In Sunday’s Times, Matt Bai writes about how Democrats are learning to frame their message.
What is framing? It is choosing a word or phrase that is full of positive connotations to describe a political policy or party platform. It is a shortcut that gives the voter some hints about the policy and predisposes him or her to like it. Pro-life sounds much more positive than anti-abortion, because it is not good to be anti anything. Pro-choice sounds much better than pro-abortion, because you can be against abortion, but still be for a woman’s right to choose.
In one recent memo, titled ”The 14 Words Never to Use,” Luntz urged conservatives to restrict themselves to phrases from what he calls, grandly, the ”New American Lexicon.” Thus, a smart Republican, in Luntz’s view, never advocates ”drilling for oil”; he prefers ”exploring for energy.” He should never criticize the ”government,” which cleans our streets and pays our firemen; he should attack ”Washington,” with its ceaseless thirst for taxes and regulations. ”We should never use the word outsourcing,” Luntz wrote, ”because we will then be asked to defend or end the practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas.”
Bai makes it out as if all this something new. That Republicans invented it and Democrats are slowly learning how to do it. Please. This trick is as old as the hills (of Rome) and there are books written about this.
It may appear that framing is entirely new, only because Democrats seem to have forgotten everything about political strategy and are continually playing the sap in the politic rumbles. They may be slow because in their close circles, there has been no need to frame an argument. In their mind, the guys in white hats and the ones in the black were just so clear that there was no need to convince others of that topic.
Well, losing the White House and both houses of Congress to the Republicans and the threat of losing the SC has got them to attend a Pol. Sci. 101 class and return to basics. They need to explain who they are and what they are for.
Bai relates a fascinating story about how the Democrats won back the filibuster. In an unusual show of discipline, Democrats in the Senate and House carried laminated, pocket-size message cards — ”DEMOCRATS FIGHTING FOR DEMOCRACY, AGAINST ABUSE OF POWER,” blared the headline at the top — with the talking points on one side and some helpful factoids about Bush’s nominees on the other.
Bai credits the blogs in part for getting them to work on their message. He also points to George Lakoff, the author of How Democrats and Progressives Can Win
Yes, framing is important. But like other Lakoff detractors, I think that we need something more than nice catch phrases. A powerful agenda backed by a common understanding a more perfect future is needed as well. But pretty words are a good start.
A few weeks ago, I took a stab at defining the Democratic agenda in modern terms. I urge others to add to this discussion.
Apt. 11d 
TYNTR
And… the category of Things You Need To Read… (well, TYNTR if you’re obsessed with spin and communications and politics like I am)… 11D has a great take on Democrats realizing the need to learn how to frame debates (um….
LikeLike
I wasn’t able to comment on your Democratic agenda at the time, Laura, but the principles you sketch out are vital ones–and, as I think Lakoff is occasionally too caught up in his mission to realize, pretty words lack power if there isn’t a consensus on their meaning behind them. Of course I’m hopeful that this new emphasis on “framing” will help the Democrats get their act together; but I also hope it (perhaps unintentionally, from Lakoff’s point of view) forces an evaluation of what liberalism and “progressivism” can mean in the 21st century–an evaluation that Clinton seemed at first to really want, and then continued to pretend was taking place, but which in fact never got off the ground in the 1990s.
You summed up your perspective by writing: “What I care about is the goals of equity, fairness, and freedom.” I think that nails it. Of course, being a political theorist, I think the real substance of that contribution is how you prioritize that little bit of the American creed–freedom follows equity, because we are not collectively free when some are fundamentally excluded from society’s most basic goods. Josh Marshall has written a fair amount about how the Social Security fight should be taken up as a kind of ideological ground zero for Democrats: in an increasingly risk-addicted world (and thus one less likely to attend to those excluded), security is what we should stand for.
Of course, figuring out how to position a concern for “equal opportunity/security” with the real benefits of technology-driven freedom in America today is tough. There was a good argument over this issue a while ago in Washington Monthly between William Galston and Michael Lind; read it here. They don’t really disagree–both assume that any political justification in America that doesn’t put “liberty” first and foremost is going to have a hard time making any headway–but they do dispute certain details, with Lind pushing things in a more security/equity/social justice direction. My sympathies are with him, but both make great and relevant points.
LikeLike
Incidentally, Matt Yglesias and Kenneth Baer are arguing about Bai over at TPM Cafe; here and here. They don’t really disagree on much–like Galston and Lind, they both want to see the Democrats get back to basics and come up with a “public philosophy” (Baer even goes back to school and cites James Caesar and Samuel Beer). But they do disagree on just how much rethinking needs to go into that act of rediscovery.
LikeLike