[Please welcome author Bernie Horn, and our Host, Jeffrey Feldman. As is our tradition in Book Salons, please stay on the topic of the book. Thanks, Bev]
Midway through his new book on effective communication for progressives, Framing the Future, Bernie Horn steps back from his discussion of ‘persuadable’ voters to make a basic, but indispensable observation:
A political campaign is not the place to educate voters–it’s a place to persuade them. (Framing the Future, p. 52)
How it is that Democrats grew so unaware of this truism at the onset of the 21st Century will be the stuff of graduate school dissertations for generations. For now, framing savvy activists wonder why so many Democrats have heard some version of Horn’s maxim, but still have not assimilated it into their political habits.
Incredibly, almost five years has passed since Alternet.org published an essay on Arnold Schwarzenegger by Berkeley linguist George Lakoff, thereby, unleashing the concept of ‘framing’ on the American left (’The Frame Around Arnold,’ Oct 13, 2003). Two years later, ‘framing’ chatter had become big enough for The New York Times to run an entire piece on it (’The Framing Wars,’ Jul 17, 2005). Two years after that, a front-running candidate for President spoke about ‘framing’ on the stump (’Edwards: War on Terror "is a Political Frame and Political Rhetoric,"’ May 2, 2007). A sign of how central framing has become in Democratic politics, right-wing pundits have even turned their attention to it. Just last week, in fact, Ann Coulter spit on ‘framing’ in her latest syndicated piffle (’Obama Woos Gun-Toting God Nuts,’ Apr 16, 2008).
What ‘framing’ means is hard to define, not unlike the word ‘meaning’ or ’symbol.’ In linguistic jargon, it is a semiotic meta concept or ‘model’ invoked in discussions of how people understand words. For progressive politics, ‘framing’ is what Democrats say to other Democrats when talking about being more persuasive with others. In that ongoing conversation, which has been equal parts therapy and strategy, one question has emerged more often than others: Once we understand what framing is, how do we put it into practice? How do we do it?
The question brings us to the central challenge faced by the progressive movement: moving forward. The problem is not that Democrats discard the importance of persuasion–although some certainly do. Progressives simply have trouble taking the next step from diagnosis to improvement, from the realization that Democrats often talk in an alienating dialect of jargon-laden lists to the outcome of a new, effective form of expression that can carry the progressive movement into its next phase.
More than any book in recent memory, Bernie Horn’s Framing the Future begins at this point in the discussion of framing and rockets things down the road. The end result is a book that not only brings readers into the conversation about, but puts tools into their hands for getting down to business. Framing the Future is not a book aimed at readers who want to talk about framing, but at activists, candidates and organizers who want to used framing right away to win elections and influence debates.
Framing the Future is a pragmatic powerhouse largely because it is rooted in Horn’s experience with the Arthur Flemming Leadership Institute at the Center for Policy Alternatives (CPA). The list of Flemming alumni includes Jon Tester, Keith Ellison, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, just to name a few, but the success stories who have gone through the CPA program speak to much more than progressive celebrity credentials. Framing the Future includes the workshop-tested materials used by Horn.
The lesson of all that experience is that the best, progressive policies most often do not make sense to voters unless they are expressed in language that sounds somewhat foreign to Democratic policy makers. Progressives may think, for example, that critiquing ‘corporate greed’ is the best way phrasing to appeal to people who have been victimized by industry malfeasance. Testing shows, however, that talking about ‘Wall Street’ is actually a better way to speak to voters about setting rules for a fair marketplace.
The difference is much more than diction. Horn places these errant Democratic phrasings in the linguistic contexts of peoples lives and shows how common policy language often puts people in uncomfortable contradictions. Most Americans are against large companies taking advantage of people, but they also have jobs at firms they know to be ‘corporations.’ Choosing better words is not about embracing or abandoning progressive policies, but about recognizing that there are many different words that can express progressive values, but not all of them will appeal to the core group of voters that can be persuaded in a given campaign. In Horn’s presentation, in other words, ‘framing’ is about listening before speaking.
Horn divides his book into three parts, focusing on the general concept of framing, the mechanics of persuasion, and a toolbox of poll-tested, usable words Indeed, what distinguishes Framing the Future from most other books in this category is the emphasis on testing a phrase before urging the reader to adopt it. In particular, the generic progressive message that Horn recommends is not just the product of his workshops, insight, and creativity, but the single message that came out on top after an extensive voter reaction study.
When Horn suggests that Democrats adopt "freedom, opportunity, and security" as the broadest description of progressive philosophy, the data is there to show that it is better than the alternatives–even better than the Republican alternatives. Horn is not shy in saying that the lesson of message polling is one that Democrats needed to learn from the Republican denizen of newspeak, Frank Luntz, whose private firm was responsible for most of the successful Republican messaging set in motion by the Gingrich revolution of the late 1990s. According to Horn, the fact that most Democrats could see the deceptive goals of Luntz’ work prevented progressives from seizing upon the effectiveness of his basic method: message testing. The presentation of tested language in Framing the Future even uses a "Don’t say…", "Say" table-format similar to that found the infamous talking-point memos distributed to Republican lawmakers and political leaders. For readers after lists of words that can be put to use right away in progressive campaigns, Horn delivers big in chapters 7-11, packing in paired down keywords ready to adapt to localized message building. It’s a treasure trove of starting points.
In the end, Framing the Future bridges the divide between three key challenges in the ongoing effort to reinvigorate progressive communications. It explains why framing is important, walks us through the mechanics of framing, and provides tested starting points that can be put to use right away. Thus, Framing the Future will likely have the biggest impact on one of the most important aspects of the Democratic Party: candidates who want to make use of the insights of progressive framing from the past 5 years, but are unable to do so without tangible, organized starting points.
And if Horn’s roster of successful alumni is any indication, Framing the Future will indeed help progressives take many steps forward.
Related posts:
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Richard McCormack, Editor of Manufacturing a Better Future for America
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Matthew Kerbel, Netroots: Online Progressives and the Transformation of American Politics
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Hillary Rettig, The Lifelong Activist: How to Change the World Without Losing Your Way
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes William Greider, Come Home America
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Benjamin Page, Class War? What Americans Really Think About Economic Inequality
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Bernie and Jeffrey, welcome to the Lake.
Welcome, Jeffrey!
Congratulations, Bernie, on a great book. It’s an amazing resource and my new favorite crib sheet. Welcome to the book salon.
Thank you. It’s great to be here!
Welcome, Messrs. Horn and Feldman!
Just wondering: How much is it framing and how much is it media control? Rupert Murdoch’s now on the AP’s board. Former RNC Chair Roger Ailes has shaped the newsrooms at both NBC and FOX. Viacom/CBS head Moonves admitted that voting Republican was in his company’s best interests. How can framing compete when the other side controls the megaphone?
To kick thinga off: Which progressive policy areas areas do you think, Bernie, should be A-1 mission critical for framing work?(My hunch is the environment…)
Bernie, How long did it take to research and write the book?
Mr Horn, thanks for this book. I’m really taken with the idea that the pool of “persuadables” is quite small and must be targetted correctly. But do you think that this presidential election, if it’s between Clinton and McCain, might see usually reliable voting blocs stay home on both sides? Aren’t we already seeing McCain trying to shore up his non-persuadables on the right?
Your book is great. Thanks for joining us at FireDogLake today! And thanks to Jeffrey Feldman for your introduction.
I agree, the bad guys control a piece of the megaphone — much too big of a piece. But candidates, campaigns and activists can frame messages for mainstream reporters, they can use their own paid ads better, they can pass along good talking points on blogs like this. Ultimately, a campaign is a competition of ideas and ours are clearly better. We just need to use all the tools possible — including framing — to reach the persuadable voters.
Framing environmental issues is a place where we need to do a lot of work! The right wing uses a “security” frame to justify awful exploitation of our environment in the name of energy security. But if I had to pick one area where the progressive message is worst, it is education. It’s a complete mess.
Research — 3 years. Write — 3 months! I’ve been teaching this framing in day-long workshops for years now, so it was pretty easy to write down what I’ve been saying.
Will a significant number of voters stay home if it’s a Clinton versus McCain election? Hard to say at this point. Americans want change, that’s for sure. If those are the candidates, both will claim they are agents of change. If they fail and voters see this as just more of the same, it would effect turnout. However, my guess is that it will be Obama and that this will be a very high turnout election — voters may not be “bitter,” but they are angry!
Bernie, at the start of chapter four (”Targeting the Persuadables”), you write “Politics without targeting is like a firehose without a nozzle.” You go on to say
I get what you’re saying about using limited resources wisely, but there’s another aspect that you don’t get into — or if you did, I missed it. Gone are the days when you can speak to one small group here, another small group there, and still other small groups somewhere else without those words spilling over from one group into the others. Candidate Joe Sixpack might be speaking TO that group of persuadables, but he’s speaking in the hearing of both his already persuaded base and his never-to-be-persuaded opponents.
In my opinion, a lot of candidates try to speak not TO the persuadables, but to the never-to-be-persuaded and hope that the persuadables hear how reasonable the candidate sounds. “Gosh, he’s reaching across the aisle . . .” Again in my opinion, this is a recipe for disaster.
Values are central to framing, but its so hard to define them in general terms. What’s your definition?
Democrats adopt “freedom, opportunity, and security” as the broadest description of progressive philosophy, the data is there to show that it is better than the alternatives–even better than the Republican alternatives.
Two out of three of the above terms ring hollow to me. Having heard the words freedom and security uttered ad nauseum by Republicans (warmongers and sychophants who have diminished both) turns me against them. When I hear them now, I think more of fascism than freedom. Doesn’t freedom come from free doom, anyway?
Granted, I am not the Independent swing voter who needs to be persuaded. Still the repukes have killed those words for me.
Peterr, I totally agree. As both Clinton and Obama have recently learned, you’ve got to expect that what you say in one setting may very well get out to others — especially in the most high-profile races. I think that you’re complaining that too many Democrats think that the way to win is to be “moderate.” What I’m saying is, the problem is not the substance of the legislation progressives seek to enact — our policies are popular. The problem is that we need to use not “moderate” but “mainstream” language to describe what we’re for.
About values — the right wing has tried to convince voters that “values” are derived from a fundamentalist religious code of conduct. But polls show that Americans disagree, they think that “values” have to do with knowing right from wrong, being fair with others, telling the truth, and living up to one’s own philosophy.
Welcome Mr. Horn.
Yes, as long as that mainstream language doesn’t lend itself to the “shrieking” set. It’s easier to dismiss any position on any issue if the shouting is coming from all sides. The Right wants those fights to be a wash I think.
Thank you for this comment, because it is key to the discussion. We in the progressive base hear words differently than the persuadable voters. We get sick of hearing Bush say “freedom” when he means, essentially, oppression and militarism. But “freedom” is the most powerful political principle to the persuadable voters. (That’s why Bush uses it so much.) We can’t let him get away with it! We can continue the way we are winning and losing elections narrowly, but if we want a true political realignment, we have to take back the words “freedom” and “security.” And we can do it!
“The problem is that we need to use not “moderate” but “mainstream” language to describe what we’re for.”
Thank you. That’s so true. Ironically, they have to also be convinced that we are not some lunatic fringe — That we more closely reflect the mainstream and their “moderate” stance is really to the right…Guess our work is cut out for us. Some are beginning to understand, though.
Hi Jeffery, just listened to your segment on Action Point with Cynthia Black… interesting about linking Obama with Terrorism using the Weather Underground link…
About the shrieking set — you mean the right-wing bloviators, I trust. They are a pain, I grant you. But keep in mind, they are not actually speaking to persuadable voters. Persuadable voters don’t watch or listen to them at all. Instead, they are mostly entertainers for the right-wing base.
“The Dems will raise your taxes.”
“Republicans are fiscally conservative.”
Pro-choice/pro-life
Need bigtime reframing.
All in all, it’s very exciting to see the same kind of infrastructure being built on the progressive side that our conservative opponents perfected through the seventies and eighties: think tanks, fellowships, candidate training, messaging and framing centers, and (now) blogs.
It’s often said about the right that if they won their abortion war, lots of money, activism, and organization would dry up. Do you think progressivism could lose steam once we get universal health care in America?
Not the lunatic fringe — Yes! The point is that our philosophy — which I suggest should be presented as “freedom, opportunity and security for all Americans” is completely in the mainstream of American political thought and their philosophy — to advance these values only for a select few — is entirely unAmerican.
As a non-fundamentalist member of the clergy, I am appalled at what the right wing has done to words like “moral values” and the twisted policies that they try to justify as “the Christian position” when nothing could be further from the truth.
So let’s bring the “moral values” discussion into the “mainstream language” discussion. Somehow, a progressive candidate stamping his or her foot and whining “I am TOO a moral person!” doesn’t seem to have worked well (I’ll refrain from naming names). How would this kind of statement by a progressive candidate fare, by your CPA lights:
Is it moral to have gone to war in Iraq under false pretenses? Is it moral to have charged the cost of this war to generations yet unborn? Is it moral to give paramilitary security contractors immunity from Iraqi law, US Civil law, and US military law?
Would this kind of reframing put “moral values” into a broader context more helpful to progressives in reaching the persuadables?
Let’s look at these, LS. We recognize that taxes are not fair and we’re for making taxes more fair — which can only be accomplished through a more progressive structure. We’re not for big government, we’re for the government needed to provide freedom, opportunity and security for all — and not one bit more. We believe abortion should be safe, legal and rare (and if there’s more time, explain that it’s an issue of freedom.)
I know some O’Reilly viewers who consider O’Reilly and themselves to be sensible, moderate, middle-of-the-road-types. Do you believe that O’Reilly fans by and large can be persuaded to vote for Hillary or Barack?
Bernie — thanks so much for being here today and for writing such a valuable book. So much to think about in it, and to contemplate in terms of how I frame up my posts and discussions in more pro-active terms. I especially liked the economic discussion section — where you discuss a shift in the perspective from “free markets” to “fair markets.” Just a change of so few letters makes a world of difference in terms of tone — especially given how Dems ought to be capitalizing on the state of the economy, and how it got where it is, the last few years for so many people in this country.
Jeffery, as always, fantastic introduction. Thanks so much for leading the discussion — brilliant stuff.
Another problem faced by some progressives is the ability of the GOP and the right wing to get Democrats to spout the GOP talking points for them. Sometimes this is self-inflicted (see both the Obama and Clinton campaigns at various times for examples of this). At other times, though, the conservative “Blue Dogs” or former Democrat Joe Lieberman are trotted out by the right wing as “proof” of the bipartisan nature of their right wing policies.
How do progressives push back against the members of their own party who speak against the interests of the party as a whole?
Interesting observation. I was actually over at Jim Wallis’s ‘beliefnet.com’ earlier, and what I find so striking is that on many issues (torture, global warming, even the ABC ‘Debate’ last week) the evangelicals seem to be saying they want action on the same issues that progressives want.
I had not put this book on my ‘to read this month’ list, but after reading Mr Feldman’s intro, plus comments here, it’s now going onto my list.
In fact, the issue of wretched environmental framing has been a pressing issue on my plate the last 10 months or more… I’ll hope your book can assist.
What about appealing to morality, you ask. Works great with the progressive base, doesn’t work too well with the persuadables. Persuadables tend to be individualists — they want to know more than anything, “how will that policy affect me personally?” So let’s tell them. The Iraq war has made all of us less secure — it has diminished our ability to work with our allies to fight terrorism in an effective way. Polls show that we don’t have to persuade voters of this, they already agree. So let’s make it clear: progressive policies make us safer.
Your point about putting words and their meanings back together, in a way that is true to both and yet gets progressives’ messages across, is vividly made in this review of Dean Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels. By no means only a children’s story, Swift’s 1726 tale continues accurately to describe the human condition and those who would disguise it in their own interest:
From Victoria Glendinning’s review yesterday in Canada’s Globe and Mail.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com…..nment/home
Greetings Bernie;
Let’s see if I got it.
Freedom to discover our genius,
Opportunity to pursue it and the
Security of good health, worthwhile endeavor and government policies which
support and encourage the same for all human beings.
I think it would be appreciated and embraced.
Afterall, we’ve already explored the alternative …
hackworth, there’s always some, but polls have shown that very few of these viewers are persuadable. About 90-95 percent of Fox viewers are pretty hard-core.
Let me highlight what Christy said — I think that the single most important thing we can do about framing progressive economic policy is to stop saying “freedom” when talking about economics. We should say “fair markets” not “free markets,” “fair trade” not “free trade,” and so on.
Oops — hit submit before I typed in my question…
For either of you, why are democratic politicians failing to talk pragmatically and personally about the economy? This used to be such a progressive strength, but we are failing to speak to the real world fears and insecurities — very real ones — of a large portion of the electorate. Given that the GOP has shown that they have been failures at running so much as a lemonade stand let alone running the entire economy into a ditch in 7-plus years, why on earth are we not running more strongly on this issue? Our framing has sucked on this — what can we do better? And am I missing where the campaigns are doing well with this?
Ok. On taxes and abortion, I’ve been advancing my own frames on various networks right and left. If I may, I’d like to offer them here.
1. On taxes, I compare to stockholders. We want to make sure investors in America receive the greatest return on their investment, meaning Universal Health Care, job creation, education, etc. The other side has been using our taxes to enrich corporations. (An incomplete summary.)
2. On abortion: The government can’t be allowed that much power to say a woman can’t because the other side of that coin is that much power will allow them to say a woman must.
These are usually thread killers.
(Wish I were a faster typist and not on dial up. Thanks for the reply to my 20)
How to get Democrats to not swallow the right-wing frames? It’s hard because first, they don’t tend to know what they’re doing wrong. Second, there is very little effort behind distributing progressive talking points to all of our folks. The conservatives do a great job telling all of their people what to say, e.g. “death tax.”
Bravo! The trick to message framing is this: we can’t really change people’s minds. They hold onto beliefs despite all evidence (e.g. read Drew Westen’s The Political Brain). So our goal is not to change minds, it is to show people that they agree with us already.
I agree. Most of them are lost causes. Its amusing that these O’Reilly viewers I mentioned believe themselves to be fair and balanced, thoughtful straight talkers. Once a Millionaire customer recommended that I watch O’Reilly (b/c Billo is such a straight-talking no-spin-zone guy). That was funny.
Christy — I think we’re all distracted by the primaries and we need to get voters focused on the general election as soon as possible. There is a famous frame from the 1992 election — “it’s the economy, stupid.” That should definitely be revived for 2008.
Bernie, to that end — one of the things that has amazed me as I’ve dug into the right-wing wurlitzer and message distribution apparatus is how much institutionalized training, reputation enhancement opportunity (i.e. spots in pseudo-think tanks for resume bumps, placement of articles in conservative “journals” and such to bolster publication credentials and clippings books, media training retreats, etc., etc.). All of this has been set up on conservative foundation dimes — and it isn’t just pundits who go through it, but politicians, staffers, wanna-be politicians, and political strategists who are being groomed for the future — all of whom are taught from the get-go how to market themselves and the GOP.
The left-wing has NOTHING like this, basically, and we have even less in terms of training for elected officials. And every time there is an interview back-and-forth, it shows. Is there any hope that left-wing groups will ever gear up on this scale? Because, frankly, we have a lot of folks who could use the help…
I would modify that insofar as the current administration has been wonderfully adept at enriching a very few: those already rich, those who opportunistically profit from their control of the government purse and its allocation of enormous resources for war, “defense” and “security”.
They are not adept at tending to the needs of the other 96% of Americans. They seem to consider doing that aiding and abetting the enemy. They do, however, create an indelible image that they are tending to those needs. Messages that if not lies, are certainly deceptive emotionally and factually.
Only those willing to challenge authority, which excludes the administration’s base of “authoritarians”, challenge that framing. That leaves us a lot to work with.
On taxes and abortion — I think the taxes / investors argument is a bit too difficult for the persuadables, although our base should get it. I’ve not seen a poll on this so that’s just a gut feeling. I think you’re basically right about abortion — that’s one way of explaining a freedom frame. We don’t all have to give the same examples, as long as we use the same frame.
The WSJ, of all places, had an article with a graphic showing just how few people had been enriched the last few years and it was an eye-opener as a graphic, let me tell you. I’m hoping to do something on it this week for everyone, if I can find a way to link it up for you all to see.
When that message starts seeping through to the WSJ crowd, you know it is something we ought to be able to capitalize on — and fast. Bernie is right that we need to have people working the general election messaging now — we can’t wait because the team around McCain is already positioning him for the general and the media is complicitly going along with it, hook, line and stinker.
It’s also my sense that many people (including Republicans and evangelicals with whom I’m in contact) didn’t really have to think very much about voting as long as they had health care, profitable jobs, the economy was good, and they felt stable.
But the events under BushCheney (Abu Gharib, lack of diplomacy, sinking dollar) have been really alarming to some Republicans that I’ve known for a long time. They used to identify ‘Dems’ as ‘union thugs’ and have had a hard time thinking of themselves as voting for that image. This is the first time in a generation that they’ve been deeply shaken enough to actively seek out more information about politics — their usual ‘vote Republican’ mode isn’t working for them anymore.
But they need to believe the Dems aren’t ‘wacko’ or going to start telling management how to do things five minutes after the election is over. (At least, that’s what I think that I hear them say…)
About the lack of a left-wing infrastructure — This is all too well documented, I’m afraid. Right-wing donors give large and sustained contributions to build their infrastructure, and one result is that they can achieve message discipline in a campaign, and “swift-boat” our candidates. There are some excellent progressive training programs — my favorite is Progressive Majority which helps elect candidates to state and local offices in targeted states. But our side is woefully underfunded compared to theirs.
Thank you! That’s just the kind of feedback I was looking for! :) I’m lovin’ this discussion and look forward to reading the book.
BTW: Are you on facebook?
Agree 100%. Investment brings time, which allows people to focus their work on the pragmatics of framing. Until that happens, most efforts will be reactionary. Bernie is out in front on the pragmatics, so we should be asking him where to invest to build the institutions that can do this work!
Absolutely. Hope you’re able to publish that comment and the link to the WSJ graph. If Murdoch’s WSJ acknowledges it in print, the business community it represents is worried about blowback, and not just about the possible capping of top executive salaries.
Let’s make them more worried so that we can use the collective resources of government (the “your money” Bush so cavalierly talks about, since in his personal life, he’s always spent someone else’s), in order to shift government’s priorities toward meeting the needs of that bottom 96+%. They’ll pay either way; might as well get something for it instead of watching it go to someone else.
You make an important point — 2008 can be a realignment election; voters can swing heavily toward the Dems this year because Bush so clearly failed in every way. The problem, however, is that voters will go just so far voting “against” Republicans. They want to vote “for” something, and so far, the Democratic/liberals/progressives have not presented a positive vision of the future. There’s still plenty of time to do so, but we’re only going to narrowly win without a positive vision (like the one I lay out in my book, if I may say so). With a vision, we can make 2008 into a fantastic year.
I am on facebook.
I think we’re facing a thirty year deficit in catching up with Right Wing investment in message development and management. Theirs has been an awe inspiring achievement, but it has worked great mischief. We should work hard, and use the Right Wing example about where to put that energy, but not expect to catch up in a single election cycle.
For myself, I believe this is because so many of the folks presented as “liberal” or who claim the “liberal” label are in fact Republican-lite types. I’m including folks like Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emmanuel in that description. They are presented as liberal by the TradMed but are actually far from liberal in actions.
If I may make a boldfaced plug, one way to invest in framing is for people in the netroots to keep talking about it, and sharing the latest frames on our side and theirs. One great place to do that is at Jeffrey’s blog, http://jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com/
Good! We can help promote your book there. If you have a link? Or click on the F next to any one of our names to save time and as friend…
Granted that the right-wing has a big head start. But there are some things that GOPAC did in the early 1990s that our side could do to help catch up. Things like lists of words that progressives should use and other words that we should avoid. Like CDs that candidates and activists can listen to in their cars that give examples of how to respond to various issues. Like short videos showing the right way and wrong way to persuade voters.
I thought Obama was very persuasive when he said this:
Everyone heard it, everyone lauded it, including the MSM. Yet they persist in demanding inane, stale questions of our candidates. I consider it an insult to my intelligence and to the intelligence of all voters. Hence the signs of impatience on his part at the last debate. How do we change that? What should the candidate do, other than showing irritation and petulance?
“and as friend…”
Sheesh. That’s “add as friend”
Thanks for this — it’s very much what I’m sensing, as well.
Plus, I’m in Washington State, so two words: “John McKay” explain some of the really deep anger that has surprised me over the past year in personal conversations with suburban Republicans. McKay seems to be held in high regard and (my small, anecdotal view) the Bushies absolutely blew it with that USAG obscene perversion of ‘justice’.
Plus, a lot of people in my region are employed in export-related work. The sinking dollar means others can buy more US goods, but things like Abu Gharib are very…. ‘complicating’ fo r building international business relationships. (I think that I managed to phrase that politely…)
Providing these ‘visions’ of what the future would look like or better, ‘feel like’ is the crucial next step to consolidating whatever ‘gains’, hopefully the Presidency and both houses of Congress,
we may make.
These visions are the groundwork of change and may be just the coherent ‘push’ that certain politicians need in order to have the audacity to do what the times, the environment and the needs of humanity require.
I have to second Jeffery’s blog, as a long time reader, I think he’s great. I was also very impressed at Democracy fest, oh, I think, 2005? In Austin? The good Dr. Feldman rocked in a curiously revival-like setting, we even had the tent!
Like your much appreciated book and training materials.
How to change the MSM — we can’t! They are playing a game of sorts, although they don’t see it as a game. Rather, they think there are “rules” they need to follow. Raising and sustaining these petty issues are part of the rules. In the general election, our candidates on all levels need to understand the media rules as well as the conservatives do, and use those rules to get the best coverage possible. Clinton’s people know all the rules and Obama’s are still learning a few.
Yes, all too often we elect candidates and then they are afraid to vote for real change. They get sucked into inside-the-Beltway thinking. This is, in part, because they don’t get elected by espousing any principles. So once they attempt to accomplish the specific promises made in their campaigns, they have no guide for what to do once in office. There is a conservative philosophy and they made revolutionary changes in American law based on that philosophy. We’re not going to make substantial progressive changes without a progressive philosophy. (Much more of this in the first three chapters of my book.)
McCain — loose cannon, irrational anger, verbally abusive, condescending, flashpoint anger, vengeful.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..24_pf.html
I disagree.
The backlash against ABC this past week has been noticed, and not just by the political press. When Tom Shales ripped into Gibson and Stephanopoulos, it got noticed.
Another example: FDL’s analysis and reporting during the Libby trial shamed some members of the media into providing better coverage.
Changing the MSM is possible — making them look silly, superficial, and irresponsible are three good places to start — but it’s not something that will happen overnight.
Yes, McCain is quite a piece of work and lots of people who know him really dislike him. But I doubt that will be important in persuading the persuadables. More likely the key to the election is “change versus more of the same.” McCain (some say McSame) represents the Bush failures; he would be a continuation of the Bush regime; he would be a third term for Bush. I’m guessing that will eventually become the Democratic frame.
I think they should go after McCain the way the right went after Kerry: Point out at every opportunity that his wife bought him eight houses. Mention how many planes he crashed when he was in the Navy. The gloves have to come off!
Oddly enough, they touched on that this morning, I believe it was on George Stephanopolous show. Sam Donaldson said something to the effect that Hillary is running as someone who knows the Washington system best, therefore, she can play the game better than Obama, whereas he wants to change the system. He cited her “experience” meme. I thought that was very inciteful and I personally appreciated the comment. I would say, more of this, please.
Yes, more of the same and worse than Bush.
I agree that progressives need to keep the pressure on the MSM, and that we can affect future coverage. However, let me suggest that is already part of the “game,” that conservatives have been doing it for years (like repeatedly trying to frame the MSM as “liberal” in order to get them to be more conservative), and that our side has gotten better at this game. There has been a long-standing effort within journalism to change the culture, get away from “he said…she said” stories, lessen coverage of the “horserace” in favor of more substantive coverage — but that effort has borne little fruit. I really don’t expect the MSM to change, but our side can certainly do a whole lot more to play the news game better.
The ‘Games’, for that they are, includes ‘Capitalism’, all economic ’systems’ are games, ‘religion’ is a game.
It is a wise people who know this.
It is an unfortunate society which does not.
Particulary, when nations are prepared to kill in the pursuit of ‘winning’, when one class, destroys the viability of a nation for ’short term’ gain or when the mercenary interests of a few render the role of the fourth estate a joke. (Not that it was ever a sterling example)
We need to get a handle on our games. And our MYTHS.
“framing the debate”
man, that is a theme after my own heart, I hate it when republicans or concervatives use terms that are contrary to their actual performance
but we can persuade AND educate during an election, we don’t need to do one OR the other, we can do both and would be better served at that
for onstance, the very notion that reagan cut taxes and shrunk government is rediculous, he was the largest tax increaser in the history of this country during peacetime and he grew government, yet the republicans are somehow allowed to frame his performance as if he lowered taxes and shrunk government
the democrats can easily reclaim this by both persuading and educating
something like this would be GREAT;
“the democats intend on lowering taxes back to the levels before reagan raised those taxes…the republicans have marketed a myth that reagan lowered taxes when in fact he raised them more then anyother peacetime president
we intend on lowering taxes back to the point where they were before reagan raised taxes in an irresponsible effort to redistribute middle class assets to the wealthiest people in the country
those irresponsible tax increases will be reversed”
bing, re claiming the tax issue, phrasing it for best impact and destroying the republican brand all at the same time
Going after McCain — remember, the swift boat group was officially independent of the Bush campaign, so Bush could deny the worst of the slanders. But more important, swift-boating worked because it fit Rove’s frame for the 2004 election — that Bush was “strong” and Kerry was “weak.” While one group knocked down the idea that Kerry was strong because he was a war hero, Rove concentrated on calling Kerry a flip-flopper, again saying that he was weak. My point is that any attack on McCain needs to fit into the overall Democratic frame for this election in order to have a substantial impact. We don’t yet know what that frame will be. But as I said before, the most likely is “change versus more of the same.”
Trickle down poverty.
I’m not sure how much the voters are willing to trust Dems now. I believe after Katrina voters got a rude awakening, and they put Dems in the majority last election to make changes. Those changes involved dealing more substantially with the Bush administration corruption and incompetence. So far, I don’t believe they’ve seen enough evidence that Dems are gutsy enough to have dealt with it properly. They see the President dictating to Congress, ignoring Congressional subpoenas, etc., and getting away with it. They still want changes made, but I’m not sure they think we won’t revert to business as usual once the elections are done. I guess our only hope is that we can convince people that McSame would be catastrophic both on Iraq and Iran, and the economy as well, with no healthcare program worth having.
Republicans – sink or swim.
I like the way Obama sometimes takes on the right’s frames, in a cool and humorous manner, by saying more eloquently what Cheney often says bluntly: I reject your basic premise. Wouldst that more Dem politicians could do that as well as Obama.
Would you suggest framing Congressional races with the Change meme, too? My local race is Russ Warner running against David Dreier in the CA 26th. Dreier has been the incumbent forEVER and really doesn’t do much for his constituents except look pretty and chair the Rules committee.
In the post (and in the book), Jeffrey mentions a number of freshmen members of Congress who are good at this kind of framing and messaging.
That’s great, but much of what gets done in Congress happens because the leadership gets behind it. Bernie, among the leadership in the House and Senate, who would you say has the best grasp of the things you are talking about here?
Ann, I agree that voters are wary of the Dems because they’ve seen little difference since 2006. Just look at Congress’s unfavorable poll ratings. But all is not lost. American voters tend to be optimists. If we give them a positive vision of a progressive future, I think they’re ready to vote for the candidates who will put it into effect — if they can only explain their vision in the language of the persuadable voters rather than the language of insiders or the Democratic base.
Every congressional candidate is going to do their own polling and find their own message. But there’s a good chance that the candidate won’t understand that a “message” is not just a list of issues. Yes, change is probably going to be the best frame for someone like Russ Warner — but he’ll have to test it in his own polls to believe it.
I certainly don’t want to get in trouble by saying who doesn’t “get it” on the Hill! Most of the Democratic leaders have heard George Lakoff speak, and most of them “get it,” at least in part. The last time I saw the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, he had a copy of my book on his desk, so I’d have to say he REALLY gets it.
Bernie have any Democratic politicians approached you regarding some help with this ‘vision’ thing?
They would be wise if they did.
Mayhap, ‘that’ should be ‘our’ litmus test.
Truly appreciate your perspective, Bernie, that it coincides with my own has nothing to do with such appreciation, it merely allows me to better value the ‘body’ and substance of your insights and clear-eyed vision.
Thank you, very much indeed!!
Bernie, thank you for spending the afternoon with us at the Lake.
Jeffrey, thank you for hosting this book salon for Bernie.
Well, in fact I have been approached by the organization Campaign for America’s Future (www.ourfuture.org) and starting tomorrow I will be helping that group with message framing for 2008 and beyond. Hopefully Democratic candidates will pay attention to the recommendations of this fine group.
Thank you all! This was really fun.
Thank you Bernie, looking forward to reading your book.
I understand your reticence . . . so I’ll offer at least a little bit of my own perspective.
Rahm Emanuel, in my opinion, gets it the least. His advice to freshmen and his recruiting and backing of conservative dems smacks of the “let’s buy into the rightwing framing” in the very worst ways.
Over in the Senate, I think Dick Durbin has a generally good sense for these things, but Harry Reid is more erratic and Dick has to follow The Leader more than he might like.
That’s great Bernie, I’ll be watching to see the inevitable and good effect of your counsel on Campaign for America’s Future,
From my perspective their ’stock’ just went up.
That is absolutely wonderful news! I’ve been a member there for some time. Thank you so much for being here. And thanks Jeff for hosting (and for your excellent blog, too). :)
Thank you both, Bernie and Jeff.
Just simply great!!
That’s why I like Donaldson’s comment so much: He painted Hillary with a Washington insider brush while Obama is for change.
This discussion brings to mind a conversation I had last night with a person my age who styles himself an Eisenhower and Rockefeller Republican and went to high school and Princeton with Charlie Gibson. He’s voting for Obama this time round, if Obama makes it to the General Election. He’s a decent guy whose written the major textbook in my field, and so actually has some effect on how young college students see the social history of their nation. I identified myself as an Adlai Stevenson Democrat.
Anyway, the word was ‘entitlement.’ He said, he liked a lot of what the Democrats had to say about Iraq and the government fiscal policy, and hates the corruption of his party by the thugs who captured it. But he says, what sticks in his craw is the Democrat’s support of ‘entitlements.’ I asked him if he meant Social Security, which he and I are now both collecting, and he said no. So I said, which ones, exactly? And he couldn’t come up with any specifics. It was just the word, that stands for the idea of somebody getting something just because of their status that sticks in his Protestant craw.
It wasn’t Head Start, it wasn’t food stamps. What he wants I suppose is a negative income tax. Just give people the money. But resistance to that kind of redistribution from people who don’t believe people should be paid to survive is even stronger than it is to welfare?
‘Entitlements’ is a code word. It is one of those words that is killing us. It gives people the sense that other people are living off their hard work. It means tests our social consciousness. We need better framing for what amounts to social solidarity. FDR was a master at it, and we could worse than to return to his ‘Four Freedoms.’
Excellent comment!!!
The ‘Four Freedoms’:
1. Freedom of Speech and Expression
2. Freedom of Religion (we should add, ‘from’, as well, perhaps)
3. Freedom from Want
4. Freedom from Fear
Yes, we could do much worse. Much worse, in deed as well as fact …
What you appear to be describing is called “income maintenance” when I worked on the experimental social program during the Nixon Administration. It was hoped by Nixonians that it would be a replacement for welfare. It is a train wreck of a system! The whole idea is to just give people a subsistence income so that they can survive and take the caseworkers out of it. Of course, you still need workers in offices taking apps and working on income report forms so that you could have some modicum of oversight, but I got some feedback after the results of the four experiments came back, and the system just doesn’t do well. Good social workers are way more effective than you think! But you’re right; like “liberal,” the rethugs have used “entitlements” as a dirty word and pinned it on the Dems as something we want for everybody for way too long!
I agree, go back and reclaim FDR and his four freedoms and at the same time, excoriate Bush for taking away the freedoms that he has expunged. Tell the people we will restore Habeas Corpus, privacy, and personal freedom. Of course, you realize we cannot do this if Hillary becomes our candidate. She has supported making flag-burning illegal, and so far has not said a peep about restoring Habeas Corpus or banning torture to my knowledge.
At the Yearly Kos convention I offered to help three different groups and one individual with messages, narratives and interactions with various audiences. But they don’t want to listen to me, someone who has had a demonstrable success in fighting the right wing noise machine and organized an internationally successful media story. I guess they would rather listen to the people who have lead them to failure year after year.
They didn’t see the talent staring them in the face. Ironically Kos’ book on Crashing the Gates was probably read by these people and they wanted to go back to the same ol’ “experts” to do the same old things and get their asses kicked the same old ways.
The think-tank conservative money machine flows to the right because they have been told that they will do better with GOP right-wing pundits and politicians in place. Maybe it’s time for them to figure out that the GOP is actually BAD for business. What kind of ROI are those think-tanks getting for their funders these days? Maybe since they are the ultra rich they ARE getting good results, but maybe some of them can see that an economy run by Democrats is actually better for them and start funding out think tanks.
Maybe I’ll have to start my own think-tank, the Spocko Think Tank :-)
Spocko- how would you diagnose this malady? I think that the Dems have a hard time taking the gloves off, so to say, because this is just so “unseemly”. And, the “consultant class” has been a particular point of discussion at FDL- on and off for the years I’ve been here. So, I certainly get that part!
had to duck out for a Passover Seder, but wanted to say “Wow!” Great thread. Thanks, B and FDL. See you all online!
Yes, great thread! Sorry I missed it.
I believe that our most important mission, aside from passing actual populist legislation, is framing it properly for the “persuadables.” If we the people are going to take our country back we MUST first learn how to convince “the people” to realize we are on the same side. Considering the mood of the public, if we can’t do it now we never will.
Vally Girl: I think fighting them takes place at 3 levels.
One thing I still remember Suzy from Suburban Guerrilla said to me in 2005. She said I’d quit because I’m a liberal and I didn’t have the will to crush them. What they don’t tell you about the “taking the gloves off part” is that to take the gloves off takes a certain kind of personality and not everyone has that.
When I spot people with the right personality to take them on I want to elevate them into positions of power and influence. So for example, I’ve watched which pundits/media people do well in the hostile environment. They excel at it and they enjoy it. Sam Seder and Cliff Schecter come to mind.
I push Athenae over at First Draft and her books because she is a brilliant writer and she has the heart of a warrior. So I work to make HER the person to call when they TV and Radio people are looking for a comment on Feith or journalism/blogging. The media look for the standard things when they are looking for an “expert” and if we aren’t out there pushing our experts you can bet that the right wing are out there pushing theirs.
We can develop our talent but we can also look at the talent that is out there who can do what needs to be done and support them.
People talk about “we need a Karl Rove” I don’t want a Karl Rove. I want someone who is BETTER than Karl Rove. Rove is not a genius, he has a few tricks and he uses them over and over. I believe that we can be smarter than them and ethical.
I also encourage us to use our talents to fight them in new ways. I don’t know what field you are in, but say for example you are in the world of Human Resources. And say that you believe that torture is wrong and that the frame of “Security is more important than values” is sent out to the world via people like Doug Feith or John Yoo. Now I say to you. If you can’t figure out how get them prosecuted as a war criminal, then look to the things that ALWAYS trip up the Republicans. Money and bizarre personal relationships. Look into the HR policies of the Universities. Sure it would be great to get him fired for being a war criminal but it would also be great to get him fired for some violation of the schools code of conduct or for a financial misdealing.
Think Al Capone and taxes. And in the process you might be able to make a point about some HR point that right wing people who are working for universities are breaking the rules. Because that is what they do all the time.
Plus, nobody likes Feith and Yoo. They have very few allies. But I will tell you that they will probably cry if they figure out that people are “picking on them” and then that is one of my problems. I have empathy. Unlike them. So it is helpful if you are “taking the gloves off” on people who truly are nasty people who have harmed millions.
We are creative and tough. I might be harder to figure out how to win with out descending into their world, but why not go for the challenge. I love movies where the scrappy underdog figures out how to win and doesn’t become what they despise to do it. I’m sure you’ve read a few books like that where the people figure out how to make the villain destroy themselves.
One think I will add: You know that whole “Speak truth to Power” deal? Guess what? Power doesn’t like it when you talk back. They especially don’t like it if you impact their money flow. Sometimes they ignore you sometimes they just say, “So?” Other times, if you really want to have an impact on them you have to look for the fulcrum that will move them. What will change their behavior? Who do they listen to? Who has power over them? When you find it you can move them. But be prepared for them to push back. But you will, because you thought it out, you knew what they would do and you prepared for it. And it becomes just another way to win.
Spocko- was off doing other things, but just came back to read your latest comment. Thank you for a great comment, great thinking, great writing. Really one of the highlights of the thread, especially as I know quite a bit of your story via FDL and elsewhere.