Lakoff's concept of framing, and Dean's "white Christian party" remark.

[LoZoccolo]

I'm curious; I've read some of Lakoff's stuff about how Republicans frame the debate, creating both their side and instantly defining the opposition, and I've been thinking about how it relates to Dean's comment. Personally, I think he walked into one of their frames that they've worked hard to establish to gain an advantage, and that allowing them to fight according to a strategy they picked like that is always an unwise move - they picked it because they projected it as a winner.

And please don't write off Lakoff just because you think two men enter and one man leaves, and the man should be Dean. Dean wrote the forward to Lakoff's book.

So do you think Dean reinforced a Republican frame?

[LoZoccolo]

1. To the people who voted for choice #2...

...so you honestly feel that the Republicans have not tried to establish themselves as a "white Christian party"? Are you saying that Dean was wrong, or that the Republicans have arrived at having that image through no effort of their own?

[valis]

2. No. I don't feel so. They are desperately trying to hide that fact.

They have to when they try to get minorities votes... Having this said so explicitely makes it harder to hide.

[Teaser]

5. They can't win as "white christians" alone

Else why the desperate recruitment of Latinos and blacks?

[LoZoccolo]

6. I think they're getting ready for that through the "Christian" part of it.

They seemed to emphasize this segment of the vote that voted based on "moral values", even though it was a waning segment (40% in 1996, 35% in 2000, 22% in 2004). I think consistent with this framing is the expectation that we'll backlash a certain way, and they were holding this up so that we would backlash and appear as if we don't accept certain people of faith in our party. At the same time, they are doing these communities favors through social programs delivered through the faith-based initiative. I think that that provides something of a confirmation that they are specifically seeking to wrest the votes of religious minorities from us.

They are very, very good at their game, and I think they count on the dynamic we largely haven't been able to get past, and that's that they act, we react the opposite way. All they have to do to in that situation is frame the debate, and then they can count on us to play the role they've picked for us in it.

[Teaser]

11. We'll just have to win then.

We can mistake our enemy two ways: to underestimate them and to overestimate them. We used to do the former. I fear some here may do the latter.

[endarkenment]

3. I do not think that they want the theocracy to be overt...

at least not just yet. They still need a few more votes in the senate and a additional supreme court vote to have one party rule, so they would prefer to keep the theocracy thing on the down low for now. The permanent republican majority requires the latino vote and the suburban secular soccer mom vote. While 80+% of americans think religion is important, over 60+% don't think that government ought to be influenced by religious leaders. Dean is right to get this out in the open, it is a wedge issue against their voters not ours.

[paineinthearse]

4. Please frame your replies in terms of Lakoff's "framing" theory.

This is NOT a "did Dean do right" poll.

[valis]

9. Why? Lakoff "framing" theory is basically handwaving BS anyway...

[LoZoccolo]

13. So do you disagree with Dean's endorsement of it?

He labeled Lakoff as "one of the most influential political thinkers of the progressive movement", after all. I personally think Dean probably believes in a lot of it, as I do, but that he just fucked up and slipped this time. I'm not posting this to get rid of Dean's influence; just that I don't think it's good for us to try to wax over mistakes so we can make them again. If we cannot assess ourselves, we are most likely doomed to hit a wall.

Also, it was derived from his observations about Republican strategy. You're saying they haven't been effective with it?

[quiet.american]

7. Disagree

Given the scurrying being done by the WCP (White Christian Party), I think Dean's strategy is having the effect of turning on the light in a dark room and watching all the cockroaches scurry for cover.

One thing the extremist Republicans are allergic to, is having what they are and what they're doing named for exactly what it is. Therefore, Dean's framing of them as the White Christian Party is exactly the opposite of what they would term themselves vis a vis, "the party of inclusion."

No, I don't think Dean is walking into their frame -- I do think Dean is playing big stakes and taking a huge gamble that will either pay off handsomely, or get him beaten with a sack of oranges by his own party.

[Spectral]

8. Real Christians hate "pre-emptive war"

So it should be the White "Christian" Party, or as some people are putting it "the Christian Taliban". These people are not real Christians.

[CWebster]

10. No, I think Dean reframed it psychologically

and I hope he keeps calling them out despite the prissy, behavior of the party insiders who balk when Dean yanks their chain.

Better Dean rock the status quo then adopt the failing DLC strategy - even if those party hacks have grown fat and and useless without disrupting the boat.

[LoZoccolo]

12. I don't think "daring" always equals "effective".

LaRouche is more daring than Dean. His base is even more loyal than Dean's. Why isn't he the party chairman?

I'm not catching how it's been reframed, either.

[CWebster]

14. Depends on how you want to define "daring"

Seems like the centrist strategy of being agreeable lapdogs to these extremist Neo-con Radicals isn't getting us anywhere. How much more do they have to lose? They keep fretting that if we move away from the rightward drifting center, we will lose--but we already lost everything. Makes you wonder what they want more, the Dems to win or the Dems to lose just so they don't lose.

In any event, daring to them would be saying it like it is or showing any spirited opposition.

I'll say this for Dean--when he attacks, at least he doesn't have to lie about it. If people don't like it, tough, the truth hurts sometimes.

[LoZoccolo]

17. We didn't pursue that strategy, though.

Lieberman lost the primary, remember? He was the DLC's guy, and the one most agreeable to Bush*. Kerry was very differentiated from Bush*. You can get mp3s of the presidential debates for free at Audible.com if you'd like to review them.

Plus, Kerry had a ridiculously large segment when you consider that Bush* is a wartime president demagoguing on the issue of terror. There is no evidence that Dean would have done better (I called for this, and around a hundred people thought so and could give no evidence), and the last polls before the Iowa caucus had Kerry winning vs. Bush*, and Dean losing.

The loss of the House of Representatives in 1994 had a lot more to do with the shifting of alliances of southern Democrats, the assault weapons ban, gays in the military, and the perception that Clinton's health care plan would lead to lower-quality care than anything else; this has been posted numerous times. It came after Clinton pursued the most liberal initiatives of his tenure.

Then if you look at the presidential elections, you'll find that Gore, after eight years of a DLC president, gained a bigger percentage of the vote than any Democrat since 1976.

[CWebster]

18. Maybe it is time for them to make a stand

and present their case.

Kerry was a horrendous candidate--the Republicans couldn't ask for a more pathetic opponent. Cold, awkward, elitist, vain, phony. He ran on his soldier hero act during a time of a criminal Invasion of another country based on trumped up lies--which in another time he might've protested. Instead he tried to distance himself from his past finest hour as if it was a shameful event in his life, and pump himself up as war hero. It was a disgrace and not only that, they tore him up on that act anyway. Kerry did not rally the base around him--it was ABB all the way--and that was barely enough the richest man in the Senate to live out his JFK fantasy.

[LoZoccolo]

19. That's odd...

...I saw in his bio film that was shown to the Democratic National Convention that he protested the Viet Nam war, and mentioned it during the debates. Are you sure you didn't watch the convention on Fox News?

The Republicans did not rally their base, but in secret, during the 2004 Republican National Convention. They gave us a bunch of moderates, and a Democrat, to put out their message, and scarcely mentioned the wedge issues, instead focusing on terror. What is the whole purpose of stroking your base, anyways, if it means you're going to lose? I am not into politics for self-gratification; it's too important and affects too many other people.

[Tux]

15. DU as a think tank

Lakoff is right about conservatives using think tanks to frame their views and get it to the media and politicians. DU can do the same thing but free. We just need Dean and others to check us out. A forum called "DU Center for Democracy" would be a place where the think tank can exist, Dems can visit it, and we can help frame the debates and views to counter the neocons.

For example, on stem cell research, neocons claim it's a culture of life to protect the cells from research that could find cures. We can alter that to the loss of non-sentient life to save millions of people with the phrase "miraculous healing research". If they bitch about abortion, it's not pro-life vs pro-choice, it's pro-woman vs anti-woman.

The faster we can organize and have DNC be aware of it, the better. We have more than enough of educated, intelligent people to do this. If religion comes up, we can deal with the too. We have moderates, liberals, and greens. Christians, Muslims, UUs, Jews, et al. We can do this. We can get America right by turning America the future of life and wealth.

[Larkspur]

16. I voted for #2. The Repukes are trying to hide their WASP face

unless they are pandering to white Southern males, then the Repukes want to be the WASP Party, but the Repukes want to drive the Dems into extinction, so they are trying to erode Dem support among minorities.

Blacks used to vote heavily Republican until the Great Depression and FDR changed that trend. The Repukes are hoping to seduce blacks to vote for Repukes via Christianity and government subsidies for "Faith based" programs.

Because Latinos are mostly poor or working class, they tended to support Democrats who favored a government supported "Saftey net." Repukes are also trying to seduce them via conservative Christianity.

The only framing error Dean made was using Christianity in the description. He should have used White, Male, Pharisiac Party to describe the Repuke Party.

[ozone_man]

20. Sure he framed it correctly

It's the truth and Republicans don't like to portrayed as they really are, a selfish, elitist party of WASPs that are heading this country toward a Theocracy against the intent of our founders. It may not have been a perfect framing, but it's pretty good in my opinion.

Republicans are "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."

"The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people," Dean said Monday, responding to a question about diversity during a forum with minority leaders and journalists. "We're more welcoming to different folks, because that's the type of people we are. But that's not enough. We do have to deliver on things: jobs and housing and business opportunities."

Just like Dorothy clicking her heels, all we really had to do to bring this bunch of crooks down was to expose them for who they are, something the DLC never had the spine to do. Now how about that Downing Street memo, where did Kerry go on that? At least Ted Kennedy has some guts. Just keep at it like a bunch of pit bulls and eventually it will all come down.

[samos1016]

21. I think Dean threw

them (Repubs) a curve ball. How are they going to react to this statement. They cannot discredit it b/c statistically they are the party of White Christians.
Recommend Chris Bowers' Blog on Daily Kos. www.dailykos.com

[XemaSab]

22. They used to try to define themselves

as a white party, now they try to identify themselves as a christian party.

We've been the big tent party for quite a while.