Talk to Our Guts
I should start by admitting and emphasizing that I’m not a political insider. While I live in a state capital (Columbus, Ohio), my state is relatively weak in terms of policy innovation or political debates. I have no idea what Democrats are planning. I don’t live in DC (yet), I’m only 27 years-old, and I have memories that only take me as far back as George H.W. Bush. Actually, I remember voting for Reagan in a class election back in 1984. Only two kids voted for Mondale, so being a strict conformist (I lived in Iowa for God’s sake) I raised my ignorant, but determined, 7 year-old hand in support of the incumbent. I regret it to this day. How my life would have been different if I hadn’t started out behind as a Republican. Those extra years could have made a difference.
Anyway, it seems to me that Democrats (e.g. me) have a problem. This problem seems obvious enough to most people. Republicans own the debate. Republicans are organized, Democrats are not. Republicans had a revolution in the 1990s and took advantage of the momentum that followed, while Democrats had a sex scandal in the 1990s, along with a schism between New Democrats (moderate), old-school Democrats (liberals), and Nadar Democrats (ultra-liberals and independents). Surely this is a simplified view of history, but it’s my view and it serves me just fine.
How do we get back in the game?
I was sitting in Starbucks—regrettably, by the way, since I think Starbucks is generally evil and serves mediocre coffee, except for the divine non-fat, no whip, French vanilla latte— reading a book for my public budgeting class. One passage struck me harder than my second espresso machiatto doppio:
The actual beneficiaries (of a program) may not be organized or may have little political power, such as the unemployed or the homeless. Their plight must catch the public imagination, and the public must define their situation as worthy of collective aid.
This is where Democrats have failed. A dramatic rise in standard of living, an anti-climatic Presidency, fierce opposition, and skewed power distribution to certain special interests (without the interests of said beneficiaries in mind) have crippled the voice of Democrats.
The new Democrat Manifesto that is being debated in selection for a new DNC chair and among Democrats throughout the states, as I see it, should include these elements or variations:
1. Democrats must recapture the imagination and collective sympathy that America has historically shown in the past and that Republicans have twisted to meet the needs of their misdirected and incompetent policies. It’s needed now as much as any other time. Democrats must re-define the problems. In fact, they must REMIND us of the problems we face—many, like poverty, health care and education disparities, have comprehensively been forgotten, or at least ignored, by Republicans. Democrats must not depend on arguing in terms of policies or programs as they’ve done until now. Instead, they must remind us of the most basic, fundamental public values shared across socioeconomic and geographic barriers. They must, instead, speak to our collective gut about what is humane, compassionate, and logical.
Their plight must catch the public imagination, and the public must define their situation as worthy of collective aid.
Democrats must organize and find a common language, using common phrases that will permeate all parts of the country. These phrases should reflect these core public values that are worthy of collective aid. They should be so obvious—so unequivocally logical—that they challenge people to disagree. They should be phrases like, “you are entitled to higher education.” They should be basic, simple phrases that dare us all, Republican or Democrat, to argue its opposites. They shouldn’t depend on ripping Bush’s policies; they should, instead, appeal to the basic compassions and sentiments of Americans, which I believe are rooted in a sense of community, responsibility, mercy, kindness, and charity. They should speak to our hearts about what we are able to do for people and what we must do for people, not what we are willing to do for people and under what circumstances, as Republican premises support. Democrats should shamelessly act to convince people that access to good education is a right; that there is social responsibility in the pervasiveness of poverty because we are not individuals living in a vacuum. Democrats must speak in unison. They must speak in a language that reflects values that unite everyone on our side of the aisle. They must recapture words like accountability, family values, freedom, and compassion. These are words that speak to basic American values which have long been reflected in Democrat ideology and, at least at times, in Democrat policies. On the other side of the aisle, at best, these words reflect a façade found in empty Republican rhetoric.
2. Democrats need a catalyst for unification to accomplish the points above. They need leadership and willingness to find common values. Whether a new plan is facilitated through campaigning bodies, like the DNC, or through some broader, information driven body, like a Democrat equivalent to FOX News, the Democrats need to find a common home—a clubhouse where a message is created, agreed upon, and disseminated throughout the party. I nominate Karl Rove. Wait…he’s Republican. I nominate…I have no idea. That’s the problem.
3. With a loud, unified voice, Democrats must convince us that Republican ideology fundamentally has not supported, promoted or in any way demonstrated success in achieving these common, core values. The evidence is out there and it’s an easy point to argue. The difficulty is getting the message to penetrate the bullshit that radiates from the screeching megaphones of the Republican Party (point 1 above is a good start).
4. Democrats need a fresh start in terms of policy. They must tie new policy ideas to these values. If they’ve been successful in creating a new sense of entitlement, established new rights for individuals, and defined a government role that cuts down to Americans’ basic elements, then policies, and their advocates, will find new, enthusiastic support.
As I'm writing this, my thoughts sound strangely familiar. Republicans accomplished this and more. The difference, though, is that Democrats can actually speak to core ideas of compassion and community because we genuinely care to acheive it. In fact, Democrats have something important that Republicans do not: DEMOCRATS. We have the original compassionate citizens of this country. No doubt there are compassionate conservatives out there, but the current Republican Party speaks to a false representation of compassion, hoping that in route to their real goals (i.e. keeping the status quo), enough happiness trickles down to the masses to keep us satisfied and confused. I strongly believe that people are unconvinced that tax cuts and deficits will solve our nations problems; that poverty, which under Republican rule has been vaguely defined and rarely addressed, will be adequately confronted; that terrorists are everywhere and we're all in danger all the time and that's the reason we've got problems. I strongly believe that people are unconvinced that economic hardship is solely the fault of the individual. At best, many are skeptical.
I know. I'm ranting. This post is hopelessly dreamy, broad, generic and maybe a bit naïve, but Democrats have to start somewhere and I'm a just a Democrat trying to figure out where that is. Variations of these points, as far as I can tell, have been implemented before; none of this is in any way original. I certainly haven’t addressed all the relevant points, nor have I given fair treatment to certain elements. But my point is that Democrats need to start over. Republicans managed to redefine values for the common American, values that have never served to help the common American. We know this and have our evidence. Let’s get it out there with basic, consistent, relentless language. Let’s remind ourselves what we really care about and say that it’s OK to help poor people; that you should be able to go to college without worrying about how to afford it; that you should have the best health care in the world whether you’re unemployed, employed or work for Wal-Mart. Let’s challenge people out loud, with confidence and with candor, to disagree with us.
posted by The Decider @ 7:05 PM
22 Comments:
Anyway, it seems to me that Democrats (e.g. me) have a problem. This problem seems obvious enough to most people.Indeed. Allow me to suggest that the first problem might by your divine non-fat, no whip, French vanilla latte.Try the coffee, or perhaps the Cafe Americano, if that does not offend your sensibilities. I take a dollop of half & half, no sugar. You don't have to...this is America.
How do we get back in the game?Lately, many Republican commentators have been talking about the Democratic party as if it were an ill-behaved puppy, "Maybe we should get him fixed...at least he would stop peeing on the furniture." They are cheering each self-destructive act. Dean for Chairman is playing well on Talk Radio.
My view is different. I think the country is stronger if we have two robust parties competing to put forth the best ideas and the most compelling agenda. To that end, my suggestions to stop the Democrat's down spiral:
1. Stand for something good. Realize that if you need to subject the audience to long, wonkish policy arguments to convice them that the idea is good, it probably isn't. Good ideas resonate with intelligent people.
2. Put aside the anger. Democrats have lost ground, like clockwork, every two years since 1994. They lost because the voters decided they did not deserve to win. Democrats will win when they deserve to win. They will deserve to win when they stand for something good.
3. Put aside the arrogance. The Democrat's election post-mortem was almost comical. The problem was not that Kerry failed to articulate the position. The problem was that he seldom had one, and when he did, it offended more people than it pleased. This is not a case finding a simple presentation of a good, but complex, set of ideas. Simplifying a bad idea does not make it a good idea.
4. Face the facts. The political climate has changed in this country.
The center has moved right. Fox News is closer to the center of American politics than CBS News.
We are focussed outward more than inward. Beating the drum of domestic problems during wartime is seen by many as undermining the war effort. Those who do remember the 1960's and the economy of the early 1970's believe they know the economic outcome of "guns & butter."
The public is too busy for long, gaseous political discourse. Read a few blogs. The leftish ones are often wordy. The right-wing blogs are generally concise.
And then, in the midst of Fantastiko, a flash of brilliance: They must, instead, speak to our collective gut about what is humane, compassionate, and logical.Bullseye.
-Chris
Chris:
To be fair, I should tell you that I was tweaking my post when you posted your comment (you posted sooner than I had expected), so I think your comment went up before you had a chance to read the paragraph following the fourth point.
It may not be important, but I thought I'd let you know in case it prompts you to add anything else.
Thanks for your post.
Nan
Bethany,
Thanks for your comment. I have to say, I'm uneasy with the Dean's bottom-up strategy--not that I don't like the idea. The fact is, many voted for Kerry because Kerry wasn't Bush--and a lot of us REALLY dislike Bush. If Republicans put up a candidate that is less polarizing (e.g. John McCain), we're in trouble.
That said, I want to be sure I'm clear about my leadership statement. It should not involve the exclusion of state- or local-level input. But I really think we need to take a page out of the Republican playbook. I tink we need uniformity. Democrats and liberals historically have been fragmented. The unprecedented support for Kerry was largely defined by an opposition to Bush.
In the end, I think we agree. That is, Democrats must to SOMETHING. There's a natural feeling for liberals to question people, and so asking for unity can be difficult. We do need a national identity. You and I can help our party by being original, creative and motivated. You and I can certainly do our part to talk to people and try to affect them at the core. But we need a national force to help get our message out.
I can’t imagine that you are entirely serious, Chris, when you say that Democrats need to “stand for something good”. “Put aside the anger,” yes, abslutely—it’s the only truly productive way to move on; “Put aside the arrogance,” okay, I’m not sure what you’re referring to here but I agree that doing so is key for anyone or any group to be effective (although Republicans seems to be fueled by it and are getting along just fine—your post is a case in point); but “stand for something good”?? I hope you’ll elaborate on what you meant there because the glaring implication behind that statement (most clearly developed in your point #2) is that Republicans stand for good things that are best verbalized with short sentences and therefore deserve their win, is illogical given the relativity of “good” and who is using the word. That is, I could throw your Point #1 right back at you and your team.
Are things really that black and white? Can we really dare pretend that this country’s two practicing representative political parties can even begin to adequately embody the myriad idealogies that populate this country? No, of course not. So to advise that our already simplistic system be made even simpler by using fewer words on our blogs—by not falsely representing complex issues and relationships with simplified and reduced terms and theories—is asking for a view of US policy and government action in black and white. If we’re only talking about winning elections, then yes, we need only concern ourselves with talking in sentences long enough that people have time for. But if what we want is a party that represents—a party that understands world and domestic realities for what they are and doesn’t try interpret them in one small way so that they can be squeezed into a ballot box—then we should walk away from the Republican model for success.
Democrats do stand for good things. If their message is unclear, maybe it’s because they are many different people trying to represent many different people, which is fine—it’s what’s right. Their goal should not be simplification because that’s the only way Americans will understand, but continued exposure and explanation of their various ideals and policies—“various” being the operative word--because that’s what Americans deserve.
After reading these comments, I want to be sure that I distinguish between giving concise messages and oversimplifying arguments. I don’t mean to suggest that Democrats should EVER oversimplify policy argument or consideration of solutions. I mean to say that they should clearly state the premises—redefine the premises in line with Democratic ideologies using common language. The rest that follows will inevitably be, and should be, complex. Diversity in opinion, as JB suggests, should be valued and debated. Wordiness is not the issue. Despite what pundits say, people appreciate clarity, a virtue that can exist in wordy dialogue. Clarity and logic are independent of wordiness.
But we do have common, core beliefs that can appeal to a broad audience. We need to clearly state the premise, and then make our arguments. Republicans have done this masterfully. We need to remind people what our basic notions are and set the context—and we need to remind them a lot and often.
These notions should be clearly stated up front to reset the playing field; to redefine the context of policy debates, e.g. health care is a right for each individual (Kerry tried this; we need to do it better).
Nan
A small point - I'm terrible at reading minds, but the way I read Chris' comment about "good" ideas, is that most often, the ideas that work the best - truly effective ideas - transcend party politics and speak to basic principles of what it means to be an American. It's not that the Dems' ideas are BAD. Anything but that. Instead, its in the way that they present them to the public.
In some ways, Democrats are victims of their own success. Their "big-tent" philosophy (which I whole-heartedly support) has hog-tied them into presenting many of their programs and policies in only the political sense, in a way that satisfies their disparate constituencies. Therefore, don't focus on the politics of your policies, focus on the overarching good that it does for America and the American people. Speak to our principles.
Alex,
Good point. I love it when we agree. I think we agree, don't we?
Alex: "...focus on the overarching good that it does for America and the American people. Speak to our principles."
Nan: "Democrats must not depend on arguing in terms of policies or programs as they’ve done until now. Instead, they must remind us of the most basic, fundamental public values shared across socioeconomic and geographic barriers."
You're absolutely right. While the debate shouldn't end there, this is where Democrats need to start. I guess the next question is this: what ARE our principles?
While I'm trying to be partisan for the sake of politics, I also agree with Chris that it would be great if both parties accomplished this. This way the context of our debate is the same; we're all speaking the same language. This way we can level the playing field and move on to argue about policy solutions grounded in social sciences, economics, etc., and people will be listening to both parties--not just one party because they found phrases and language that connects with them and the other party hasn't.
- Nan
By the way, Chris, no disrespect. There was no personal insult meant in my above post (which, upon rereading, I see how it can be taken that way)--the purpose of the statement was only to call attention to the irony in your message (as it was interpreted, not necessarily intended).
I hope this clarification is useless:)
Nan,
Everything you are talking about here echoes the ideas of an emerging liberal foil to my boss, Mr. Frank Luntz. His name is George Lakoff, and for an early, early, early birthday present (or perhaps a President's Day present) I am going to get you a copy of his book and DVD, titled, "Don't Think of An Elephant." They are excellent, and if progressives start to listen to him, it will pay dividends.
You can find some background on him and his mission here, and at the site for his institute, The Rockridge Institute.
You both share a lot of the same ideas. Just don't start to hate my work that much...he gives us far too much credit, and likes to make a villain out of us (and here I am pointing you in his direction!). Enjoy, and good luck. I'll get you that book soon.
I love the smell of napalm in the morning! Unfortunately, I may have singed a few ass-hairs in the process. Sorry JB.
There is so much here to react to, let me focus on three.
1. Good ideas, expressed clearly. Core values are, by their nature, very simple. Here is an example:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” 35 words.
Or this:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” 52 words.
How many words in the Gettysburg Address or the Apostle’s Creed?
Nan: “Clarity and logic are independent of wordiness.” In my experience, that statement is wrong in every respect. Brevity adds force to good ideas by laying the logic bare. It think every senior member of the Democratic Party should be issued a copy of Strunk & White’s “Elements of Style.” Omit needless words.
Having just ranted about communication, I think it is the smaller part of the problem. I can’t figure out the core values of the Democratic Party. Perhaps they are communicating poorly. More likely, they are simply rudderless.
2. Two Parties. When politics are one-dimensional, two parties seem to work. When the Republicans drift too far right, the Democrats reach out and grab the center. When the Democrates drift too far left, the Republicans make the grab. When either party gets too enamored of the center, a third party candidate emerges temporarily to pull them back. (think Nader and Buchanon)
Of course, politics are not one-dimensional -- as the quiz we discussed here recently shows. But I don’t see an ideological basis for the emergence of a third party today.
3. The Catalyst. As I read section 2 of Nan’s original piece, I had the vision of Shrek riding the giant gingerbread man to storm the castle, to a rousing chorus of “I Need a Hero!” While the Charismatic Leader can be a unifying force and a great motivator, the party will be stronger if it is unified by common principals.
-Chris
Alex,
Wow! How did you find this? Your Internet ways astound me.
It's comforting to know that there are some progressives out there with similar views and that I'm also not that crazy. I can’t believe that they’re only now organizing these types of efforts. It’s both discouraging and encouraging at the same time. I suppose it’s better late than never.
He says something that I think is healthy for all Americans to hear. He says that conservatives have managed to frame the problems from only one perspective (theirs). It’s also comforting to see that there are conservatives (e.g. you) who know that there is some value in a level playing field so that people have a fair chance to evaluate policy solutions—which is, I’m guessing, part of the spirit for directing me to this resource (that and you like me, which is understandable since you a) have to—you are marrying my sister—and b) find me charming and irresistibly fascinating. You know you do.).
It’s a good thing to offer a chance for more people to hear new ideas. That’s not going to happen if only one party is getting a message through to people.
I look forward to the book. Let me thank you in advance. I hope I can return the favor soon.
- Nan
Chris,
Your point is understood. In politics, especially, I suppose clarity would be served well by conciseness. That said, this makes me uneasy. But I admit you have a good point.
Let me insist that Democrats cannot survive unless they succeed in BOTH areas. They must identify core principles AND communicate them clearly and consistently. It pains me to say this, but they must find a message and stay on message (like JB, I'd much rather open, endless, complicated debate, but the political environment will not allow it).
By the way, are we going to be related? I mean, I just realized that we could potentially be going at this for another 40 or 50 years. When everyone has left the land of Fantastiko for better pastures, you and I will still be arguing about "Elements of Style."
If this is true, I'm looking forward to the next few decades. Just remember I'm like half your age; be easy on me.
- Nan
Nan-
By the way, are we going to be related? Provided JB maintains her current delusional state and Alex does nothing to screw it up, yes.
Guille-
That's the thing about core values or principals -- they are not specific formulations that can direct our decisions. If they were, we could disband Congress and the courts. Instead, we need to create laws and policies that implement our values in current circumstances.
I think the best principals are the ones that are at least a little beyond our capacity implement. They give us a something to strive for.
I liked the recent Inaugural address. It was an elequent statement of what we stand for. To be clear, we have fallen short, and continue to fall well short of the ideals in the speech, especially the part about excusing the oppressors.
But more telling was the derisive commentary from the Democrats. Faced with a brash statement of vision from Bush, they offered no alternative vision. Instead, we get sniveling statements about how hard it would be to implement the vision.
I think that is pathetic. FDR, Harry Truman, and JFK knew what they stood for. I suspect Jimmy Carter did too. What is with the cast of clowns running the party today?
Will anyone tell me (in 500 words or less) what the Demorats stand for?
-Chris
Freedom and equality. There that's 3 words (not including this sentence).
It is brutal when you get what you ask for.
Cheers,
Chris
Leave it to me to complicate things even further with another long-winded comment…
Chris,
I think that many of us have a natural tendency to reject this notion that having, and communicating, a simple message is necessarily GOOD thing. While I agree with you that it is politically (and maybe sometimes practically) useful, it does little to assure ourselves that we’re giving the diversity in our party its due attention. Also, I think it is in the nature of some of us, though not all, to be constantly questioning our own ideas, making it even more difficult to consider static, core principles.
And to be clear, I hope that I didn’t suggest that Democrats should oversimplify their message just for the sake of compressing it or because shorter messages are necessarily better. My hope is that Democrats take those principles which we know or sense to be common among our diverse constituents and build a new context—a new premise—with which to debate.
The brave soul that offered freedom and equality has certainly captured two important, and common, Democratic principles. I certainly wouldn’t argue against this claim. As Guille suggested, limiting ourselves to vague terms (freedom and equality can mean many things, especially when you’re comparing my idea of these words and George Bush’s) does not necessarily clarify anything about the details of “what we stand for.” Intellectually and personally, those two words only begin to describe any principles. But, I seriously think that, unfortunately, the current political environment demands this kind of compression. That’s not a good thing. It’s something I’m willing to go along with only because I have to.
In summary, I’m suggesting the following plan of attack for developing and disseminating a Democratic message:
We must identify core principles that are common throughout the Party.
-We must communicate these core principles clearly and consistently throughout the Party to frame a context for policy debate (and, yes, this may mean being less wordy than we’re used to, but only because the current political environment demands it, not because wordy equals bad. Words may be unfavorable in some situations, but necessary in others).
-While we have core values (e.g. freedom and equality), we have other values that are less consistent in the Party, some of which conflict with each other, and we should always include them in our message and subsequent policy arguments.
-We must balance the trade-off between common, core principles and diverse, evolving ideas in order to maximize the effectiveness and merit of our message.
In fact, one of our core values IS diversity (included in equality, I think).
Nan
P.S. CBS more off from center than FOX News?
Nan-
I'm not suggesting simplistic explanations. These are complex issues that should not be brought down to the sixth grade reading level.
Freedom is a core principal to which all of us (I think) subscribe. But there is a point where liberty becomes license. Intelligent, ethical people can disagree over the boundaries between them.
Equality is principal to which all of us ascribe great value, but in different ways. Equality before the law, equal treatment, equality of opportunity, and equality of economic result are different things. Sometime they conflict. Liberals and Conservatives insist on equality before the law, but differ in how they rank the other three.
My concern is not complexity. I share your respect for diversity in opinion, perspective, and priority. Nuance is not bad unless it is used as an alternative to commitment. Then it becomes equivocation, and we begin to sound like the bloody French, which is very hard to stomach.
-Chris
I meant my comment facetiously of course. I wasn’t trying to be on the 6th grade level. Of course Republicans believe in “freedom” and “equality.” Oddly enough so do Democrats. Weird how that all works. Of course the levels and ratings we place on which comes first and over what and how it should be implemented is where we all get pissed off and argue. There is a lot of misunderstanding on both sides, but most times it is like we are fighting for the same thing but just have phrased it differently. Republicans. Democrats. Liberals. Neocons. There are differences. Sometimes I think we focus too much on the things that make us different and not enough on the things that bind us…you know 6th grade stuff like “freedom” and “equality.” Seriously, let’s continue to argue about which healthcare plan sucks less or which SS plan is less harmful. Then we can all compromise and continue hating each other. If we could ever just stick to the simple stuff and then talk from there maybe we would get somewhere, but instead we sit around and discuss policy. Policy never saved the world.
So, it seems that we all agree. Surely there are principles that, if offered in plain enough terms, can be shared between both parties and within parties by most if not all members.
The question then becomes how to refine these principles. As Chris rightly suggested, equality has many components. I agree with you completely. I think we can refine our principles BEFORE necessarily getting into policy applications. We can say something about equality in treatment, like between homosexuals and heterosexuals, without necessarily saying anything about policy (unfortunately, I've picked the most dangerous issue as an example). This can be refined and still remain at some core level.
Facetiously or not, MKD has demonstrated a good point. It's okay to start at the most basic levels, but for the purposes of politics, it requires further refinement while remaining at some core level for individuals. The problem is Republicans have been clear on the "simple stuff" and Democrats have not.
Inevitably, though, the discussion should and will turn to policy. Policy, whether intrusive or laissez faire, will affect people, even if it isn't you and even if it doesn't save the world. Republicans and Democrats disagree on problem solutions and those disagreements do affect people in serious ways. Those disagreements deserve our attention and should be taken seriously. They can cause people to go to war, lose or gain income, lose or gain health care, lose or gain civil rights…
The other problem, which I touched on in my original post and is equally important as what we’ve been discussing, is found in the transition between refined core principles in the Republican message and the formulation and application of their policies.
Case in point: freedom and Iraq. The President’s new policy—new since WMD were not found—is rooted in the American value of freedom. I’m not even going to touch the bait-and-switch that occurred here—going from pre-emptive self-defense to liberation for the sake of freedom and humanity. That’s a good topic for a new thread. Bush and the neo-cons are trying to claim political freedom as a Republican value. The idea of Armies of Compassion, a silly notion fabricated by Mr. Bush, serves as a new application of freedom (freedom being the new Republican core principle). The problem is that the Armies of Compassion are very selective with their liberation choices. In Bush’s inaugural speech and his State of the Union speech, he has very clearly and plainly sold this principle to the American public. Unfortunately, the application of this principle does not accurately reflect the principle itself. Surely his war in Iraq will provide freedom to many individuals, but the limits of his Army of Compassion’s reach—limited by less compelling factors like oil—should require a refinement in his message.
He shouldn’t say…
"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."
…because it’s not true. Democrats should do this better. They should lay out core principles that are applied in practice, not just used as generic, empty, manipulative rhetoric.
Admittedly, both parties are guilty of this (Clinton was masterful here, although somewhat more defensibly because he had to make many more political concessions to a hostile Congress), but Bush has made it habit while enjoying complete political power with little opposition—and that’s just wrong. Democrats have an opening to call him on it by refining the core principles for him—claim these newly refined principles as our own.
"Democrats have an opening to call him on it by refining the core principles for him—claim these newly refined principles as our own."
You may be tempted to ask how. I have no idea.
Alex,
I got the Lakoff book! Many, many, many thanks.
You see, people? A conservative and a liberal sharing resources right before your eyes. It’s a good sign of things to come; a new age of cooperation…
So, I thought that I’d share a short passage from the book (Don’t Think of an Elephant! by George Lakoff). This excerpt is published as a preview on Barnes & Noble’s web page. It gives you a perfect understanding of what this book addresses.
Lakoff emphasizes framing, which is what I clumsily attempted to introduce and discuss in my original topic in this thread. He writes that, “in politics, our frames shape our social policies and the institutions we form to carry out policies. To change our frames is to change all of this. Reframing IS social change…” and, “Reframing is changing the way the public sees the world. It is changing what counts as common sense. Because language activates frames, new language is required for new frames. Thinking differently requires speaking differently.”
I REALLY hope you all read this book. I’m not 100% convinced of all of his assumptions, but his approach is new for progressives. I look forward to talking with all of you about it.
Here it is:
Framing 101: How to Take Back Public Discourse
— January 21, 2004 —
On this date I spoke extemporaneously to a group of about two hundred progressive citizen-activists in Sausalito, California.
When I teach the study of framing at Berkeley, in Cognitive Science 101, the first thing I do is I give my students an exercise. The exercise is: Don’t think of an elephant! Whatever you do, do not think of an elephant. I’ve never found a student who is able to do this. Every word, like elephant, evokes a frame, which can be an image or other kinds of knowledge: Elephants are large, have floppy ears and a trunk, are associated with circuses, and so on. The word is defined relative to that frame. When we negate a frame, we evoke the frame.
Richard Nixon found that out the hard way. While under pressure to resign during the Watergate scandal, Nixon addressed the nation on TV. He stood before the nation and said, “I am not a crook.” And everybody thought about him as a crook.
This gives us a basic principle of framing, for when you are arguing against the other side: Do not use their language. Their language picks out a frame—and it won’t be the frame you want.
Let me give you an example. On the day that George W. Bush arrived in the White House, the phrase tax relief started coming out of the White House. It still is: It was used a number of times in this year’s State of the Union address, and is showing up more and more in preelection speeches four years later.
Think of the framing for relief. For there to be relief there must be an affliction, an afflicted party, and a reliever who removes the affliction and is therefore a hero. And if people try to stop the hero, those people are villains for trying to prevent relief.
When the word tax is added to relief, the result is a metaphor: Taxation is an affliction. And the person who takes it away is a hero, and anyone who tries to stop him is a bad guy. This is a frame. It is made up of ideas, like affliction and hero. The language that evokes the frame comes out of the White House, and it goes into press releases, goes to every radio station, every TV station, every newspaper. And soon the New York Times is using tax relief. And it is not only on Fox; it is on CNN, it is on NBC, it is on every station because it is “the president’s tax-relief plan.” And soon the Democrats are using tax relief—and shooting themselves in the foot.
It is remarkable. I was asked by the Democratic senators to visit their caucus just before the president’s tax plan was to come up in the Senate. They had their version of the tax plan, and it was their version of tax relief. They were accepting the conservative frame. The conservatives had set a trap: The words draw you into their worldview.
That is what framing is about. Framing is about getting language that fits your worldview. It is not just language. The ideas are primary— and the language carries those ideas, evokes those ideas.
There was another good example in the State of the Union address in January. This one was a remarkable metaphor to find in a State of the Union address. Bush said, “We do not need a permission slip to defend America.” What is going on with a permission slip? He could have just said, “We won’t ask permission.” But talking about a permission slip is different. Think about when you last needed a permission slip. Think about who has to ask for a permission slip. Think about who is being asked. Think about the relationship between them.
Those are the kinds of questions you need to ask if you are to understand contemporary political discourse. While you are contemplating them, I want to raise other questions for you.
My work on politics began when I asked myself just such a question. It was back in the fall of 1994. I was watching election speeches and reading the Republicans’ “Contract with America.” The question I asked myself was this: What do the conservatives’ positions on issues have to do with each other? If you are a conservative, what does your position on abortion have to do with your position on taxation? What does that have to do with your position on the environment? Or foreign policy? How do these positions fit together? What does being against gun control have to do with being for tort reform? What makes sense of the linkage? I could not figure it out. I said to myself, These are strange people. Their collection of positions makes no sense. But then an embarrassing thought occurred to me. I have exactly the opposite position on every issue. What do my positions have to do with one another? And I could not figure that out either.
That was extremely embarrassing for someone who does cognitive science and linguistics.
Eventually the answer came. And it came from a very unexpected place. It came from the study of family values. I had asked myself why conservatives were talking so much about family values. And why did certain values count as “family values” while others did not? Why would anyone in a presidential campaign, in congressional campaigns, and so on, when the future of the world was being threatened by nuclear proliferation and global warming, constantly talk about family values?
At this point I remembered a paper that one of my students had written some years back that showed that we all have a metaphor for the nation as a family. We have Founding Fathers. The Daughters of the American Revolution. We “send our sons” to war. This is a natural metaphor because we usually understand large social groups, like nations, in terms of small ones, like families or communities.
Given the existence of the metaphor linking the nation to the family, I asked the next question: If there are two different understandings of the nation, do they come from two different understandings of family?
I worked backward. I took the various positions on the conservative side and on the progressive side and I said, “Let’s put them through the metaphor from the opposite direction and see what comes out.” I put in the two different views of the nation, and out popped two different models of the family: a strict father family and a nurturant parent family. You know which is which.
Now, when I first did this—and I’ll tell you about the details in a minute—I was asked to give a talk at a linguistics convention. I decided I would talk about this discovery. In the audience were two members of the Christian Coalition who were linguists and good friends of mine. Excellent linguists. And very, very good people. Very nice people. People I liked a lot. They took me aside at the party afterward and said, “Well, this strict father model of the family, it’s close, but not quite right. We’ll help you get the details right. However, you should know all this. Have you read Dobson?”
I said, “Who?”
They said, “James Dobson.”
I said, “Who?”
They said, “You’re kidding. He’s on three thousand radio stations.”
I said, “Well, I don’t think he’s on NPR. I haven’t heard of him.”
They said, “Well, you live in Berkeley.”
“Where would I . . . does he write stuff?”
“Oh,” they said, “oh yes. He has sold millions of books. His classic is Dare to Discipline.”
My friends were right. I followed their directions to my local Christian bookstore, and there I found it all laid out: the strict father model in all its details. Dobson not only has a 100-to-200- million-dollar-a-year operation, but he also has his own ZIP code, so many people are writing to order his books and pamphlets. He is teaching people how to use the strict father model to raise their kids, and he understands its connection to rightwing politics.
The strict father model begins with a set of assumptions:
The world is a dangerous place, and it always will be, because there is evil out there in the world. The world is also difficult because it is competitive. There will always be winners and losers. There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Children are born bad, in the sense that they just want to do what feels good, not what is right. Therefore, they have to be made good.
What is needed in this kind of a world is a strong, strict father who can:
Protect the family in the dangerous world,
Support the family in the difficult world, and
Teach his children right from wrong.
What is required of the child is obedience, because the strict father is a moral authority who knows right from wrong. It is further assumed that the only way to teach kids obedience—that is, right from wrong— is through punishment, painful punishment, when they do wrong. This includes hitting them, and some authors on conservative child rearing recommend sticks, belts, and wooden paddles on the bare bottom. Some authors suggest this start at birth, but Dobson is more liberal. “There is no excuse for spanking babies younger than fifteen or eighteen months of age” (Dobson, The New Dare to Discipline, 65).
The rationale behind physical punishment is this: When children do something wrong, if they are physically disciplined they learn not to do it again. That means that they will develop internal discipline to keep themselves from doing wrong, so that in the future they will be obedient and act morally. Without such punishment, the world will go to hell. There will be no morality.
Such internal discipline has a secondary effect. It is what is required for success in the difficult, competitive world. That is, if people are disciplined and pursue their self-interest in this land of opportunity, they will become prosperous and self-reliant. Thus, the strict father model links morality with prosperity. The same discipline you need to be moral is what allows you to prosper. The link is the pursuit of self-interest. Given opportunity and discipline, pursuing your self-interest should enable you to prosper.
Now, Dobson is very clear about the connection between the strict father worldview and free market capitalism. The link is the morality of self-interest, which is a version of Adam Smith’s view of capitalism. Adam Smith said that if everyone pursues their own profit, then the profit of all will be maximized by the invisible hand—that is, by nature—just naturally. Go about pursuing your own profit, and you are helping everyone.
This is linked to a general metaphor that views well-being as wealth. For example, if I do you a favor, you say, “I owe you one” or “I’m in your debt.” Doing something good for someone is metaphorically like giving him money. He “owes” you something. And he says, “How can I ever repay you?”
Applying this metaphor to Adam Smith’s “law of nature,” if everyone pursues her own self-interest, then by the invisible hand, by nature, the self-interest of all will be maximized. That is, it is moral to pursue your self-interest, and there is a name for those people who do not do it. The name is do-gooder. A do-gooder is someone who is trying to help someone else rather than herself and is getting in the way of those who are pursuing their self-interest. Do-gooders screw up the system.
In this model there is also a definition of what it means to become a good person. A good person—a moral person—is someone who is disciplined enough to be obedient, to learn what is right, do what is right and not do what is wrong, and to pursue her self-interest to prosper and become self-reliant. A good child grows up to be like that. A bad child is one who does not learn discipline, does not function morally, does not do what is right, and therefore is not disciplined enough to become prosperous. She cannot take care of herself and thus becomes dependent.
When the good children are mature, they either have learned discipline and can prosper, or have failed to learn it. From this point on the strict father is not to meddle in their lives. This translates politically into no government meddling.
Consider what all this means for social programs. It is immoral to give people things they have not earned, because then they will not develop discipline and will become both dependent and immoral. This theory says that social programs are immoral because they make people dependent. Promoting social programs is immoral. And what does this say about budgets? Well, if there are a lot of progressives in Congress who think that there should be social programs, and if you believe that social programs are immoral, how do you stop these immoral people?
It is quite simple. What you have to do is reward the good people—the ones whose prosperity reveals their discipline and hence their capacity for morality—with a tax cut, and make it big enough so that there is not enough money left for social programs. By this logic, the deficit is a good thing. As Grover Norquist says, it “starves the beast.”
Where liberals and fiscal conservatives take Bush’s huge deficit as bad, right-wing radicals following strict father morality see it as good. In the State of the Union address in January 2004, the president said that he thinks they can cut the deficit in half by cutting out “wasteful spending”—that is, spending for “bad” social programs. Are conservatives against all government? No. They are not against the military, they are not against homeland defense, they are not against the current Department of Justice, nor against the courts, nor the Departments of Treasury and Commerce. There are many aspects of government that they like very much. They are not against government subsidies for industry. Subsidies for corporations, which reward the good people—the investors in those corporations—are great. No problem there.
But they are against nurturance and care. They are against social programs that take care of people. That is what they see as wrong. That is what they are trying to eliminate on moral grounds. That is why they are not merely a bunch of crazies or mean and greedy—or stupid—people, as many liberals believe. What is even scarier is that conservatives believe it. They believe it is moral. And they have supporters around the country. People who have strict father morality and who apply it to politics are going to believe that this is the right way to govern.
Think for a minute about what this says about foreign policy. Suppose you are a moral authority. As a moral authority, how do you deal with your children? Do you ask them what they should do or what you should do? No. You tell them. What the father says, the child does. No back talk. Communication is one-way. It is the same with the White House. That is, the president does not ask; the president tells. If you are a moral authority you know what is right, you have power, and you use it. You would be immoral yourself if you abandoned your moral authority.
Map this onto foreign policy, and it says that you cannot give up sovereignty. The United States, being the best and most powerful country in the world—a moral authority—knows the right thing to do. We should not be asking anybody else.
Post a Comment
<< Home