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
posted by The Decider @ 11:57 AM
8 Comments:
Nan-
Fantastiko has gone a bit quiet lately, so I’ll see if I can stir the pot.
1. Luntz is telling his customer how to win. The relationship between Luntz and the Republican Party is consultant to customer. If he were to suggest that the party was fundamentally off-base or had its collective head up its ass, he would lose his primary (or perhaps only) customer. He measures his performance at ballot box. A loser who is right is, at least in his world, a loser.
2. Lakoff’s contribution to the debate (apart from inviting sophomoric rhyming humor) is a statement about equality that cuts a wide swath:
“Equality means full political and social equality, without regard to wealth, race, religion or gender.”
The problem with this statement is not its breadth or ambition, but its ambiguity and the willingness of its adherents to sacrifice other important principals to achieve it. Luntz correctly notes that mainstream America values equality of opportunity highly but does not see inequality of result as prima facia evidence that the deck was stacked against the losers. Moreover, they are concerned that anything the government does to remedy inequality of result will erode rights (like freedom and property) that they value more highly.
3. I remain convinced the the Democrats' problem is not message or "frames." It is much more fundamental. The party appears adrift, without rudder or compass. And those few whose voices rise above the general mumbling are characterized not by compelling argument, but by shrill rhetoric. Listen to Nancy Pelozi or Harry Reed, who purportedly lead the party. Better yet, listen to Howard Dean.
The Party does not need a makeover, its needs a 12-step process.
-Chris
Chris,
You make a great point. He is telling how his customer can win. Afterall, it is about winning. It SHOULD be about changing things, helping people and all of that but it isn't.
On a side note...ever notice how "Equality" has "Lity" at the end and that rhymes with "pity" that starts with "P" which in turn rhymes with "T" which stands for "trouble?"
MKD-
Perhaps I have lost too much of my youthful idealism, but I have no expectations that political strategists are out to improve things. I think that the ideas for how to make the country and the world a better place for the next generation developed in by ordinary folks like us over a coffee or a beer or even on the Fantastiko blog.
Luntz is about selling the agenda. You and I are much more interested in defining it.
And no, I had not discerned the subtle linkage between equality and trouble. Perhaps the synapses in my neanderthal brain are just not firing quickly enough.
Cheers,
Chris
Guys,
Let me fist apologize for my lack of activity. I'm on vacation in Florida!! It's raining though...
You're both right. He's trying to win and it should be about improving lives. But the point I'm trying to make is not in contradiction. He's trying to win by reframing the debate and he thinks that by doing so, he IS improving lives (as it fits his frames). Luntz and Republicans are trying to spread a new, Republican-friendly, notion of fairness. He's not trying to accurately reflect the currently common notion of fairness; he's actively trying to manipulate it! Like Chris said, we're concerned with defining fairness. He is too, but defining it in a way that helps Republicans. If he sets the frames, Republican policies look better. He left out the idea of equality so that he can accomplish this goal.
He's trying to re-define the liberal/conservative debate; That's how Luntz and his Republican clients keep winning!
About the Democrats: I think you're basically right. We lack leadership and we haven't defined our core liberal values in an effective way. Lakoff has tried, and I'll post some of what he has to say when I get back to Ohio. But a lot of it is currently being debated between the leaders of the Democratic Party.
Framing, however, will be key here. Ideas are useless if they aren't effectively commmunicated. It will play a big role in the redefinition of the Party in the next few years. Howard Dean believes in it and he's going to make it happen.
Chris, would you care to explain your problem with Dean? I'm not sure where this comes from other than your support for Republicans.
- Nan
To muck things up a bit, here is an op-ed that Luntz wrote in today's LA Times. And by him writing it, I mean me writing it. There was a fair amount of cutting and editing by the Times. So let me tell you this, if you like it, I wrote it, if you hate it, then it's either Frank or the editors. Enjoy...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alex,
I was hoping you would put that op-ed up as it's own post so that I could stomp all over it. Instead, you've buried my nastiness in the comments section of THIS post. Thanks for nothing.
Seriously though, as I said to you the other day, that op-ed reads as though the editor took a knife to it--not smooth and hopefully, as a result of the knifing, it's the wrong message. It's probably just what Luntz wanted to get across though...However, I suspect that even Luntz, privately and off the record, would easily admit that he's in the business of public manipulation. When he says that he seeks "the clear, common-sense way to say what you mean" he's really looking to communicate his message in whatever way that will get the public will agree with him (or his client). This is not big deal, actually--it's your common variety of persuasion and everyone does it. When the issue is what beer to drink or what NBC programming to watch, crossing the line between persuasion and manipulation is mostly inoffensive. This is because the public has not only the option to drink/watch beer/programming A or B, but they can choose to not partake in any of their options. This is their ultimate power. When the issue is political--when its consecuences affect the lives of the public whether they like it or not and they lack the ultimate power to opt out--then crossing the divide between persuasion and manipulation becomes an inexcusable offense. In this case, the public deserves forthrightness, not clever word play and jazz hands.
Given that most of the information that we get is media filtered and biased, the idea that someone is in the business of--profiting A LOT from--explicitly bending and manipulating the message is gross.
Alex,
First of all, while it may be the norm these days for you to be writing op-eds to major papers, it sure sounds impressive to me. Well done. I don’t know what is your part and what is Luntz’s, but you’re clearly full of talent. I've read this piece three times now and I'm still trying to gather my thoughts. I admire your attempt to clarify Luntz’s role in the world. It’s a useful discussion and I appreciate your commitment to it. Let me just comment on the one point I’m most concerned about.
Like JB, I'm skeptical about Luntz's claim that he seeks 'clarity in our nation's great debates' as if working to frame a debate somehow positively contributes to clarity for those who are ‘on the fence'. This piece is trying to convey Luntz’s dedication to some higher standard of truthfulness, by informing 'Americans of the true nature of our policy debates'. Luntz seems to think that by proposing a frame or premise, he’s somehow leveling the language playing field, presumably so a fair, clear debate will ensue. But there’s a lot of trouble packed into this idea.
First, how can the true nature of our policy debates become more clear if the premise being set through framing is misleading or irrational at worst and arbitrary at best? Example of an arbitrary premise: the ‘death tax’. Luntz argues that it’s appropriately titled because you’re taxed when you die. But that’s misleading because that’s not all that happens when you die. The estate that is being passed on to beneficiaries is taxed; beneficiaries get a large sum of money (i.e. income) that was once not theirs. It’s arbitrary to say that we should call it the death tax just because a tax occurs when you die. It’s arbitrary to say that the death alone is what triggers the tax! We could also call it a transference tax, since wealth is being passed from one person to another. It’s arbitrary to call it the death tax or the estate tax. Both are right, but Luntz is dedicated to only one of the frames.
Luntz calls it a death tax not to clarify the true nature of the tax, but to paint the government as a money-grabbing, heartless being that takes your money when you’re suffering from a death in the family. This doesn’t clarify the ‘true nature of the debate’ as Luntz says; it emphasizes one part of the debate. That’s fine, but Luntz shouldn’t misrepresent this as a demonstration of objectivity or clarity.
I think that your work with Luntz is fascinating and a key part of politics. You're right in the center of the action and you guys are clearly doing something right. I hope Luntz doesn’t get a big head though. I accept this battle of words as a part of the political war. But since he’s a political operative in the business of helping his side win, I’m going to continue to remind myself that, despite what is said in this piece, Luntz is not—nor is he trying to be—a voice of reason that helps clarify the true nature our great debates for anyone.
-Nan
Post a Comment
<< Home