Framing: "They love America, but hate it's people"

[Catchawave]

Okay, so the line is from a movie, The American President, a Clinton era release, BUT, this line has become a personal earworm, can't get it out of my head!

Shouldn't we be framing the debate about the Republicans do LOVE AMERICA, but hate it's people.

Should we start a list of samples? Let me start:

Was it 'really' about Terri?
Outsourcing?
Veterans are expensive to maintain?
Gay Marriage?
Gay anything?
Working poor?
Nepotism...hello Bush and Delay families.

Just shooting off the top of my head, but I think the underlying problem with the GOP, is HATE, HATE, HATE for the citizens, unless you're wealthy, of course!

[undergroundpanther]

1. They love America but hate it;s people who they force to be poor.

[Catchawave]

2. Exactly....

We need to take back our country....so how are we gonna do that? The Dems are already portrayed as "whiners", but we need to put a human face on Corporate Amerika !

[omega minimo]

8. Don't bother trying to out-Hate the Haters

They've cornered the market on that Hall of Mirrors.

How bout starting with They DON'T Love America? They're destroying the American system of government and American way of life. It's a short step from there to They Don't Love The American People.

How bout stickin em on the Big Gubmint bullshit? The American People ARE the government. Deprogram Americans on that "framing" and maybe they'll notice how the Repugs have made Big Gubmint even bigger!

"Framing" should be traded in for "telling the truth."

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClassWarrior]

19. You never told me whether or not you read the book.

Lakoff is very clear that the Radical RW need to reframe using "Orwellian Language" - that is, deception - otherwise they lose every time in a democracy. He is very emphatic to point out that we don't need to resort to dishonesty because Progressive values are the most cherished American values.

So, regardless of how it "resonates" with someone, framing is really truth-neutral according to Lakoff. Which, I assume someone would understand if he or she had indeed read any of Lakoff's books or papers on the subject.

My outstanding insight? It's irresponsible for someone to comment on a theory if that person hasn't even made an attempt to understand the theory in the first place.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

22. Kicking for an answer...

...that I suspect will never come.

NGU.

[omega minimo]

25. You never asked

"It's irresponsible for someone to (insult) a (post) if that person hasn't even made an attempt to understand the (post) in the first place."

[ClassWarrior]

27. Okay, I'm asking. Have you read the book?

I grant your rhetorical point. I didn't ask directly. I'm asking now.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

45. Anyone else hear crickets chirping?

NGU.

[omega minimo]

46. How's that working for ya?

[ClassWarrior]

47. Thanks for the answer.

:rofl:

NGU.

[omega minimo]

48. You attacked two on this thread

One played with you. One didn't.

[ClassWarrior]

49. Wrong. But thanks for keeping the thread kicked.

:thumbsup:

NGU.

[omega minimo]

50. How's that working for ya?

Attitude

[Auntie Bush]

13. How about Ken Lay?

[Dave Sund]

3. Heh...

Anyone else think Aaron Sorkin would be a good speechwriter? ;)

[ClassWarrior]

4. They don't love ANYTHING except power and profit.

They profess to love America, they profess to love God, they profess to love people, but all these fucks love is themselves. Sad.

NGU.

[TN al]

5. Here is a LTTE I wrote last summer...

...they didn't print it but I think it may be the type of thing you are asking for.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=54757

[ClassWarrior]

6. You might be interested in reading this...

The Terri Schiavo saga has prompted yet another round of fears that the Republican Party has been hijacked by religious conservatives. The truth, however, is just the opposite: Religious conservatives have been hijacked by the Republican Party.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chait1apr01.story

NGU.

[Catchawave]

15. Great article....

the manipulation of the "sheeple", and they don't even know it!

[Catchawave]

14. Wow, that's exactly what I was thinking of

and that was written before the election too!

And BushCo's gotten worse in the last 10 months.

We're losing friends and allies all over the world too. Also, other thoughts that came to mind

Gonzalez likes torture and the Patriot Act

Bolton doesn't even like the UN, yet he'll probably be confirmed.

BTW, The American President was directed by Rob Reiner. So it makes even more sense to me now :)

[realFedUp]

7. Love the Regressive CEO's, hate the workers

They don't love America, only their version
of it.

[Catchawave]

16. That's why all their flag waving and patriotic-speak is

so hypocritical! The true patriots in this country are those of us who disagree with the administration.

[forgethell]

10. "Framing the debate" is

another one of those mistakes democrats so often fall into. No matter how higher taxes, for example are re-framed, people will still want lower ones. Well, at least those people who presently want lower taxes.

And so it will prove with any other issue. "Moral values" will never mean 'taking care of the weakest among us', or more welfare, Social Security, health insurance, etc. to those who are against abortion, homosexuality, and non-marital sex.

What we have to do is convince people of the rightness of our ideas, not lie about them, which is basically what "framing" the debate is.

Are we so unsure of our positions? Do we need to deceive the people to win elections?

[ClassWarrior]

12. You didn't read the book either, did you??

Yet you presume to tell others what "framing the debate is??" That's totally irresponsible. Talk about being "unsure of our positions."

Framing IS about convincing people of the rightness of our ideas. But then you'd KNOW that if you'd bothered to read the book you're slamming.

Unbelieveable.

NGU.

[forgethell]

21. I read it.

I DO presume to express my opinions about this or any other idea. "Framing" is not about trying to convince others of the rightness of our ideas. It's about finding the "little bit of sugar" that "makes the medicine go down". And we're living in Mary Poppins' world if we think it will work in a universe of the Internet, Fox News, talk radio, etc.

Our ideas have to be better, our justification for them have to be better, or we will lose again, and again. Telling people that taxes are a"civilizational utility fee", or whatever phraseology is current, will not make them gladly open their wallet.

But go on ahead, and believe this if you wish. Join the Flat Earth Society, for all I care. I will do my part with another plan.

[ClassWarrior]

24. Then you must have skipped the whole section I refer to in post #19...

...because it says exactly the opposite of what you're saying.

Sugar coating?? So do you think the printing press was just "sugar coating" on the process of transcribing books by hand? Was the washing mashine just a way of "sugar coating" pounding your clothes on rocks?? Framing is a tool, and we neglect it at our own peril.

And by the way, I never implied you have no right to express your opinions. I said that it's irresponsible to express an opinion without being informed about the subject matter.

NGU.

[omega minimo]

26. Irresponsible

are your projection of your assumptions and your attitude (real discussion killer)

Thank you

[forgethell]

28. Orwell

put it best in "1984".

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say by analogy. What does the printing press vs. transcribing by hand have to do with an argument? The books would say the same thing in either format. What does the washing by machine have to do with anything?

Regardless of how the book describes itself, it is what it is, which is the advocation of, not changing the ideas, but changing the words that refer to them in the hope of making them more palatable to the voting public. This is an alternative, though not one that will work, to either changing the ideas themselves, or improving the justification for those ideas.

As for irresponsibility, well I consider my opinion to be pretty well informed. But if everybody that knew nothing about a subject just kept their opinions to themselves, DU would die in a week, as would a number of other blogs. Probably all of them,in fact.

[ClassWarrior]

30. Did you even read post #19? Lakoff refers to the "Orwellian Language"...

...of the Radical RW. In his formulation, framing is truth-neutral. That is, you can frame honestly or dishonestly. The Republicons have to frame dishonestly because if they were honest they'd lose every time. We can frame honestly because our values are the best of American values. Framing is simply a strategic tool for using language to one's advantage instead of one's detriment.

And that's what my analogies mean. The printing press and the washing machines were simply tools for doing something more efficiently. They are neither honest nor dishonest. As you said, "The books would say the same thing in either format."

And I'm sure you are pretty well informed. But you still haven't answered whether or not you've read the book.

NGU.

[forgethell]

31. I have to admit,

I did not read post #19 before responding previously. I now have. So let me get this straight. The RW calls the cost of government "taxes", and that is dishonest? While someprogressives call the cost of government something else, say like, "civilizational utility fees", or something, and that's honest?

As for the RW losing when they "frame" things honestly, well, they say the same about us, in case you haven't noticed. In the particular example (taxes) that I have referred to, empirical observation leads me to suggest that they have the right of it. Other issues, of course, it may be different.

All I can honestly say is that in my not-so-humble opinion, they have been electorally beating our pants off for some time. I don't think it's the way they "frame" things that has caused that. I think we've gotten too far out in front of the American people.

In short, it's not how they talk about it, it's what they are talking about. Hot button issues.

Cheers. :)

On edit: in post #21, I said that I did read the book.

[ClassWarrior]

32. I still think you missed big chunks of the book when you read it...

...or you don't retain very much of what you read, given that you have so many of the facts wrong.

Where the heck did you get "civilizational utility fees??" Lakoff's framing on taxes goes like this: the Radical RW frames taxes as a cost burden, an unwanted expense; on the other hand, Progressives must frame them as an investment in America. As in, our parents invested their tax dollars in freeways, and schools, and medical research through NIH out of a sense of responsibility to subsequent generations. In other words, the Progressive benefit outweighs the Radical RW expense. How is that dishonest? Both frames are true - but one paints our position in a bad light, and the other paints it in a good light.

If it's not how they talk about it, but what they are talking about, are you suggesting that Progressives are wrong on the issues the Radical RW chooses to highlight??

No, hot button issues become hot by virtue of the language used.

NGU.

[forgethell]

35. Yeah, yeah, I understand.

Picked it up off another blog.

You say the left frames are honest. OK, I tend to agree. But there are those who do not, and they can articulate their reasons why we are lying scumbags. Can you articulate why we are not, and they are? Without just pronouncing it to be so??

Are Progressives wrong on the issues? That's not what I said. But obviously many people think that we are. What are our reasons that we are right, and they are wrong?

Hot button issues become hot, not because of the language used but because of a) what they are, and b) the fact that somebody is pushing them.

As for 'investments'. These are things that people feel that they will get a return from. So many things that the government does, people do not feel they are getting a return from. For instance, anything "means-tested", the person who can afford to pay the taxes often is not eligible for the benefits. This causes intense resentment among many. People do not feel the progressive benefits outweigh the RW expense. Not in all cases, to be sure, but in enough.

I guess my real point is this: we cannot assume that just because we know our hearts to be pure, our motives above reproach, our minds to be superior, to the common people, that they will necessarily agree just because we keep telling them this in different ways. We have to be able to use reason, facts, and logic with them. Sure, emotional appeals help, but ultimately, they will fail if left unsupported by the other three. This is what we so often fail to do, IMO.

What 'facts' do I have wrong?

[ClassWarrior]

36. Wrong.

We have long used ONLY "reason, facts, and logic with them." The thing we so often have failed to do is use emotional appeals. We've talked ourselves blue in the face with facts and figures, and the eyes of much of the public have totally glazed over. True Progressives know that we ALREADY have "reason, facts, and logic" on our side - NOW what we need to do is get that message out in a way that resonates with people.

NGU.

[forgethell]

38. Now "getting

the message out" might be a good idea. Framing won't do it, though. Still, I could be wrong; I don't think so. We'll see in 2006 and 2008.

But again, I think you miss my point. We may have facts and figures, but do the American voters want what we want? I'm not so sure. Was it Dukakis, I think, that was going to have a more 'competent' Presidency than Ronald Reagan. The point I wrote to his campaign about at the time was 'competent' to do what?? He never said. He lost miserably. Hitler was pretty competent at what he did, but who wants that?


Well, this is just my opinion, of course, but, as I said, we'll see soon enough.

[ClassWarrior]

40. Do the American voters want what we want? Read Ruy Texiera's...

..."The Emerging Democratic Majority" for your answer.

And will framing get the message out? Well, it'd help if we had a highly-funded media like the corporatists do, but remember what William Burroughs said: "Language is a virus from outer space."

Framing works because phrases that resonate spread on their own. We all just have to be willing to give them that initial big kick.

Some reading material for you: “Too many progressives make the mistake of believing people are galvanized around ten-point programs. They are not! People respond according to their sense of right and wrong. They respond to a leadership of values.”
– Paul Wellstone

http://www.wellstone.org/organizing_corner/index.aspx?catID=5259

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

44. kicking for Paul Wellstone...

:kick:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

33. Waitaminnit... are you saying Progressives must CHANGE THEIR VALUES...

...in order to win?? You say the book is wrong because it advocates changing the just language, not the ideas. Which Progressive ideas do you want to change??

NGU.

[forgethell]

34. Not at all.

I could be a wise-ass and say, "only if they want to win". But that's not what I'm suggesting. What I am suggesting is a strategic retreat on the issues that we have to go to the courts for because we do not have the votes to pass in the legislatures.

Let's wait till we get back into power before pushing them. That's all I'm saying. Of course, if this is too deceitful for you, or if you don't like the way the issues would be 'framed', well we can remain outside in the howling wilderness as the Repukes win time after time.

[ClassWarrior]

37. Wow, that's totally out of the blue.

Whatever "issues" we want to advance is a whole other discussion. What I'm saying is that no matter what issues are on our table, we need to craft the language that we use in relation to them so that they reflect a coherent and unified set of values. And that's easy, says Lakoff, because our values are "the best of American values."

You really didn't read the book, did you? Can you even name the book?

NGU.

[forgethell]

39. The book

was "Don't Think of an Elephant".

Sure I read it. Still, regardless of what you may be discussing, what I am discussing is how to win elections. 'Framing' isn't it.

[ClassWarrior]

41. LOL

NGU.

[forgethell]

42. Laugh your ass off.

[ClassWarrior]

43. Read the book.

NGU.

[Scout1071]

18. They hate us for our Freedom

[samilib]

20. I also find that ironic.

You cannot speak of loving America unless you love all of America. I do not call what they advocate to be hatred because I know a lot of them. It's half the country. I would say that their actions do not say much for their so called love for America. On that note, why do they point the finger at us?

[Sparkly]

23. They continually cast themselves as an "opposition" party

Wasn't it astounding that their convention was all about anger and hatred of Democrats, as IF we were in charge?!

They need enemies, wars, opponents, scapegoats; they need to villify somebody and tap into the average voter's anger at life in order to hold themselves up as the solution.

It's the liberals!
It's the activist judges!
It's the obstructionist Democrats in Congress!
It's the ineffectual, corrupt UN!
It's the welfare queens!
It's the atheists!
It's the Arabs!
It's the unions!
It's CLINTON!!!

Never are they responsible for anything. Their role is leveraging blame of other people, using that as their entire position.

[berni_mccoy]

29. How about...

Republicans: They Love Huge Corporations And Want America to Be One.

And you better fit in or else...
No dissent
No gays

The ideal republican image of America is the Matrix or a society of God-fearing (or President-fearing) conformists.