Democrats learn to frame debate

[ProudToBeLiberal]

Sun, Feb 27, 2005

Democrats learn to frame debate

By Jeni Lewis
Central Wisconsin Sunday

MARSHFIELD - Across the nation, Democrats want voters to understand their side of issues.

So, they're working to change their language.

"If we're going to change the message, we need to have consistency from amongst the people," said Linda Melski of Marshfield, who organized a grass-roots meeting Saturday at Wildwood Station in Marshfield. "It's one of those issues changing the style in which you present an issue. Changing your language structure takes time and practice."
Groups are being organized across the nation as part of Democracy for America, a political action committee inspired by Howard Dean's 2004 campaign for president. Several meetings have taken place in Stevens Point and Marshfield, and organizers hope they will grow in size and popularity.

George Lakoff, a University of California-Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, has a video and book that address how to win elections by changing the message.

"One of the problems progressives have is, they are divided, and we must unify," Lakoff said on the video, "How Democrats and Progressives Can Win."
Democracy for America chapters are using his four rules of engagement to restructure their responses on local, state and national issues. Those rules are: Show respect; reframe the issue in context of progressive values; think and talk at the level of those values; and say what you believe.

more at...http://www.wisinfo.com/newsherald/mnhlocal/298343726644282.shtml

[mzmolly]

1. Excellent news!!!!! Recommended. This is the MOST important thing we can

do in 2008. :toast:

[robbedvoter]

2. Silly me! I thought clean voting was. The debate was fine to me - except

for the fact that the media is playing only one side of it. Which it will continue to do, even more so, framing or reframing notwithstanding.
What's wrong with this country goes so far beyond window dressing and framing that refusing to see it is downright irresponsible.

[mzmolly]

4. The debate wasn't fine. Kerry's positions were unclear. Our positions

as a party are "unclear."

Framing is NOT window dressing, it's communicating with the voters in a manner they can relate to. It's giving voters a reason to vote for Democrats.

[Mich Otter]

21. Kerry's Problem is Typical for Democrats

There is a serious problem for people who can see differing sides to issues and understand that all sides may have legitimacy. It is much harder to get focused on one message and stick to it when you are trying to be fair to everyone.
It is too easy to confuse many Americans because they can't think through thoughts that are more complicated than what you can put on a bumper sticker.
I feel that Kerry is too brainy for much of America to accept. Time magazine did the article that showed that the less education a person was, the more likely they would vote for Dumb?Yeah!
It is vital that Democrats get the messages simple enough to be understood.

[robbedvoter]

25. Kerry's problem is that he doesn't believe in much and it shows.

Candidates who are intelligent and passionate do not need "framing" lessons.
Just stand for something and stick to it. But Kerry won in spite of all this - so we are looking for change in the wrong direction.

[Lone Pawn]

75. Kerry did not win.

Kerry finished three million votes behind Bush. To assume we won and think we can continue to act the same way that's lost us every presidential election and lost us seats in the house and senate every single even year since '98 is irresponsible.

[mzmolly]

29. I totally agree. This is one reason Dean was so appealing to me.

Kerry was brilliant and fair minded, and *I* understood who he was, but the voters may not have?

Then again ... credit where credit is due, Kerry got more votes then Bill Clinton or any D that ran before him. ;)

However, our entire message was and is muddled. We don't have an organized "message machine" if you will.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[Chicago Democrat]

22. I agree!

:)

[robbedvoter]

23. Unlike "hard work Bush" who "won"?

yeah, change, repaint, put pretty words, they'll diebold& slime you new frames and all. As a glasses weared, I know: it's the lens that counts.

[mzmolly]

28. Bush was "painted" as decisive. Easy to do when you have about 3

basic ape like thoughts. * also had the corporate media on his side.

We can address diebold AND our message, as both need attention.

The faux Republican message was as follows:

Family valuez
Merika is safer
Family valuez
Merika is safer
Family valuez
Merika is safer
And, TAX CUTS.

We LET them frame the debate over and over again and wonder why we lose or come darn close.

If we keep crying wolf about diebold when it may or may NOT have been the deciding factor in this election, it's counter productive.

As I said, we can think and chew gum at the same time, dontcha think?

[VegasWolf]

32. mzmolly, I think you forgot one, "More muny for the rich!" n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

60. you left out: "no child's behind left" in the * mantra (nt)

[renaissanceguy]

63. And we'll stop doing that now that Dean's our leader.

He won't let the Repugs or the corporate media define who we are. "Out of touch," "Without a message," "Can't connect." They're all lies, just to make people not want to vote Dem. We need to stop them when they do that and say "No, WE'RE right, YOU'RE wrong." We can't play these pandering games, like Hillary does. It won't win us elections, and it sure doesn't do anything for our party's values. OUR VALUES CANNOT BE COMPROMISED!

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14741193

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14744291

[leQ]

67. i prefer doublemint thank you. but i totally agree with you.

framing our debate isn't what is needed, although rephrasing what you want said can be good as there's always room for improvement. but the media is what we need to recapture. without them, any effort we use will be futile against the backdrop of incessent radio/tv exposure promoting our opponent.

media should be our #2 concern. the target of our strongest efforts should be clean voting, and without the media, clean voting will stay just a memory.

[mzmolly]

68. Doublemint is ok, though Juicyfruit wax's nostalgic for me personally.

My Great Grandmother always carried Juicyfruit. ;)

I totally agree taking back the media is KEY!!! It's definately as important as any other issue we need to consider. It does no good to frame the debate if the media isn't accurately portraying what's what.

:hi:

[rukkyg]

70. So what?

You're gonna capture the media and then keep using the Republican's frames to try to advance our agenda? It won't work. The issues must be framed the make our views positive, not just as theirs being negative.

[calimary]

74. Framing the debate is ABSOLUTELY NOT window dressing.

Or, on second thought, go ahead and call it that. And/or consider it that. Because if the window dressing is done correctly, IT GETS PEOPLE INTO THE STORE.

So fine then. Window dressing. Just so we do it well.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

10. You are absolutely correct

"What's wrong with this country goes so far beyond window dressing and framing that refusing to see it is downright irresponsible"

One can frame the argument anyway they want but the fact remains that people who are dealing with reality from an emotional perspective, i.e. conservatives, do not respond to logic. It just doesn't get through.

[XemaSab]

49. The idea behind framing

is that both Dems and Reps are entirely emotional in their decisions, there's no logic whatsoever on either side.

The republicans have learned to use emotional language to their advantage, and the democrats counter it by repeating the republicans' emotional language, which, instead of making voters want to vote democrat, only reinforces the republican message. It's entirely unconscious on both sides.

Example:

Republican: "We need personal retirement accounts. Social Security is in a crisis and we must act now to save it."

Democrat: "I'm opposed to personal retirement accounts because, historically, people have lost their shirts in the stock market. Furthermore, Social Security is not in a crisis, but it does need to be modified if it is to remain solvent."

Even though the Democrat has just spoken plain sense, by using the republican frames of "personal retirement accounts" and "crisis," as well as conceding that social security is somehow "broken" and needs to be "fixed," he's made a listener more likely to agree with the republican in some dark, subconscious depth.

(This was an example cooked up on the fly. For more info read "Don't think of an Elephant!" or "Moral Politics" by Lakoff.)

[meow2u3]

51. The proper way to respond to GOP framing

Example:

Republican: "We need personal retirement accounts. Social Security is in a crisis and we must act now to save it."

Democrat: "I'm opposed to personal retirement accounts because, historically, people have lost their shirts in the stock market. Furthermore, Social Security is not in a crisis, but it does need to be modified if it is to remain solvent."


StopThePendulum: The last thing Americans need are Republicans using scare tactics that cover up a scam that robs Grandma to bankroll Enron. Their false sense of urgency to piratize Social Security is no better than the ways of street criminals. Both the street hustlers and the GOP pick on the same people: weak, vulnerable, and unable to fight back.

[XemaSab]

53. word

n/t

[depakid]

3. Sequester them all in a big hotel, lock all the doors.

and play this video over and over and over. Bring 'em room sevice and don't let a one of them out until they can pass Professor Lokoff's exam!

[NewJeffCT]

38. What Republicans do on this..

What the RW does on this is Grover Norquist holds weekly meetings with other top Republicans - in government & in the media - and gives them weekly talking points and ideas to spread around when they go on the big talk shows. So, when Limbaugh says something, other RWers will follow his lead... when Bush says something, you know that all the Republicans on the Sunday talk shows will echo those same sentiments.

We're nowhere near that consistent....

[ewagner]

5. Mixed emotions

I'm glad Lakoff's message is starting to sink in...

but....

I know these people and I'm sorry they're using Lakoff's message in this local referendum debate......

[benny05]

6. I like Lakoff

and I think Dean and Edwards must be taking some of his advice. They are reframing the issues much better.

[Maccagirl]

7. This message has been going out to Dems

and Progressives for more than 20 years. Get with the program! This is bigger than about winning elections.

[mzmolly]

8. Indeed it is. It's about defining our common principals.

:hi:

[etherealtruth]

9. Lunts and Rove...

... masterfully framed the debate and manipulated the rhetoric; leading to millions of people voting against their own self interest, over and over.

There is something to be learned from their success. I'm not referring to the "shadowy evil" manipulations, I'm referring to defining ourselves and harnessing the power of words. Dr. Lakoff gives us a place to start.

[Triana]

11. I have Lakoff's book and DVD

It's EXCELLENT.

Dems MUST reframe/frame their message. THEN they have to GET IT OUT THERE - that means end-runs around the Repuke-owned media 'cause the MSM will NOT help. Once the message is solid, then Dems/Progressives MUST OWN THEIR OWN MEDIA or do endruns around the MSM and get the message out.

[followthemoney]

44. MSM is the home court for Republicans...

Don't expect to hear cheers for the visiting team, the Democrats.

The Harlem Globe Trotters never lose. Nor will the Republicans in the similarly staged MSM.

[Mich Otter]

12. Framing the Debate

It seemed to me like Kerry was gaining in the polls when the Democrats were describing the Republicans as living in a fantasy world. The Democrats need to keep on the message that we need leadership that can deal with reality.

[lonestarnot]

13. Never heard of Dr. George Lakoff... and can anyone shed light on

some info re issues for unity?

[Rockerdem]

15. Hes a guy selling a video and books

He has some adherents on DU, while many others are very skeptical of his message: we have to spin like the Repukes. Rather than being upfront and honest with the American people about what we are and what we want. Count me as a big skeptic.

[AP]

16. That's not Lakoff's argument at all.

BTW.

[EFerrari]

17. Lakoff is one of the most respected linguists in America and

he teaches at Berkeley. He is not a political hack.

[lonestarnot]

20. Words are powerful. Will read. He has published something I'm sure. n/t

[Viva_La_Revolution]

24. Don't Think of an Elephant! 2004

Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think 2002

Metaphors We Live By (w/ Mark Johson) 2003

Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. 1987

More Than Cool Reason: A Guide to Poetic Metaphor (w/ Mark Turner) 1989

Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought (w/ Mark Johnson) 1999

Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being (w/Rafael Nunez) 2000


Felt like being helpful! ;-)

[lonestarnot]

26. Thanks.

:)

[CTLawGuy]

18. that's not it at all

In order to be successful in politics you must understand that there are two kinds of voters:

1. Ideological voters. They have positions, they are involved in the process, often are members of parties. You get them by agreeing with their policies.

2. Practical voters. They have no ideology, they are neither left or right. They are often NOT involved politically, though they do vote. What they do have are VALUES: freedom, equality, responsibility, security, faith, honesty, peace (to name a few). Which of their values is most important depends on the individual person and the general political climate.

These are who we call the "swing voters". It's useless to treat them like idelogical voters (especially conservative idelogical voters) by moving to the center, because these people do not have positions on issues per se.

To get them to vote for you, you must connect your positions to their values. You have to discuss your ideas in a way that triggers those values.

Let's take gay marriage.

Repubs are successful in fomenting oppositon to gay marriage because they play on the faith value. "gay marriage is immoral."

DLC democrats fall into the trap of thinking... "hmm we can't argue that gay marriage is MORAL, so therefore, we have to oppose it as well..

What they forget is that faith is not the only value people have. What about freedom?

Do you think people may soften up on gay marriage if we say: "Government has no business telling 2 consenting unrelated adults whether they can and can't marry. The people who oppose gay marriage want to control your life, that's not the American way."

What about equality?

"Gay people are people just like you and me, they don't deserve to be treated like second class citizens because of who they are."


--------
The point of lakoff is not to be dishonest about what we believe, it is to speak about it in a way that appeals to American values.

[lonestarnot]

19. Thank you. Like this... will read up on Lakoff.

[Lorien]

27. Excellent "in a nutshell" response

bookmarked for when I next attempt to explain the same! :thumbsup:

[meow2u3]

54. Democratic morality vs. Republican morality

Republican morality begins and ends with S E X; Democratic morality begins and ends with social justice. Any questions?

[bettyellen]

65. totally off base, it's about honing your message so people can understand

the good you are really trying to achieve. there's nothing inherently dishonest about it at all.
you are confusing this with other repug tactics which do include spreading lies.
kerry didn't have a strong, consistant message as far as a lot of voters were concerned. he did pretty well for someone trying to unseat a wartime president, but it wasn't enough to overcome the voter fraud/ suppression. we have to do better.

[XemaSab]

50. His big idea is simple:

Everyone sees America as a family.

Conservatives tend to see the US as a family under a Strict Father, where daddy knows best and the kids do as they're told or they get spanked, and the language they use is Strict Father language.

Liberals tend to see the US as a Nurturant Parent family, where the parents protect and help the children and the children learn by questioning the parents. The language we SHOULD use is Nurturant Parent language, but too often we respond to Strict Father language with more Strict Father language, which only reinforces the conservative message.

Lakoff sketches it out in "Don't think of an elephant!" and backs it up in more detail in "Moral Politics."

An example of this from "Moral Politics" has to do with Liberal vs Conservative Christianity, where conservatives see God as the big rule-maker in the sky, who is there to punish people for breaking the rules. Liberals, on the other hand, focus more on God's grace, and the compassion shown in the gospels. If you look at the "moral values" debate in this country, it's from a conservative perspective, where esoteric passages from Leviticus and Deutoronomy are used to justify hatred and oppression of women and gays. Liberal Christianity is intensely moral, but we don't have the floor here, and we're not the ones doing the framing. It's the same with many other issues.

"Don't think of an elephant!" is small and costs about 10 bucks and it's a good intro to Lakoff's ideas.

On edit: Hitler is an excellent example of an extreme Strict Father, someone who makes all the rules, and all the children have to do is follow.... Bush is also a Strict Father, while Carter and Clinton were Nurturant Parents, who FELT OUR PAIN. :-)

[forgethell]

14. I think the most

important point is, "say what you believe". Democrat failure to do so is the sole reason our positions are unclear. You can't have it both ways. Say what we stand for. Then the voters can decide if that's what they want. But if they are unclear about what we will do, who can blame them for thinking the worst??

[Frances]

31. I have been a teacher for many years

I have always prided myself on making every effort to communicate successfully with my students.

Just because I keep trying differnt ways of getting my message across in the most effective manner does not mean that I am "waffling." The message doesn't change, just the way I try to get it across.

[forgethell]

36. OK,

but we are not talking about you. We are talking about Democratic politicians who do waffle, while trying to snag every vote.

why do they do that? My own opinion is that they do not think they can win if they are honest. I don't know if they are correct or not, but I think a little honesty will settle the question.

To me the whole "framing" debate is about how to waffle more successfully. For example, pushing the message that Democrats have values, too. I think the Repukes know that, I think they think our values and theirs are incompatible. I think so, too. so I don't think they will be impressed by words, like many Dems and progressives are. They want to know what the words will actually mean.

We keep saying we are the majority, although recent elections say otherwise. But maybe we are. I think we should just come on out and express our opinions. We may get our asses handed to us in Goldwaterian proportions. We may win massively. We may get a marginal win, or a marginal loss. I don't know. They took my psychic license away from me for malpractice. But whatever the outcome, we would know exactly where we stood with the American electorate. Then we could plan a valid strategy instead of hollering about how we need to take back the media, or how Europeans should be allowed to vote because our elections affect them too. Or other silly ideas that have been floated.

In 1964, the Republican Party was at the very lowest point of its entire existence. they lost in a landslide. they stopped bull-shitting themselves and took a look at themselves and decided what they had to do. Look at them now. We can do the same.

[Frances]

55. Reagan went to Mississippi where Cheney, Goodwin, and

Swerner (sp?) were murdered and basically said that he stood with the whites. That got the majority of the white Southern voters.

To get some of those votes back, we need sound bites about the economy that these people can understand.

[forgethell]

56. We need something.

Just remember. No matter what we do, the repukes have their own plans. Economics is not everything that people vote on. If it were, we Dems would abandon our social issue positions to get our candidates elected so we could have our economic policies enacted.

If we're not willing to do it, why are we upset that the conservatives won't abandon their's???

[Frances]

57. Are you saying that you approve

of Reagan's giving tacit approval to the murder of 3 people trying to help other people get the vote?

I don't understand what you are saying.

[forgethell]

61. I don't see how you

get that idea. What I think I said was that there are other things that people vote on besides economics. This does not mean that I approve or disapprove, just as I do not approve or disapprove of gravity. It's just a fact that is there.

Also, I am saying that we are willing, so it seems, to suffer electoral defeat after electoral defeat to uphold our social issue values, so we should not be upset that the conservatives are too. Especially as they have been winning.

Now if the economy tanked, maybe economic issues would be more important to both them and us.

[Frances]

30. Thanks for posting this.

I sent the article to my friends.

[rndmprsn]

33. fantastic...me thinks dean is doing a great job

...the lakoff book was pretty amazing too, i use it in every day conversation with co-workers, family and friends.

peace

[Stop_the_War]

34. Refreshing news!

[VegasWolf]

35. My thought is that it is not the frame, but the pitcure that goes

into it. Need a picture of a happy god smiling down on people
floating out of their cars off the 405 freeway. Oops, silly
me, there aren't any LA people going to huvun.

[BrklynLiberal]

48. In actuality, it is just the opposite. Think about it. You have an

exquisite painting or picture, but the frame somehow detracts from it, or just does not bring out the best in the picture. You REFRAME the picture, and....omigod...the picture, without having any changes made to it, somehow looks like a different picture!! The colors stand out. The images seem clearer! The contrast seems more dramatic!
That is what reframing the debate means. One does NOT waffle about one's ideas or principles. One does not look to mislead. The goal is to make ones ideas and principles CLEARER and easier to understand. To put them in terms that hit home with the voters. There is no "sleight of hand" involved...if anything, the goal is to show everyone exactly how the trick is done. Show them the truth in plain and simple terms so that they cannot be fooled by the words and tricks of the Repukes.

[VegasWolf]

73. LOL. You have an excellent point re picture frames. But this

proposed framing is just more words, on top of existing
words, leading to even greater confusion. In your
analogy, it would be like putting a picture frame around
a picture frame and calling it art. Although, some in
New York may consider that art and pay $4,000 for it! Wait
this is a good idea! :)

[tsuki]

37. And one of the most important things, IMHO, is to quit blaming

everything on Bush. It is the Republican Party. Republican Party. Republican Party.

If we don't start nailing the Republican Party, the 2008 nominee will divorce himself from Bush and run on a Conservative platform.

Bush has been quoted as willing to provide political cover for the Republicans.

We cannot allow that to happen.

The Republican Party is swiftboating the AARP.
The Republican Party is refusing to support returning disabled Vets.
The Republican Party is closing VA Hospitals at a time when we most need them.
The Republican Party refuses to protect our borders. The Republican Party promised they would.
The Republican Party is abolishing farm subsidies.
The Republican Party is advocating record deficits.

[NewJeffCT]

40. agreed on that one

It's definitely the Republicans. After Iraq continues as a quagmire and are deficit keeps ballooning and hiring remains (at best) sluggish, I can almost guarantee that the next Republican candidate will run away from Bush... the problem is that they will likely sell themselves that they are true conservatives into small government, fiscal responsibility and a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy.

[tsuki]

41. Not if we stop Bush this, Bush that and substitute The Republican

Party. We have 3.5 years to brand them as they have branded us. We can do it if we make all of the policies REPUBLICAN POLICIES, not Bush policies.

[David K.]

42. Hold the Republican Party Accountable....

Let's face it, they have the keys to all three branches of our government and they need a lot more than just a "moment" of accountability. Let's start by using frames which tell it like it is:

Red Ink Republicans

Irresponsible Republicans

Deficit-dealing Republicans

and, remember....

So many Republican hypocrites, so little time.
http://www.buzzflash.com/ motto

[tsuki]

43. They've had twenty years to brand the Democrats, we have 3.5 to

start branding them. We cannot allow them to squeak out of this mess in 2008 by saying, "oh that was Bush and the NeoCons. We're the real Republican Party."

[Frances]

45. I like all three of your catch phrases

So many people are working 2 jobs and taking care of a family at the same time. They don't have time to listen to long explanations. The Republicans gained votes from young white males over 20 years ago with these three words: Democrats tax and spend. They defined Dems with that phrase.

Red Ink Republicans is the counter to Tax and Spend Democrats. It's short and sweet and TRUE.

[XemaSab]

52. Dean's framing it as

"Borrow and Spend Republicans."

[athenap]

64. Sadly enough--it's a form of "branding"

"So many people are working 2 jobs and taking care of a family at the same time. They don't have time to listen to long explanations. The Republicans gained votes from young white males over 20 years ago with these three words: Democrats tax and spend. They defined Dems with that phrase.

Red Ink Republicans is the counter to Tax and Spend Democrats. It's short and sweet and TRUE."

There is too much to do for the average American to be able to discern the true message from all the crap that surrounds it. Frances is right--20 years ago, Dems got stuck with that short and sweet and catchy label of "tax and spend" and to this day, in spite of *overwhelming* evidence to the contrary (for this administration), and *overwhelming* evidence that the taxes were (mostly) reasonable and the spending went (mostly) towards programs that benefited *everybody,* I still hear too many people (many of whom are too young to have been targeted with this message 20 years ago) spouting the "Democrats tax and spend" meme.

There's also an assumption out there that all politicians lie, it's just the degree to which they do so. The bumper-sticker/sloganeering works the same way it does with product jingles and slogans. Even though you know it's "advertising," it's short and catchy enough to sneak past the discernment part of your brain and affect the lizard-brain behind it, who goes, "Ook! Shiny! Catchy! I believe, I believe!" simply because the meme is short enough for the lizard-brain to remember.

Countering that with longer explanations of nuanced, higher-brain ideas will appeal to the higher conscious. But it will skip over the lizard-brain, who will tweak the gut in the other direction, creating doubt that, since it's based on emotion, and that part of you that is still "fight or flight" - can be persistent enough to overcome the rational thought. Hence the large number of people who voted their fear (let's stick to the devil we know and maybe the boogey men will stay away from under our beds, even if we lose our beds because everything else goes down the tubes).

I look at it this way--it's no longer simply an appeal to logic and intelligence--it's become an appeal to both logic/intelligence, and the primitive part of people that needs to feel the gut-confidence that comes from a short, simple, catchy version of the message.

[Seabiscuit]

39. Howard Dean didn't win the Primaries, but he has been the most

powerful influence on the progressive wing of our party all along, and the combination of his Democracy for America website and his new chairmanship of the DNC should give us all hope that the man who has proven himself to have the strongest spine and best ideas among the Presidential hopefuls during the past two years is taking us all to a new level.

Framing the issues is exactly what dems need to learn how to do. We've let the repukes get away with murder in the media for far too long by conceding the framing stuff. And we've got to stop putting up uninformed wimps on those stupid TV panel shows!

[BrklynLiberal]

46. Framing the issues does not mean "spinning". It means communicating

clearly. If you have the best ideas in the world and the smartest candidate in the country, if his ideas are not communicated to the voters in a way that they can understand CLEARLY it is all wasted.
THAT is Lakoff's point, and that is what Dean was/is able to do.
What the Repukes/Luntz/Rove are experts at doing is communicating their lies and half-truths accurately....in other words, they are able to get the people to understand exactly what they want them to understand.
They communicate their ideas clearly and concisely. The fact that their ideas are lies, and they are actually misleading the people is irrelevant to the fact that they are communicating effectively.
That is what framing means.
If you have a brilliant teacher who cannot communicate, his brilliance is irrelevant. The communication skills are an integral part of being a good teacher. The same is true of being a good leader in politics as well.
Hitler was a charismatic leader. His message was horrific...it was the framing that got his message across.
Our message is outstanding, and is so much better than that of the Repukes. Reframing merely means COMMUNICATE CLEARLY!

[SoCalDem]

47. Most people can understand the message if it's made relevant

to their lives..

Everyone understands the family budget..money in-money out..

Georgie is little more than the wastrel husband who chooses to cash his paycheck and blow it all on a party for his pals. He then goes to the ATM (the US treasury) and draws out all the money his wife (the US people) has been saving for retirement (SS surplus), and starts handing it out to all his pals. Money all spent, he drags his sorry ass home, and tells her that they will have to "cut back"...on things like mortgage payments, food, clothing, medical expenses, children's education.. you know..frivolous stuff :)

Every family in America has a person like him.. In "real" life they max out their credit cards, buy fancy new cars they cannot afford, and end up sleeping in Mom's basement because they cannot control their impulses..

That's George..

Every family also has a person who has all kinds of things "happen to them", but nothing is EVER their fault..Lost jobs, lost loves, lose finances.. everything just "happens" to them...

That's George..

Every family has a person who will lie, even when they don't have to. They do it for effect or for self-aggrandizement.They are blowhards, always ready with some big "get rich scheme" or some "fabulous" business deal, but they want YOUR money to "get it off the ground"..

That's George..

Every family has a hot head who holds grudges, even when THEY are the ones at fault. They are petty, vindictive and just plain mean..

That's George..

These are all scenarios that fit him, and are easily understood by everyone..

[Gloria]

58. Well, if the articles about how the GOP are getting ready to steal the

Dems' idea about savings accounts OUTSIDE of SS, then they haven't learned fast enough.

They should be ready to pre-empt the GOP on this before it gets stolen and used against them in 2006 & 2008. If they don't, they'll wind up "compromising" it away and once again, enabling and strengthening Bush and the GOP.

And the Dems' "message discipline" seems to have crumbled. Lieberman, Biden, others spouting off. Reid has to reign these people in. I'm calling his office tomorrow to unload...

[greymattermom]

59. How about calling them fiscal liberals?

How about saying they want to steal your social security to invest in Enron?
How about saying they want to make the great United States more like India?
How about they want to take away your freedom to choose your own religion?

[mzmolly]

76. Welcome to DU!

Your exactly right! :hi:

[GOPBasher]

62. We always lose the rhetoric battle.

I've said this for a long time. The Repubs have simple slogans that they catch people with, even if they're incredibly oversimplified of just plain lies. It works. Why don't we start doing this? What about:

*Red-Ink Republicans
*Fiscal Crisis created by Bush and the Republicans
*Borrow-and-spend Right Wingers
*They want to gamble with our SS money.
*Their fiscal crisis is what is putting SS in danger; SS would've been fine if we started paying down the debt, like Clinton had us doing.
*Divisive Republicans
*Intolerant Right
*Theocratic Right
*They're destroying the environment.
*Putting our children at risk from debt and environmental destruction


You get the point. Add your own.

[Hidden Stillness]

66. Don't "Frame"; Learn

First of all, I'm glad to read that this thread has been almost entirely civil and polite, considering how contentious these things can get. Let's save our real anger and sarcasm for THEM.

I don't think we need this approach either, and I think it further erodes real thinking. It seems to me to be an attempt to make a shortcut to a result, and avoid all the hard work, (and time), that it actually takes. What is needed to fight off these Republican bastards is a sound, complete argument that none of their lies can get rid of, and to do that--it is not avoidable--you have to read, learn the subject, and keep your thoughts clear. To use the example of Social Security: People are not fighting this hard to keep Social Security from the capitalists because somebody "pitched" it to them a certain way, and now they follow like sheep--this is an insult. These people know why Social Security is so great, they know what it does, they know the difference between having something to rely on and being destitute, they know how the program works and are proud of it. It is a long background of knowing the program and agreeing with its premise that makes people know what they are fighting for; the reality is that they love this program.

One poster on this thread gave an example of "framing" this issue, and had the Repub calling it a "personal account" and a "crisis," but then had the Democrat responding with, "people have lost their shirts in the stck market," and the claim that "it does need to be modified if it is to remain solvent." With all due respect, if you made statements like that, you will lose it for us every time. You have to learn how to explain the Social Security issue itself, and not try to apply this one-size-fits-all approach. Read and listen to James Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt's grandson, who has been very active lately, fighting devils like Brit Hume, and explaing what Social Security really is, and how successful it has been all these years. Do you not even know that the first thing you have to do is not allow these people to call it an "account," that it is a social insurance program, covering even family members of the deceased, and those who are disabled and can't contribute?

This whole thing has the horrible ring of corporate studies and "demographics" and "product placement" and the use of colors and suggestive wording to trick and elicit impulse buying. Then, of course, they send you ads for things you don't want and never buy, because some essential step between this and that was missing the whole time. Don't take us down that road. Don't actually believe that people do not think and read and know what they need to solve their problems. What is needed is not a list of cheesy slogans, but real, inspiring eloquence.

There is already too much corporate control of what used to be our processes, and this will only add even more people who do not listen to anything anybody says, but only wait their turn for their next pseudo-brilliant posturing. Talk that way to old people who remember Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, and knew them as saints, tell them how they need to stop explaining things, like people, but have to grab the audience and plant ideas like a maestro, and they will think you are an asshole--and you are.

Worst of all, it negates the strong argument against these bastards that they are criminals who will lie about anything, and tell things any old way they want to, just to trick people and win. It actually seems to support the devil's approach that, there is no truth, only advertising.

[Spinoza]

69. Agreed.

This entire "framing" debate conveys contempt for average people. It sounds like we are talking down to people and trying to figure out how to "manipulate" them. The repugs don't publicly talk about "framing" their message. Publicly, they claim that they are simply sincerely conveying their ideas and beliefs without obfuscation. Americans like a "plain talker", not a "framer". Kerry lost, not because he didn't "frame" better, but because, unlike Dean, he came off as someone who was constantly "framing" his language.

[American Tragedy]

71. God, I wish it didn't have to be this way.

[brooklynite]

72. Another important step is sticking to the point

One thing I've noticed about conservative rallies and meetings, is that they're all on message. If its anti-abortion, that's what everyone talks about. Ditto for gun rights. By contrast, liberal rallies, irrespective of the stated topic, tend to be a magnet for advocates of an entire range of topics (free Mumia, 30 hour work week for 40 hours pay, etc). As a result, the core message gets muddled, and conservatives will point to the most extreme messages they can find as representative of the entire group.