Post Election Blues: Learn How to Frame

By now it may seem that the national elections in early November 2004 are "ancient history." John Kerry has faded into media obscurity. The disappointment and anger that many progressives felt has had to give way to "moving on" to other issues and problems.

In one of my earlier postings I referred to comments by friends about possible immigration. Of course, all of them are still here in the USA trying to work, pay the bills, maintain ties of family and friends and--most difficult of all--develop hope about who we are in this period of GWB's triumph. Not an easy task, any of this.

While the specific issues of Social Security, Iran, Iraq, Korea, the debt and myriad other concerns should capture our attention, it seems to me that progressive people should be giving thought to broader frameworks of public discourse and communications. We need to consider that the Right has been giving consideration to these matters for a long time and that this explains their increased ability to appeal to the voters.

Since The Blue Ogee bills itself as a virtual coffeeshop/bookstore, then let me give you this bookseller's recommendation: Go to your nearest Borders Books and pick up a copy of Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate by Berkley linguist George Lakoff (ISBN 1-931498-71-7).

Lakoff states that the great challenge to progressives in the period leading up to the new elections--if we wish to win--is to learn how to frame and reframe debates on key issues in our national discourse. He says that "frames are mental structiures that shape the way we see the world. As a result, they shape the goals we seek, the plans we make, the way we act, and what counts as a good or bad outcome of our actions. 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." - p. xv

For example, when George Bush began talking about "tax relief" during his first term, he was using a frame. Lakoff notes that "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." In other words, the Republicans had set a trap for Democrats.

Sometimes, frames, while not exactly lies, run around the truth by presenting another reality. So when we hear about the Clean Air Act, the frame obscures the reality of actual worse air quality. Or when we hear about No Child Left Behind, the frame obscures the reality the initiative masks of children who are, in fact, left behind. Or, in the current debate on Social Security, there have been Republican references to "saving" Social Security when, in fact, the goal is to roll it back, maybe to pre-Roosevelt non-existence.

Frames reflect underlying values. So in the debate over gay marriage, the question should shift from "Do you believe in same sex marriage?" to "Do you believe that all Americans should have equality before the law in choosing life partners?" (that is my rendering of the question). There is a shift in the framing here.

Framing is a matter that is relevant to the makers and shakers of public policy. But it is a matter that is relevant to progressives as they discuss and debate public issues with friends and associates. We all need to learn how to frame issues at this level.

Lakoff is closely associated with the Rockridge Institute, the only progressive think tank dealing with framing. Rockridge has a very nice www site. Visit it to see more of Lakoff's thought and the thought of others: www.rockridgeinstitute.org