How Not to be a Dumb Donkey
Framing, Framing, Framing. Merely repackaging stale ideas can turn the Democrats fortunes around and once again they will be in the majority! What a load of crap. After reading Matt Bai's recent article about the new phenomenon in Democrat politics about reframing the debate is the key to victory I cannot help but feel Democrats are doomed to lose many more races if this is their only solution.
Let me summarize the concept of "reframing". George Lakoff, professor of linguistics and author of How Not to Think Like an Elephant, has theorized that if the Democrats change the framework of how their ideas are expressed, elections will be a cakewalk and soon the Democrats will enjoy prosperity equivalent to their glory years in the middle 20th century. Of course this idea is popular with many people who would rather not examine their core beliefs and values and want to focus only on aesthetic solutions.
Example of Reframing: Republicans use the phrase "tax relief" instead of "tax cuts." Lakoff argues that this subtle turn of words focuses people on the fact that they are oppressed by taxes and need immediate relief, and conveniently Republicans will provide it. This obscures the fact that maybe the shift in words is not what drives peoples' desire for lower taxes. Democrats and Lakoff can argue all they want about the "common good" gained from more government. The reality is "common good" is much more of an abstract concept than a check in the mail. Shifting the debate will not change this reality.
One thing the Democrats can do to better communicate their message. Stick to your core ideas. This encompasses everything from explaining policy goals to attacking your opponent. Citizens are busy people who do not have the time to review every minute detail about prospective candidates or policy decisions. A multitude of topics and ideas creates confusion and builds feelings that a candidate does not have true core beliefs and goals.
Example: The recent Senate filibuster controversy. (This argument ignores the end result of the Senate controversy, which did not help the Democrat cause) Reid and crew stuck to two main ideas: Bush's plan relied on privatizing the most popular government benefit in America, and it amounted to benefit cuts coupled with long-term borrowing. They did not use lofty metaphors, but stuck to simple undisputable facts.
Just reframing words will not win elections for Democrats. The Democrats have deep problems and "reframing" as a solution serves only to obscure the deeper issue. No new ideas and structural problems have hurt the Democrats. Republicans have longstanding think tanks, columnists, and TV pundits that serve as a base for their rise to national prominence. Republicans are seen as standing for something as opposed to just being against something. Clinton bucked the recent trend of Republican victories, but no new political genius is on the Democratic scene. Changing words will not solve Democratic problems. Coherent ideas and strong organization will win over smokescreens and distortion any day.
Articles against Reframing:
Joshua Green
Noam Scheiber
Let me summarize the concept of "reframing". George Lakoff, professor of linguistics and author of How Not to Think Like an Elephant, has theorized that if the Democrats change the framework of how their ideas are expressed, elections will be a cakewalk and soon the Democrats will enjoy prosperity equivalent to their glory years in the middle 20th century. Of course this idea is popular with many people who would rather not examine their core beliefs and values and want to focus only on aesthetic solutions.
Example of Reframing: Republicans use the phrase "tax relief" instead of "tax cuts." Lakoff argues that this subtle turn of words focuses people on the fact that they are oppressed by taxes and need immediate relief, and conveniently Republicans will provide it. This obscures the fact that maybe the shift in words is not what drives peoples' desire for lower taxes. Democrats and Lakoff can argue all they want about the "common good" gained from more government. The reality is "common good" is much more of an abstract concept than a check in the mail. Shifting the debate will not change this reality.
One thing the Democrats can do to better communicate their message. Stick to your core ideas. This encompasses everything from explaining policy goals to attacking your opponent. Citizens are busy people who do not have the time to review every minute detail about prospective candidates or policy decisions. A multitude of topics and ideas creates confusion and builds feelings that a candidate does not have true core beliefs and goals.
Example: The recent Senate filibuster controversy. (This argument ignores the end result of the Senate controversy, which did not help the Democrat cause) Reid and crew stuck to two main ideas: Bush's plan relied on privatizing the most popular government benefit in America, and it amounted to benefit cuts coupled with long-term borrowing. They did not use lofty metaphors, but stuck to simple undisputable facts.
Just reframing words will not win elections for Democrats. The Democrats have deep problems and "reframing" as a solution serves only to obscure the deeper issue. No new ideas and structural problems have hurt the Democrats. Republicans have longstanding think tanks, columnists, and TV pundits that serve as a base for their rise to national prominence. Republicans are seen as standing for something as opposed to just being against something. Clinton bucked the recent trend of Republican victories, but no new political genius is on the Democratic scene. Changing words will not solve Democratic problems. Coherent ideas and strong organization will win over smokescreens and distortion any day.
Articles against Reframing:
Joshua Green
Noam Scheiber
<< Home