Republican Instruction Manual II: Fairness

Alex,

As you noted in the previous topic, Republicans can be fair. It’s not impossible. It’s not unheard of. It’s uncommon, but not unheard of. I think your confession that Republicans haven’t proven themselves as a party of fairness is noble and that your social progressiveness is getting the best of you (a good thing!).

Here’s Luntz’s take, based on your polling research:

“…Number One Answer: ‘Fairness means that every American has the chance to succeed even if the ultimate outcome may vary.’ This underscores the common liberal/conservative debate over equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. Americans believe in equal opportunity and reject programs that seek equal outcomes. The American people are, after all, realists at heart. So when you talk about fairness, talk about it in this context.”

Luntz is wrong. This Number One Answer does not accurately or sufficiently underscore the liberal/conservative debate on fairness.

Nan’s liberal version of how the question should have been presented: “Fairness means that every American has an equal chance to succeed…”

Equal treatment must precede fairness of opportunity. And in order to have equal chance, we require equal treatment. Only then do we (liberals) believe that varying outcomes are acceptable. If you had used my question, I bet this still would have been the number one answer. I strongly believe that your readers assumed ‘equal chance’ applied to this question.

My guess is that equal chance is conveniently left out of Luntz’s question because equal chance depends on equal treatment, which is a liberal notion. So, Luntz has NOT accurately represented the liberal part of the debate in his question. We believe that fairness means that every American has an equal chance to succeed. And this is why fairness in opportunity is not distinct from treatment if we want to accurately present the liberal/conservative debate.

So what is equal treatment exactly? Lakoff says:

“Equality means full political and social equality, without regard to wealth, race, religion or gender.”

It’s easy to see why Luntz left ‘equal’ out of his polling question. That would ruin his fairness frame as it applies to Republican policies.

That said, interesting work you do there!

- Nan

Republican Instruction Manual

About a month ago, a Fantasti-topic broke out on the use of language and framing. In that post, we talked about the role of language and framing in the Democratic Party. Frank Luntz, right-wingers’ patron saint of framing, regularly sends research findings on framing to influential conservative leaders for quick and efficient dissemination throughout the Party. What we usually don’t know is what is contained in those manuals.

Well, it happens that one of our own (guess who) happens to work for Mr. Luntz. Since our resident Republican is a nice guy, he quickly let me know that a Luntz manual had leaked on the Net. You can get it here.

This is important because this is exactly what Howard Dean and others are finally pushing the Democrats to tackle. It’s absolutely fascinating. I encourage you all to read it—all 160 pages! At the very least, read the introduction to get an overview. I have to admit I’ve only been able to read half of it so far, but it didn’t take me long so don’t be intimidated.

For a great resource from the liberal side (thanks to another tip from Alex), check out Lakoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant!

One of their polls shows that only 21% feel that “fairness” is the most important issue. But Luntz suggests that Republicans pay close attention to the idea of tying fairness to opportunity—that they should act on it despite its poor showing in the polls. I wonder why they’re worried about the framing of fairness. Are they worried fairness will become more of an issue for Americans as the impact of Bush’s policies begin to be realized? Luntz is worried that Democrats pose a threat here and even says that if they take fairness from the Democrats, then they “will have a majority for a generation.” For scoring so low in polls, that’s a pretty lofty claim to make unless there’s something about the impact and importance of fairness that is yet to be exposed.

- Nan

Social Sewhat?

The following comes to me through a friend, and I haven't checked the source. However, having acknowledged the possibility that it could be partly bogus, I think it's still worth sharing in order to give Fantastikans a nearly real--if not entirely real--representation of how our President has wrapped his mind neatly around the Social Security issue and has come to dominate it to the point of feeling comfortable enough to propose significant and life-changing alterations:

Because the- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those-changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be-or closer delivered to what has been promised.

Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that ause the-like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate-the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those-if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.

-President Bush explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005

I give him this: word-for-word quotes would make anyone look like a 3rd grade dropout. But this?? I have my doubts that this is English.

--JB