff5jan05,1,7883977.story?coll=la-politics-pointers
The framing of political debate
Linguistics professor George Lakoff urges Democrats to pay closer attention to language.
By Mark Z. Barabak Times Staff Writer

January 5, 2005

BERKELEY — <snip>Dean is speaking of George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, whose slender treatise on language, brain structure and politics has become a surprise bestseller, making "framing" the season's hot fashion and yielding a growing legion of followers — as well as critics. (Last month, he addressed House Democrats in Washington at the invitation of their leader, San Francisco's Nancy Pelosi.) Put simply, Lakoff says conservatives have been winning elections — along with hearts and minds — through the strategic use of language over the last 30 years, to a point where central tenets of the Republican philosophy are not just common wisdom for millions of voters but, more, are a hard-wired part of their brains.

"People think in frames," Lakoff writes in the opening chapter of his new book, which credits a national network of conservative think tanks and sympathetic media outlets with abetting the GOP's neural conquest. "To be accepted, the truth must fit people's frames. If the facts do not fit a frame, the frame stays and the facts bounce off." The title of the book, "Don't Think of an Elephant!," reflects Lakoff's central thesis; naturally, when you read the words, you think of an elephant. His point is that by evoking certain images, or frames, Republicans have forced Democrats to fight elections on the GOP's terms. Two examples: the debate over "tax relief," which frames taxes as an affliction and Democrats as the defenders of an onerous burden. And the "war on terror," which conflates the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks with the fighting in Iraq.

"Democrats have to learn how to stop making mistakes," Lakoff says over a turkey-and-avocado sandwich at, fittingly, Berkeley's Free Speech Café. A liberal (though "progressive" is his preferred frame), Lakoff is a large man with a small voice, which can make him hard to hear over the classroom hum of fluorescent lights and students rustling in their seats.

The first step for Democrats, he goes on, "is not using the other side's terms, or answering the questions posed by the other side. As soon as they set the topic … you're dead." <snip>


"Reframing is changing the way the public sees the world," Lakoff writes in his introduction. "It is changing what counts as common sense. Because language activates frames, new language is required for new frames. Thinking differently requires speaking differently."

For example, he suggests Democrats talk about taxes as "dues" or "the membership fee" that citizens pay for the privilege of living in America. When Republicans assail money-grubbing trial lawyers, Democrats should counter by pointing out the efforts of "public-protection attorneys" striving to establish "poison-free communities." The fight over "gay marriage" should be recast with Democrats asking voters, "Do you want the government telling you who you can marry?"<snip>

[NYCGirl]

1. DFA Members: Tonight's meetup is about Lakoff and framing!

Please attend your local meetup tonight — it's going to be a barnburner!

[AngryAmish]

21. Saw some of the video last night

But the game was on so I missed much of it.

[x_y_no]

2. Taxes vs. dues or fees

I don't think calling taxes "dues" or "membership fees" is going to fly at all.

Instead, we need to refuse to talk about federal income taxes in isolation - always insist on discussing the overall tax burden (federal, state and local). By talking about the income tax in isolation, Republicans are able to portray taxes as overwhelmingly a burden of the wealthy. But since just about every other tax we have is regressive, that's not the case at all.

[janx]

3. Media consumption only reenforces the RW vocabulary

and viewpoints. Media talking heads use the right wing lingo all the time, and since fewer and fewer people read anything that isn't geared to our popular culture, this vocabulary is reenforced all the time.

Our society has become so homogenous as a result; it's really sad.

I'm looking forward to the DFA Meetup tonight!

[Coastie for Truth]

4. Lakoff's books are a good read

Lakoff's two books, "Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives" and "Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think" are very good reads.

He divides all theories of "politics" and "government" and "religion" into a dichotomy of the "strict father-tough love" model and the "nurturant parent" model.

Lakoff fits the GOP, and the fundies into the "strict father-tough love" model, and Progressives into the "nurturant parent".

He also puts forth - in academic and intellectual terminology - the Air America arguments about framing the debate.

I think we Progressives may be learning the "framing the debate" lesson when it comes to "corporatizing Social Security"

[brainshrub]

5. To quote Newt Gingrich:

"Words mean things."

[madfloridian]

6. Lakoff to have conference calls next week.....posts at blog today.

http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/005745.html

Framing Progressive Ideas
George Lakoff is Professor of Linguistics at UC Berkeley and a fellow at The Rockridge Institute.

To those who are coming to the Meetups tonight, I want to thank you in advance. Our country needs you. It needs you because of your values — values that shaped our nation and values that are required now more than ever. Conservatives have framed our national discourse, subtlely and often surreptitiously, weaving their values and their ideas into the language of public debate. To take back our country, we will have to reframe public debate to reflect our values and our ideas. That is why we are meeting tonight. We have a great mission, and it will take a massive grassroots effort.

We will be continuing that effort on large-scale conference calls Monday, January 10th at 4:00 p.m. PST and Tuesday, January 11th at 4:00 p.s. PST. You can sign up for the conference calls at http://www.democracyforamerica.com/framing. Together with the other members of the Rockridge Institute. I look forward to your participation, your insights, your enthusiasm and, especially your loud, clear and unequivocal moral voice. Please join us.

—George

[Virginia Dem]

7. pointless

changing the language won't help if we keep letting the repugs set the topics.

We need to do ONE THING that we haven't done worth a shit for about ten years.....set the agenda.

We spend so much time responding to them that our message gets lost and that needs to stop.

We need to just ignore them and start putting legislation on the floor that makes sense and advertise the hell out of it.Get on Meet the Press and the today show...ANYWHERE we can get a microphone.Make damned sure the repugs can't ignore what we are proposing.

We need to start FORCING the hands of the repugs.Make them go on record voting no to good legislation.Then use their votes against them.

We have the agenda and the issues...we have just done a piss poor job of forcing the repugs to show their hands by voting on OUR issues.If we can bring our aggenda to the public better and force them to vote against it...we take back our government.

[NYCGirl]

8. Well and good, but if we don't frame it properly, it'll never work.

And we'll never get on Meet the Press, etc.

[Virginia Dem]

10. true but

it starts becoming circular logic :)

We need to do BOTH I guess.Set the agenda AND frame it properly.

Point conceded

[papau]

9. Which why I would like Dean as DNC Chair!

:-)

[madfloridian]

11. That is exactly the message Howard Dean puts forth.

WE set the agenda, and we talk about it in our words, not theirs.

[DaedelusNemo]

33. changing frame part of changing agenda... and vice-versa /nt

[forgethell]

12. The problem that I have

with this whole frames debate is that, as I understand it, changing the way we refer to certain facts changes the facts. Take this tax "frame". If someone thinks taxes are oppresive, it might be because a) they ARE oppressive, or b) they are being spent for things he disapproves of, or disagress with, or foolishly, in his opinion. For the right wing, this might mean welfare, foreign aid, affirmative action, the UN. For the left wing it might mean the military, or government contracts to certain corporations.

Calling it "dues", or "membership fees" jsut invites the (very) reasonable response: "I don't want to be a member of that club". Calling a knock in the head with a baseball bat a "love pat" still doesn't may it so.

People resist high taxes because 1) they are high, 2) they are compulsory. Calling them dues, contributions, fees, does not fool anyone.

Better to find out what people ARE willing to be taxed for, and tax them to that extent only. This idea is very 1984ish.

State your agenda and policies honestly, state what it will cost honestly, let the people decide.

[madfloridian]

13. First you have to take back the language.

Don't let them use the term "tax relief" anymore. Don't allow them to take words like liberal and make them dirty words.

If they are allowed to keep using the same terms, nothing will change. It will take time.

[forgethell]

14. Words mean what they mean.

We should use them properly, which this, IMO, is not. If taxes are lowered, that's "tax relief". On the other hand, we can properly state that if federal taxes are lowered, state taxes might have to go up, or else services will have to be cut. That's honesst, and non-hypocritical.

[madfloridian]

16. No, only "relief" for the big guys.

And Dean did say that all through the campaign, and if you cut taxes everything else goes up...but only for the middle class.

Trust me, the words they used against us since Gingrich are so ingrained that it will take retraining.

[forgethell]

18. Then that can be

brought up too.

As I said, this is a very 1984ish idea. I think the reason Deomcrats lose elections is that they won't clearly and concisely state their case. They back away from their programs and the costs because they think the public won't buy it. They may well be right, but the "sheeple" are pretty adept at determining when someone is not speaking plainly. After all, that's all they can understand, isn't it?? No one likes it when he figures he's being manipulated.

I'll say it again. We Democrats should clearly state our agenda and its associated costs, run on our records, and let the chips fall where they may. I think we can win that way.

[madfloridian]

19. We can not state our agenda if we can not overcome their abuse of words.

We just don't have a choice. Of course, we can't go to extremes,we should not do that on anything.

We can not present our agenda in the present climate of words of hate.

[DaedelusNemo]

34. It is 1984ish - and it's been done to you since 70's

If the democrats don't understand this weapon and counter it, it will continue to cripple them.

It's not that hard to speak a plain lie, as we've seen.

I agree with you that taxes should be reframed as the necessary cost for what you get. Do what it takes to let people believe that the cost isn't inflated or the use of it unworthy. No one wants to spend more than they have to and no one wants to be cheated.

[rman]

22. "tax relief" is an excellent example of repub framing;

The fact that you claim it just "mean what it means" is testimony.

"tax relief" is a term introduced by repubs, along with the story that taxes are a burden and therefor should be lowered.

The very word "relief" implies that whatever it is that should be relieved, is a burden.
This term and the accompanying story completely exclude the 'liberal' point of view; that taxes are like an investment in the nation and that the vast majority of people benefit from it. These arguments don't even begin to be mentioned in debates on the issue in the so called liberal media. Consequently these thoughts are for the most part no longer part of the 'public mind' - that's what framing can do.

[forgethell]

29. That is their position.

they have to be able to state it some way. We can also state our position. we could call it "tax investment". Let's see if it sells. And this position has been stated in the media.

[Larkspur]

28. Republican "tax relief" is a lie. It is actually increaseing the tax

burden of the majority of tax paying citizens.

Lowering federal income taxes did not lower most voters overall tax burden. It helped increase taxes at the state and local level because the Feds cut the amount of aide to states and local communities so that the wealthy few could buy yachts and mansions.

Lakoff preferred calling taxes an "investment." Taxes help pay for the roads we drive on, the schools that educate those with kids, the Internet, fund medical research that leads to cures for disease or disabilities, etc. Yes there is waste, which must be fought, but the Republicans lowered the tax bills of the wealthy, who could afford it, and put the burden on Middle America.

When it comes to spending the tax money, Democrats have proven that they are fiscally responsible, while the Republicans have driven this nation into fiscal chaos.

[forgethell]

30. So we can't lower

one tax without lowering them all at the same time??

[DaedelusNemo]

35. Benefit a few at the expense of the rest?

If you're not cutting spending, then lowering taxes on one group is raising it on others.

Certainly, if you are going to do that, you need to be relieving the most crushing tax burdens - and that's not on the top 1%.

[bloom]

17. words

Like in the Frontline show that showed how effectively the Republicans frame things - I think the dems need to have focus groups and all and get feedback about what works and how people react to certain words.

You can't just have a couple guys in a room saying "this sounds good - it sounds to us anyway - so we'll base our whole strategy on it".

I don't want to see the Democrats doing the 1984 thing like where the Republicans call a polluting bill a clear skies bill. But I do think there could be more deliberate figuring out of how people react to certain words. And if the Democrats are going to be competitive - I think they will need to be more focused and clear and better about getting the message out than they have been.

They could also do a better job of exposing the liars for what they are.

[rman]

23. not just words

"reframing" - as in debating on our own terms instead of those of the repubs - is redefining words; just mentioning the word without the definition has very little effect.

Only when the definition has been been ingrained in the public mind is it no longer necessary to mention the definition. Repubs are at that point already, because they started it some 30-odd years ago and have billions of dollars and a well oiled machine behind it.

[bloom]

24. more words

I don't think the object is so much to redefine everything as it is to explain things in a positive light and perhaps to keep the Republicans from redefining everything that is good to sound like it is bad. (And where necessary come up with new words).

Howard Finn talks about the word Welfare. The Republicans got the word to sound negative. So people are asked if they want are for the gov't helping the poor and most of them are. People are asked if they are for Welfare and most of them are not. So now it is AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependant Children). I suppose it is harder to spin that in a negative way.

The Republicans don't just define words - they misdefine them. They use words that mean one thing and use it for something else. They take our words - that are perfectly fine words and redefine them for their own benefit. The trick is figuring how to beat them at their game without being deceitful like they are.

[NYCGirl]

25. Calling welfare AFDC will just make people's eyes glaze over...

but if we call it something like "Childhelp", no one could possibly object to it. And it still means the same thing, no misdefinition.

[bloom]

26. Yes

and what I was trying to suggest is having a focus group - get a bunch of people's responses to things like that. If there is something better to call it - fine. It might take a lot of trial and error to get the best words.

"Childhelp" doesn't really appeal to me as descriptive word - but it might inspire someone else to come up with something better.

There would need to be two different goups - one a brainstorming group - to come up with a lot of ideas. Another that is a testing group. Not the same people whose ideas are invested - but a cross-section of the population to see how people react to the words.

[NYCGirl]

27. Well, that was just off the top of my head...

:-)

But a focus group is a good thing — and it's not just because I work in advertising I say that.

[DaedelusNemo]

36. It's about changing the context in which the words are understood

and the connotations that are associated with them, and bringing those connotations over. "Death tax" is a perfect example. First, it brings in the connotation of death, which hangs over the whole conversation and makes people anxious, and it associates that with inheritance tax, which previously people were for. THen they started calling it estate tax, and people weren't quite sure what it was. Now death tax - everybody knows what that means. But the context in which they think about the concept behind it is utterly different between inheritance tax and death tax. One is unearned wealth, the other is vultures.

[jswordy]

15. Cool and this is just the kind of...

....Marketing 101 stuff we are so behind on. To PR types, this is basic, basic stuff. Yet our party is clueless.

[DaveinMD]

20. Lakoff

is dead on. As a consultant, I know that the key is to get the campaign to be run on your terms. When you do that, you will win. Too bad the big consultants the party uses haven't figured this out yet.

[crispini]

31. The DU Non-Fiction Book Club

is reading "Elephant" for January! C'mon by!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=209&topic_id=806&mesg_id=806

[ieoeja]

32. For example, Social Security "Contribution" not Tax

Democrats should always refer to FICA as a "Social Security Contribution" in the same vein as the 5% withheld from my pay check each period for 401(k) is a 401(k) Contribution.

[VioletLake]

37. The art of persuasion has been around for ages.

I like his way of "framing" it. ;)

[eg101]

38. yeah! Let's just hide behind marketspeak and forget issues!

Let's forget about actually coming up with a plan to get universal healthcare and more time off like all the European nations have! Let's just dazzle and baffle 'em with marketspeak!

Actually, what needs to happen has nothing to do with politicians or political parties. We need to create and disseminate a leftist mythology of economics, just like the corporations and rich investors have done that over the last 90 years using the mass media.

And the GOP leverages that rightwing economic mythology. And they win, because they actually have their own little economic mythology. Hey, at least they have one. We don't!

Now the Left needs to do the same for a leftwing economic mythology. What "leftwing economic mythology," you ask? It's staring you right in the face: year after year, the highest quality of life surveys spotlight te countries of NW Europe. Walk into the light, my child....

Aw, forget all that. Just go on supporting all these crappy egotistic politicians and volunteering on campaigns and attending demonstrations. I'm sure that'll work out just fine.....

[DaedelusNemo]

39. Clearly you have to do both - good ideas and present them well /nt