Rebooting Democracy, Part One: Framing
Over the weekend of January 11-13, I attended the Rebooting Democracy conference put on by the Oregon Bus Project. It featured several workshops, policy discussions, and candidate debates. Over the next week or so, I'll try and summarize some of these happenings. (I had intended to do a quick wrap-up over a couple of days, but I ended up going more in depth here than I intended. Ultimately, I think this will be more interesting for any readers I may have, but it's going to take a bit more time.)
The subject of the first workshop I attended was "framing." For those not familiar with the concept, framing refers to setting the context in which an issue is discussed, particularly the language used to discuss the issue. For example, on the issue of abortion, you'll notice that pro-choice advocates talk about "choice" and "the right to choose" rather than being pro-abortion. Their opponents are considered anti-choice. On the other side, abortion opponents call themselves pro-life and consistently refer to the fetus as an unborn child.
The panel discussing the issue consisted of Ian Greenfield, Adam Klugman, Mac Pritchard, Steve Bella. The first point they made was that you have to frame things in a way that people personally relate to. People don't care (as much) about other people who don't have health care. What they worry about it losing their own. This can't just be a factual connection; it needs to be an emotional one. People respond most strongly when they're angry, concerned, or afraid (fear being a frequent tool of the Bush administration in particular). It's also important to be the first one to frame a discussion. If the media and public have already accepted your opponent's frame, it becomes much more difficult to make them see it your way. Furthermore, when your opponent does try to frame an issue, you have to respond immediately. The strategy for changing an existing frame is actually fairly simple. You must send out more press releases and attract more media using your frame than the opponent does using his or hers. Also you can try to form relationships with the press by allowing them access to your campaign and making them more sympathetic to your frame. Journalists are always looking for stories so the more you can give them using your frame, the more likely it is that they will adopt it. Finally, you can't accept your opponent's frame. This is one reason Barack Obama received a great deal of criticism from Paul Krugman and many other progressives recently for referring to the "Social Security crisis," which is a frame Republicans have used a frequently in their attempts to privatize Social Security.
Another great example of framing that could be particularly useful today occurred early in the twentieth century. Like today, huge corporations wielded a disproportionate amount of power in the government and, through their monopolies, in the marketplace. Woodrow Wilson, in running against Howard Taft, called for a "new freedom" in the marketplace. He posited that entrepreneurs were being kept out of the market and crushed by the influence of these massive and powerful corporations.
Another key in framing is to take a perceived negative and turn it into a positive. For example, in response to a question from the audience, the panel discussed how Kerry could have responded to the Swift Boat allegations. The Republicans were attacking his strength (his war record) and trying to turn it into a negative, another classic framing trick (Karl Rove is one of the masters of this ploy). In response, Kerry could have tried to use the incident to address one of his negatives. During the campaign, one of Kerry's problems was his inability to speak to voters in a voice they related to. In contrast to Bush's down-home [idiot] charm, Kerry appeared stuffy and elitist. If, for instance, he had chosen to go on a personality show, like Oprah, and explained how the accusations hurt him personally and how they were insulting to all veterans, he might have been able to turn the issue to his advantage by showing his own humanity and vulnerability, and also his strength in standing up for himself and other veterans.
Towards the end of the workshop, the discussion turned to how progressives who represent a variety of different issues can be helped in using successful framing. The panel suggested that a list of talking points and accepted framing be distributed for each of the major issues before us. Then whenever a candidate or policy-maker is addressing one of these issues they can be using approved, unifying language.
They also suggested that in addressing baby boomers, who remain a hugely important and influential voting block, that we adopt an overarching frame about their legacy to their children and grandchildren. This frame can be applied to virtually every major issue before us (health care, foreign policy, energy policy, and the environment, among others). We need to persuade them that they have a moral obligation to leave the country better than they found it.
The workshop ended with an admonition to stop looking to our supposed leaders for answers, to distribute leadership among ourselves, the masses of progressives all over the country, and be our own leaders.
The subject of the first workshop I attended was "framing." For those not familiar with the concept, framing refers to setting the context in which an issue is discussed, particularly the language used to discuss the issue. For example, on the issue of abortion, you'll notice that pro-choice advocates talk about "choice" and "the right to choose" rather than being pro-abortion. Their opponents are considered anti-choice. On the other side, abortion opponents call themselves pro-life and consistently refer to the fetus as an unborn child.
The panel discussing the issue consisted of Ian Greenfield, Adam Klugman, Mac Pritchard, Steve Bella. The first point they made was that you have to frame things in a way that people personally relate to. People don't care (as much) about other people who don't have health care. What they worry about it losing their own. This can't just be a factual connection; it needs to be an emotional one. People respond most strongly when they're angry, concerned, or afraid (fear being a frequent tool of the Bush administration in particular). It's also important to be the first one to frame a discussion. If the media and public have already accepted your opponent's frame, it becomes much more difficult to make them see it your way. Furthermore, when your opponent does try to frame an issue, you have to respond immediately. The strategy for changing an existing frame is actually fairly simple. You must send out more press releases and attract more media using your frame than the opponent does using his or hers. Also you can try to form relationships with the press by allowing them access to your campaign and making them more sympathetic to your frame. Journalists are always looking for stories so the more you can give them using your frame, the more likely it is that they will adopt it. Finally, you can't accept your opponent's frame. This is one reason Barack Obama received a great deal of criticism from Paul Krugman and many other progressives recently for referring to the "Social Security crisis," which is a frame Republicans have used a frequently in their attempts to privatize Social Security.
Another great example of framing that could be particularly useful today occurred early in the twentieth century. Like today, huge corporations wielded a disproportionate amount of power in the government and, through their monopolies, in the marketplace. Woodrow Wilson, in running against Howard Taft, called for a "new freedom" in the marketplace. He posited that entrepreneurs were being kept out of the market and crushed by the influence of these massive and powerful corporations.
Another key in framing is to take a perceived negative and turn it into a positive. For example, in response to a question from the audience, the panel discussed how Kerry could have responded to the Swift Boat allegations. The Republicans were attacking his strength (his war record) and trying to turn it into a negative, another classic framing trick (Karl Rove is one of the masters of this ploy). In response, Kerry could have tried to use the incident to address one of his negatives. During the campaign, one of Kerry's problems was his inability to speak to voters in a voice they related to. In contrast to Bush's down-home [idiot] charm, Kerry appeared stuffy and elitist. If, for instance, he had chosen to go on a personality show, like Oprah, and explained how the accusations hurt him personally and how they were insulting to all veterans, he might have been able to turn the issue to his advantage by showing his own humanity and vulnerability, and also his strength in standing up for himself and other veterans.
Towards the end of the workshop, the discussion turned to how progressives who represent a variety of different issues can be helped in using successful framing. The panel suggested that a list of talking points and accepted framing be distributed for each of the major issues before us. Then whenever a candidate or policy-maker is addressing one of these issues they can be using approved, unifying language.
They also suggested that in addressing baby boomers, who remain a hugely important and influential voting block, that we adopt an overarching frame about their legacy to their children and grandchildren. This frame can be applied to virtually every major issue before us (health care, foreign policy, energy policy, and the environment, among others). We need to persuade them that they have a moral obligation to leave the country better than they found it.
The workshop ended with an admonition to stop looking to our supposed leaders for answers, to distribute leadership among ourselves, the masses of progressives all over the country, and be our own leaders.
Labels: Politics, Rebooting Democracy
posted by Nate Currie at
6:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home