Shorter George Lakoff: The Framing of Politics (Aaron Swartz: The Weblog)

George Lakoff, in his book Moral Politics, explains how the way we frame the debate seals the outcome. Conservatives appeal to people’s belief in a strict father. And this explains why all of George W. Bush’s actions, so hated by progressives, make perfect sense to conservatives.

Of course we have to stifle debate! A strict father allows no backtalk. There is evil in the world, we need to give Father a free hand to take care of it. Poor people are poor because they have no discipline. They need to learn self-reliance, not to feed from the government’s hand. But rich people are rich because they are smart and deserving. They should be free to do as they like.

Even beyond this worldview, they frame the debate so that you cannot possibly be against them. President Bush is providing “tax relief” — that is, tax is a terrible affliction we are curing — you want to increase the pain? We support “free trade” — that is, the market is a force of nature — why do you want to screw it up with your tinkering and regulating? You can’t disagree with them without accepting their worldview.

This is no accident. The most important part of conservativism is perpetuating conservativism. So conservatives have spent their time and money building organizations to control the language and frame the debate. They’ve gotten incredibly good at it — there’s a depth to it I’m only beginning to comprehend. On the other hand, the most important part of progressivism is helping people who need help, so progressives have spent their money doing just that.

Progressives think of the world in terms of a nurturing mother who helps people achieve greatness. And those undecideds? They use both philosophies in their life (perhaps they’re a strict father in business but a nurturing mother with their family) and are unsure of which to apply to politics. Lakoff’s polls show the country is divided evenly among these groups: one third conservative, one third liberal, one third undecided.

This is why it’s a mistake to aim for the center. There is no center to pick up! Those undecideds are trying to figure out which model they should use, and they’ll probably pick up on whichever side uses the more forceful rhetoric. Moving to the center weakens your rhetoric, and thus your appeal.

It’s also a mistake to campaign solely on the issues. People often vote based on identity. Some don’t understand why so many middle class folks in the south voted for Bush. “They’d be much better off with a Democrat!” they say. “And why did people vote for Schwarzenegger? He didn’t even take a position on the issues!” But people don’t vote based on self-interest, they’d much rather have someone who shares their values. Which would you rather have? A heartless politician who agrees with you just to get your vote or a person who shares your causes and concerns but disagrees with you on some issues?

The solution is to start comparable liberal organizations to begin reframing the debate. Lakoff’s started the Rockridge Institute to do just that. But it’s a slow process — it took the conservatives 30 years to take control. You need to get the ideas out there so that the terminology makes sense. But it’s not hard to see how to reframe the debate:

Progressives want justice and fairness. It’s not “tax relief”, it’s just allowing millionaire freeloaders who get all the benefits of our government without paying their fair share. It’s not about “free trade”, it’s about a moral economy. Tort deform only lets corporate criminals get off easy. It’s not about “gay marriage”, it’s about protecting the right to marry.

It’s hard to hear this and not think of Howard Dean. And, indeed, Dean has credited Lakoff with helping him figure out his strategy: “What you do is crank the heck out of your base, […] and you’ll win the middle-of-the-roaders. Democrats appeal to them on their softer side […] but the Republicans appeal to them on the harder side […] So the question is which side appears to be energetic […] That side is the side that gets the swing voters and wins.”

And you can see it in Dean’s campaign rhetoric: he wants you to “take your country back”, he wants policies that “reflect America’s values”, it’s “your campaign”. But for all Dean and Trippi’s intelligence, they have something of a tin ear for rhetoric. When they say it’s “your campaign” it sounds like pandering, not sincere. (Perhaps “our campaign” would be better.) And “social justice” sounds like some sort of government giveaway (try “fairness” and “equality”). And just look at Dean! He rolls up his sleeves and takes a stand. He’s tough, he’s forceful, but he’s fair. He’s the fighting doctor, out to fix what ails America.

posted January 14, 2004 07:05 PM (Politics) (26 comments) #

Shorter George Lakoff: The Framing of Politics

Nearby

Comments

Add Your Comment