April 29, 2005
Framing is newspeak for propaganda
“Rockridge’s job is to reframe public debate, to create balance from a progressive perspective. It’s one thing to analyze language and thought, it’s another thing to create it. That’s what we’re about.
I guess the premise is that progressive ideas lack support because progressives have not done enough yet to deceive the public.
Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like "revolt," that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame......Reframing requires a rewiring of the brain. That may take an investment of time, effort, and money. The conservatives have realized that. They made the investment and it is paying off. Moral: The truth alone will not set you free. It has to be framed correctly. beserkeley.edu
Ingsoc would be proud. Why does the left insist on believing in social conditioning as a practical endeavor?
George Lakoff and Howard Dean (who wrote the forward to Lakoff's book, "Don't Think of an Elephant") make the case that the right has 'stolen' the country and brainwashed everyone into believing that Conservative values are good (when they are so obviously evil). How have they done this? By investing billions of dollars on talk radio and conservative think tanks to deceive the public. And in order to combat this unacceptable deception, Lakoff and Dean plan to use the same tactics. In other words, progressives are now saying they are ready to lie 'just like Republicans do' in order to regain power. (Seems to me they've been doing that for sometime.)
This constitutes quite an admission: (1) You have to heavily spin 'progressive values,' in order to get anyone to accept them, and (2) they still have no idea why the credibility of progressive ideas has waned over the last 50 years, and (3) to say they need to start spinning (lying) is quite a spin in itself.
First, why is it so hard to get anyone to accept progressive values? Peace, love, tolerance, justice for the downtrodden, support for the weak, clean air, open spaces, free healthcare, and making 'every man a king'?... It's all good, right? What is there that needs to be hidden in order for it to be accepted?
Progressive as the enemy of oppression.
Republicans have not gained ground because they coercively persuade, nor have they lied and manipulated to gain power, rather progressives have lost ground due to their often enunciated position that America and protestant-white-male-dominated-capitalist-sexist-rascist-homophobic western civilization is oppressive (and perhaps inherently evil).
A central tenet of the left is opposition to oppression... and they have declared the west and capitalism (and Republicans) as oppressive... Perhaps the left has been trapped by it's own logical conclusions?
The ideas of the left gained their widest acceptance in the last half of the 19th century and first half of the 20th. Socialism and labor movements predate Marx and Engels, who wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1848, nevertheless, the Marxist strain of socialism gained ascendance, wide popularity, and eventually took over many countries. Many factions of the left, even in the United States, had sympathy and support for the Soviets and communist parties throughout the world. Even now, Hugo Chavez is praised for attempting, once again, the utopian experiment of total equality.
Following that acceptance was the wide adoption of many progressive policies. Some benign, others baneful. Then as the last half of this century played out, the credibility of progressive liberalism crumbled as a direct result of the real world implementation of those policies and the left's alignment with them. This historical genealogy is still evident in radical leftist support for 'the Iraqi resistance'. Is the enemy of my enemy always my friend?
The decline of progressive civilization
How the left blew its early-twentieth-century prominence, and kept blowing it, comprises much of The Long Detour, and most of it reprises arguments Weinstein has made elsewhere. To telegraph this sorry story, as Weinstein tells it: First the left came under the influence of Communists enamored of a Russian Revolution already turned worse than rotten. Their error was not merely in identifying socialism with Stalinist terror, but in ever hoping that a country as economically backward as the Soviet Union would, even under more democratic conditions, ever hold much instruction for socialist practice in rich countries like the United States.Then, under the influence of many of the same characters, the left blurred its voice to the point of unintelligibility in the "popular front" politics leading up to and through World War II. Afterward, with the commencement of the cold war and more or less complete discrediting of Soviet Communism, the left was numbly defensive, and barely tried to offer a homespun alternative. The New Left of the early 1960s actually began this project, but never matured as an organization, and soon began tearing itself apart in sectarian disputes and "can you top this" acts of radicalism. In its worst and bleakest moments, like the Weathermen, it even succumbed to the fatal appeal of violent anarchism. thenation.com
The truth is that progressives can't start reframing their positions now, because they never stopped. During the 2000 election Al Gore called tax cuts, "a Risky Scheme". Recently Al has been trying to reframe Republicans as 'intolerant right-wing religious zealots' who are power mad, shredding the constitution, and monopolizing all three branches of government. Never mind that any majority Republicans have is due to the voters and could easily be reversed by the voters.
Democrats in congress actually accused Republicans of trying to starve children and seniors. Quite an attempt at framing wouldn't you say?
After accusing Republicans of grandstanding in the state execution of Terri Schiavo, Howard Dean promised to grandstand the issue of himself.
Norman Mailer talks of Corporations in terms of Nazi concentration camps and our aesthetic, spiritual, and cultural genocide. Perhaps if Lakoff's point was that they needed to get away from this sort of reframing he would have a point. But in fact, Lakoff and others seem to encourage just this sort of redefining and mischaracterization, which seems to be a hallmark of recent strategies (or lack thereof).
By counseling progressives to repackage their message Lakoff is really doing nothing new. It's new spin on top of old spin. Even in his explanations he reverts to classic marxist-class-warfare-psychobabble-crypto-speak.
...Because the conservative moral system, which I analyzed in "Moral Politics," has as its highest value preserving and defending the "strict father" system itself. And that means building infrastructure. As businessmen, they know how to do this very well.Meanwhile, liberals' conceptual system of the "nurturant parent" has as its highest value helping individuals who need help. beserkeley.edu
Republicans control everything
The truth is that reinventing propaganda by calling it framing all the while continuing to demonize the right is not a solution to the left's decline. Essentially it's only a form of collective denial. I hope instead that the left will stop insisting on socialistic solutions to societal problems. Socialism is dead. Let's bury it, instead of continuing the soviet example of demonizing 'capitalist imperialists' in an effort to foment a proletariat revolution:
"Republicans only work for the wealthy, Democrats fight for the rest of us."
"Republicans block the door, Democrats open it up for all of us."
"Republicans use religion to divide, Democrats learn from it to build communities."
"Republicans help industry pollute, Democrats protect our land for everyone."
"Republicans work against The Constitution, Democrats protect it."
"Republicans are suspicious of difference, Democrats are passionate about equality."
frameshop
Republicans are far from perfect. Still, they are not the enemy liberals believe they need in order to win elections.
As a Republican I actually support the liberal agenda of peace, love, tolerance, justice for the downtrodden, support for the weak, the poor... It's not actually a liberal agenda at all, it's a universal agenda. The difference is in the definition of how these things must be accomplished. If these ends can only be accomplished through a top down monolithic government program, or through the redistribution of wealth, and 'helping individuals who need help' can only be defined as supporting higher taxes, higher government regulation, and demonization of 'the rich' then no amount of reframing is going to obscure what that means. The end does not justify the means. Especially when the means in question has never accomplished the end promised.
The end does not justify the means. Especially when the means in question has never accomplished the end promised.
Better share that with Condi Rice then, because she said very clearly that the end DOES justify the means.
Posted by: Taylor at April 29, 2005 04:14 PM
So very true. The truth seems to make most
lib’s go into a frenzy. They refuse to answer
questions, and instead try to redirect. I find
this childish. Some of them are indeed, decent
people.
“The conservatives have realized that. They made the investment and it is paying off. Moral: The truth alone will not set you free. It has to be framed correctly.”
Eric, Eric, I never know where to start with your postings.
You totally missed the point of Lackoff’s book. The quote about is arguing that the liberal belief that “the truth will set you free” is wrong - that in addition to what you say, how you say something matters. And saying that Lackoff’s conclusion is that the left has to learn to “lie like Republicans” is—-well, perhaps a good use of negative framing. Lackoff’s claim is that Republicans have been better at use *effective* words to describe their views. For instance: constitutional option vs nuclear option, climate change vs global warming, personal accounts vs privatization, Healthy Forest Initiatives, etc, etc.
There are certainly plenty on the left that rail against those on the right - and vice versa of course. But that’s invective, it’s frustration, it’s anger. It’s not the heart of liberalism anymore than calling global warming “climate change” is the heart of conservatism.
BTW, if you don’t want giant monolithic governments, what are you doing voting Republican? don’t you know that Bush has grown the Federal government more than any Democrat in history?
Posted by: William Cohen at April 29, 2005 04:34 PMThanks for the article, Eric. I think the “reframers” are having their heyday now in the shambles of the failure of Kerry & Dean to capture the nation with their paleoliberalism. As you so pointedly show, they have zilch new to offer, so the smart Dems (aka the DLC) will shrug them off in short order.
As Beserkley.com points out (albeit in torturously politically correct language), the GOP is the “Daddy Party” and the Dems are the “Mommy Party”. More specifically, the GOP is the party of “management” and the Dems are the party of change. And they’ve been successful. For the middle half of the 20th century, the left controlled all three branches of government, and introduced sweeping social change. (Incidentally, I’d quibble with your contention that progressivism was on top during the latter half of the 19th century; imho it was being born then, coming of maturity from 1890 to 1930, and was ascendant from 1930 to 1980)
With all their changes and reforms, however, the “Mommy Party” has worked itself out of a job. For example (and to be quite politically incorrect), poverty doesn’t happen to “good Americans” anymore. The poor are now (a) immigrants, who can expect to move up much like our immigrant ancestors did, and (b) “bad folks”, the financially irresponsible, substance-addicted and mentally unstable. For most Americans, neither of these groups matters much (sadly, perhaps). The problems that did matter to the average American - institutionalized racism, elder poverty, unrestrained industrialism, unfair labor laws, limitations on women, and rural squalor - have largely been solved. Not perfectly or completely, but largely.
What matters to people now? Most issues are “Daddy” issues - fighting off terrorists, illegal immigrants, amoral culture-changers, homosexual agitators, and corrupt accountants. Even CNN’s signature issue - overseas job loss - is a Daddy issue. The only bona fide “Mommy” issue on the table is the price of gasoline, and most politically active people understand how little influence policymakers can have on that in the near term.
The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is a dragon slayer in a country where no one fears dragons. Their rhetoric which was so appropriate in condemning segregation or child labor in broad, sweeping, absolutist terms sounds almost comic when applied to some of the issues they trumpet today.
Posted by: Chops at April 29, 2005 04:39 PMFirst of all: great site. This is a fantastic website.
I suppose it’s a fair piece that you’ve written about Democratic party framing efforts. But it misses out on several key points.
1) The GOP has for years overtly and unashamedly used these techniques. Frank Luntz is a key figure in the party, central in crafting the GOP message, and successful at it. The framing discussions on the Left began with expressions of admiration (believe it or not) for Luntz. Sure, Democrats hate him. But it’s schadenfreund their expressing.
2) The Democratic party leadership (except for Dean) was and contiues to be resistant to these ideas. Framing on the left has had 99% of it’s success at the level of the grassroots. So it’s really much more about restoring confidence than about getting out a message. If you spend time reading some of the sites, you’ll find a great deal of anxiety about “how to turn this into a message.” (Frameshop does make recommendations, but these are just as often rejected as they are endorsed).
3) One person’s “propaganda” is another person’s “talking point.” Manipulation is in the eye of the beholder. Both the left and the right see these techniques as a way for party members to get in touch with the core ideas and values of the party, then—and only then—as a way of communicating those ideas for electoral gain. As such, the Left calls the framing of the right “propaganda” and the right calls the framing of the left “propaganda.”
You could take the position that the right doesn’t generate propaganda, I guess. That will play with a certain faction of the party faitful. Some Dems like to make the same pitch. But, realistically, both parties try to frame a message the way they see it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Neither party has the monopoly on the truth. Certainly not in a country with such a closely divided electorate.
Posted by: Jeffrey Feldman at April 29, 2005 04:40 PM
The GOP frames ideas. The DEM’s try to frame
the GOP. Not true?
The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is a dragon slayer in a country where no one fears dragons. Their rhetoric which was so appropriate in condemning segregation or child labor in broad, sweeping, absolutist terms sounds almost comic when applied to some of the issues they trumpet today.
Chops, I couldn’t agree with you more. The question is, if the GOP brings the dragons back, will people believe in them again?
So very true. The truth seems to make most lib’s go into a frenzy. They refuse to answer questions, and instead try to redirect. I find this childish. Some of them are indeed, decent people.
RinTT,
So the end justifies the means for Iraq, but not for anything else?
Posted by: Taylor at April 29, 2005 04:54 PM
Thought you were here to Trash Condi Rice.
Who’s the next person you insult? Explain yourself
Taylor,
“So the end justifies the means for Iraq, but not for anything else?”
I think this is such a stupid question. It’s never about the means, it’s just about considering and weighing all the ends. Worrying about the means is just a silly idealistic game which small-minded people like to play.
Posted by: Zeek at April 29, 2005 05:00 PMThought you were here to Trash Condi Rice. Who’s the next person you insult? Explain yourself
Trying to understand why when Condi says it, conservatives stand behind it, then refute their leaders’ remarks later when it fits the new axe to grind.
Now what meaningful thing do you have to bring to the table? Explain yourself.
Posted by: Taylor at April 29, 2005 05:46 PM“So the end justifies the means for Iraq, but not for anything else?”I think this is such a stupid question. It’s never about the means, it’s just about considering and weighing all the ends. Worrying about the means is just a silly idealistic game which small-minded people like to play.
Is this sarcasm?
Posted by: Taylor at April 29, 2005 05:53 PMYou could take the position that the right doesn’t generate propaganda, I guess. That will play with a certain faction of the party faitful. Some Dems like to make the same pitch. But, realistically, both parties try to frame a message the way they see it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Neither party has the monopoly on the truth. Certainly not in a country with such a closely divided electorate.
We’ve become a very “spin=win” society.
Posted by: Taylor at April 29, 2005 05:56 PMThe GOP frames ideas. The DEM’s try to frame the GOP. Not true?
I get a kick out of the idea that “my propaganda is legitimate; your propaganda is beyond the pale.”
Oh well.
Posted by: LawnBoy at April 29, 2005 06:02 PMEric,
The American people don’t want to hear the truth. They want to hear that everythings going great, and that their children will be honor roll candidates.
Both parties have been spinning their message to fit the occasion for years. The party that does it best gets elected.
The message from those out of power is that those in power are the bad guys, regardless of which party is in power.
This isn’t rocket science, it’s politics.
“Meaningfull” is not trashing other people in
a lame attempt to get your views across to others.In case you need instruction, some have
to live and work in the real world. Not on some
blog forum. Condi Rice is one of those “some”.
Why is it you feel the need to make someone
a villain? Is this how you really wish to persuade others to respect your point of view?
Watchblog manager,
Please remind Rin TT of the critique the message not the messenger policy.
Rin TT,
The point remains, Condi did indeed say “The end justifies the means” regarding Iraq. My message had nothing to do with trashing Condi, although I solemnly disagree with her statement, especially in the context she used it. I’m sorry you respect her so much you take my remarks at such a personal level that you have to attack me directly in response to feel better. I’m trying to grasp how arguments like Condi’s hold water when coming from republican leaders, but not when coming from republican apologists.
This post is about spin, and spin gets no deeper than remarks like Condi’s and remarks like Eric’s to tie out his diatribe. My remarks are quite on topic, your’s however, are personal attacks against me. Please explain.
Chops,
“The problems that did matter to the average american,….have largely been solved.”
I would agree with this to an extent. I think that the only way the Dem’s are going to get back into power, is to hit on making health care, and a college education more affordable. I work in the health care industry and I see plenty of people with decent insurance who end up having to declare bankruptcy because of medical expenses. 80/20 sound good until your bill is over 1 million. I think that a lot of the issues that bother “normal Americans” have been reasonably dealt with, yet there are some things that are really going to hurt the U.S. if we aren’t careful and make sure normal americans can go to the hospital and help their kids get through college.
Posted by: Ivan Mitchell at April 29, 2005 07:22 PMThe democrat mantra for the new millennium:
If it works, break it.
If its wholesome, foul it.
If its healthy, poison it.
If it’s good, kill it.
If its holy, spit on it.
Never rest until America is in ruins.
You rang?
Posted by: Rin T T at April 29, 2005 07:39 PM
No spin here. just an observation.
Oh, by the way. Nothing personal, you have yet
to answer a question. No?
RinTT
The same could be said of you, on both posts. Give me a question and I’ll answer it.
Why is it you feel the need to make someone
a villain? Is this how you really wish to persuade others to respect your point of view?
Why is it you feel the need to make someone a villain?
sigh… I’ve already addressed this above, but if i must elaborate….
I don’t need to villify the current administration…. they are villians enough without my opinion needing to be expressed. To come out publically as Condi did, and say that the atrocities of Iraq are completely justified by the idea that they’ll have a completely free and functioning democracy(which is yet to be proven mind you), is ridiculous. Abu Gharib was the path to freedom and that’s ok? I think not.
Yet, when given the opportunity to catch democrats teaching one another to lie like republicans, all of a sudden Eric thinks the end does not justify the means? Give me a break. Pick one or the other guys, the duality is killing your platform.
Is this how you really wish to persuade others to respect your point of view?
By pointing out that conservatives no longer hold conservative values? Absolutely! By pointing out that your party has been overrun by religious zealots? Absolutely! By pointing out blatently conflicting messages from the republican party? Absolutely!
Any other questions?
Posted by: Taylor at April 29, 2005 08:21 PM
Those are old talking points.
Try the new ones. Still havent answered my
question.
Eric, you are a member of the party of the Death Tax, The Marriage Penalty, the Catastrophic Success, and Ketchup as a vegetable. I won’t insult your intelligence about my party the way you’re doing to us with yours: Fellow party member of mine are fully capable of twisting and even lying about the truth. We all are. I think a generalized denouncement like this is an exercise in disingenousness If you are to denounce us, do so in particular.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 29, 2005 09:02 PMHere’s an interesting article on how Republicans are “framing” the energy debate,
Now, here’s the Catch-22 we get with this administration: It is using the exact language of the bill’s critics - stealing it wholesale and using it to promote its bill. It’s our friend Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster who specializes in “framing” issues (framing means the same thing as spinning, and in the non-political world it is known as lying), at work again. Luntz put out a memo in January: “Eight Energy Communication Guidelines for 2005” telling R’s how to talk about energy using language people like.The Natural Resources Defense Council found a Bush speech on energy on March 9 in Ohio that parrots Luntz’s suggestions to a laughable point - threat to national security, diversity of supply, innovation, conservation and (my fave) Point 4, “The key principle is ‘responsible energy exploration.’ And remember, it’s NOT drilling for oil. It’s responsible energy exploration.”
Here’s the side-by-side comparison of the GOP “framing” points with Bush’s speech. It’s wacko spin time, baby!
Does the fact that the GOP is way better and more lock-step disciplined at “framing” their issues mean their message is way worse than the Democrat’s message? Even when they steal the Democrat’s message to do it? Wait, that would make it way better than… No, that’s not right… Aww hell, now I’m all spun around. :P
This is an interesting coment. Most advertising is a sophisticated form of suppressing some of the truth and presenting some of the truth.
Before we are shocked by Democratic speculations, we need to look to what extent the Repulbican side has gone to “frame things.” Only two items: One is Jeff Ganon (not even his real name). Gets credentialed by the White House press staff because the real press corps rejected his credentials. Gets caught by going to extremes serving the administration softballs. Ironaically, he served the generally anti-gay stance of the Republicans with anti-hay editorials, while he was a male gay prostitue running a porno website.
Case two. Fake press items. A publis relations firm is hired, and produces interviews and other news-looking clips. One of the guns for hire even closed her clips with “so and so reporting.” These were sent to news organizations that carelessly aired them in their news program withno disclosure whatsoever that the source was a publis relations firm for the white house. Wow. Havew to hand it to that side for “framing.” No wonder misguided frustrated democrats are considering becomeing terrible liears. In my part, I want the truth. Do you?
Posted by: Jose at April 30, 2005 02:10 AMJose:
You forgot the part of BushCo using Tax Dollars to pay supposedly independent pundits to hype their Policies. Remembering that always makes me look askance at the Red Column.
My minimum asking price is $500 US btw…
Posted by: Aldous at April 30, 2005 03:10 AM
I’m back.
So what your saying is that, it’s unfair to use
the tricks the GOP has learned from the DEM’s?
Seems like discrimination. Like in the media.
I think it’s only fair. In my opinion.
Since when did Democrats pay “Journalists” to pretend they were Independent Critics?
Anyway, I am not surprised that you favor the corruption of the Independent Media, btw. The Brownshirts did the same once upon a time.
Posted by: Aldous at April 30, 2005 03:37 AMI find it ironic that today is the anniversary for the Fall of Saigon. Another Great Victory for the GOP.
I wonder what Nixon spun to explain that? “Fighting the Vietcong is HARD…”
Posted by: Aldous at April 30, 2005 03:41 AMI can’t believe some of the things that I’ve been reading.
Someone (might have been Zeek) said that the only people who are struggling in America are the “Bad Ones”… I’m sorry but 44 million Americans 10 million of the children have no health care. Are they all the bad ones with drug problems and whatever else BS you said? I can’t believe that shit!
Can you all really try to say with a straight face that the republican party isn’t trying to destroy every good thing that the left has done over the past century…? Social security to wall street… Billions of dollars of tax cuts to people WHO DO NOT NEED THEM!! Why in a time of war and record deficits would we be cutting taxes? That is not framing… that is common sense… why do I need to frame anything? We need help here in America. Not American companies… AMERICANS!
We have a congress that one day regects 1.9 Billion dollars to help with VA hospitals, and the NEXT DAY passes a bill that will take away 9.8 Billion in tax revenue from estate taxes. AND THEY STILL HAVE THE BALLS TO ASK YOU TO FIGHT IN THEIR MILITARY!!
There is no framing the facts my friends… if I start calling gun control “firearm safty legislation” that is framing… but with the Bush administration… these alleged democratic talking points can also be called… THE TRUTH… you should try it.
Posted by: Ryan at April 30, 2005 04:26 AMRyan:
Strictly speaking, its not Republican Children being asked to join the Military. Its the Inner City Kids the Recruiters are focusing on. The Conservatives are too Rich and too Moral to go to Iraq. They do put yellow “Support the Troops” stickers on their SUVs though.
Posted by: Aldous at April 30, 2005 05:23 AMO-MY
It appears that some people have a hard time seeing that a small but vocal group of leftists have pushed the political pendulum so far to the left in the last 100 years that when they look back at the masses they have left behind, they think the masses have moved, and are moving, ever farther to the right.
You can only push so far from the center.
Universal healthcare? What happened to survival of the fittest?
I work hard for my health coverage.
Gay marriage? Why do we no longer call a deviant a deviant?
I refuse to call homosexuality “normal”.
Pacifist foreign policy? Why do we apologize for killing those that mean us harm?
I will defend myself, my family, my beliefs, my country, and the foreign interests of my country, forever.
Life is hard. Life is hard work. Let the salesmen (sales-people excuse me) for the socialist workers paradise know that the right never moved to the right. The left just keeps widening the gap by pushing ever-farther left. Pardon me for kicking and screaming over my coffee this morning but it is a rare occasion indeed that will stop me from competing for my piece of the pie and get me on a rant. I live in this great country where I can take 10 min. to write about this stuff.
Now back to the “survival of the fittest rat race”!!! I love it!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Eric says: “support for the weak, the poor… It’s not actually a liberal agenda at all, it’s a universal agenda.”
Useguys says: “Universal healthcare? What happened to survival of the fittest?”
The great thing about these forums is that people occasionally say what they really think. Just a guess, but I think “useguys” voted Republican more than Democratic. Am I right, useguys?
And so Eric, maybe that agenda isn’t not as universal as you think. Maybe some of your Red-Team friends aren’t quite as committed to these ideals as you claim to be - and maybe there is a place for a party that’s a little more committed to that “universal” agenda.
And hey, good framing, useguys. I’m sure that “Universal healthcare? What happened to survival of the fittest?” will poll way higher than “fight poverty, let the poor die”.
Posted by: William Cohen at April 30, 2005 10:40 AMuseguys-
Let me start from the end, and work my way to your beginning. You’ve got it backwards. Yes, God bless America. Do your side is the only one that does? Do you think you’re the only one who competes, who likes competing? No, you just want to think we’re not fit to survive. But the fact of evolution is, if it’s still alive, and it’s still competing, it’s not out of the competition.
You celebrate predatory competition, but fail to realize that the prey competes too. Workers downtrodden will organize to improve their lot in life. Even Adam Smith will tell you that pressures exist that push wages up. Customers cheated, deceived, injured, or humiliated will organize or petition for laws that protect them. It’s not a move of the week, it’s the move of those with strength of will, and woe to those who underestimate it. People are not necessarily going to lay down and die the death of failing to compete for what they want. It doesn’t matter that we’re not necessarily powerful as individuals. Together we can make it harder for the predators in business to fleece us and abuse us.
Communism is just another form of predatory power, in the end. Most Democrats wanted no part of that. However, your party needed scapegoats for ineffective policies and atrocious abuses of power, so Democrats were the designated victims. Have we taken it lying down? no. And we won’t this time.
Yes, life is hard. But Bush’s actions are making it harder than it has to be and that’s just stupid.
Ask your president why we are still waiting to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden more than three years after we waged war on him. Ask him why the man who did in fact kill three thousand of our fellow Americans was no longer important enough to bring to justice, while the has-been, debt-ridden tyrant sunk in a quagmire of his own making gets ousted and caught in the same period?
Ask him how in the hell he can say increased terrorist attacks show progress in the war on terrorism, when the bloody purpose of this whole affair is to bring that threat under control? God, what stupidity. Do you actually accept that excuse? Democrats don’t. We don’t want him telling us Osama Bin Laden is no longer important. We don’t want him telling us that the increased violence was due to some brilliant terrorist magnet strategy, rather than his undermanning of the mission. We don’t need all this crap shoved at us about how all these bad signs out there aren’t really showing us what’s really happening. I’m tired of him weaselling out of dealing with problems rather than just biting the bullet and forgetting the politics.
You guys can wax poetic about how deep and broad, and wide your love of this country is, but if that’s all your side is prepared to do, if you choose your words with more care than your actions, than your love of this country will be worth no more than the love of a husband who beats his wife. I see people waving flags that they would raise hell about people burning, only to end up letting those flags get dirty, worn, and marred.
It’s all wonderful to give lip service to our shared values, shared freedoms, and shared nation. But if people are careless, foolish, and selfish about their actions, then it’s just B.S. There is no pendulum. If the
Republican persists in governing by dysfunction, deception, and disaster, folks will abandon it for something else. My hope is that the Democrats will recognize that people want better, and speak to that need. You as a Republican should hope for the same, before it’s too late.
Framing is newspeak for propaganda. And Propaganda is nothing more than some one trying to get someone else to change there view or opinions for there own gain. All we need do is look to the last two elections to see what Propaganda the DNC is, has and will use. You can see what work the DNC is doing in government (no work = not being blamed). The DNC has no answers or salutations to any problems; they do have Propaganda that suits there needs. The DNC does not comprehend that Americans do not really care what the DNC’s intent is, they do care what the DNC really does and right now the DNC is the do nothing party full of old know nothing ideals which provide no real results other than to try and get back to the power they do not know how to use
Posted by: Paw Paw at April 30, 2005 12:50 PMBy the way-
I hate GWBush with a passion.
I also consider Remocrates and Depublicans virtually the same party.
I only posted because I get alittle tired of trying harder and having more taken from me by a machine (loc/st/fed gov)guided by self serving morons.
I get this way every Tax season.
I want accountability restored to our moral code as a nation of hard workers.
I want LEGAL immagration.
I want anyone who attended law school to be forbidden to take elected or appointed positions within any level of American Gov.
I want freedom to choose what I want to do behind the doors of MY house.
I don’t want others to decide what my teenage daughter can do to her own body.
I don’t want or need public school teachers to stay so busy installing a moral code in my kids that they forget what thier job is.
I want what I feerl the constitution offers all Americans- OPPORITUNITY TO COMPETE>
The playing feild will never be legislated into a level state.Without creating more BS.
You and I are judged ultimately by what you DO.
Meaning-Hard work and knowing right from wrong will usually defeat most hateful personal bias.
I, like others, want a lot.
Right now I want a sandwich, to sharpen the mower blades, and to thank all those that listened to my little rant.
you fool useguys.
survival of the fittest useguys? Sounds like your trying to make a super race where the unworthy just aren’t worth your time.
I’ll have you know that there are many people below the poverty line who would love to work your job where you “work so hard” to get your health care benifits.
What about all of those people making your life easier. They grocery clerk, the pizza delivery guy, the fast food worker, even the people at most major retailers… none of them below management get any kind of benifits… and I guess it’s cause they just don’t work hard enough right? How many minimum wage jobs do you think it takes to survive in this country useguys?
I think that it’s your healthcare that should be taken away. You have a job that makes it possible to save money and pay for hospital expenses on your own… you don’t need healthcare like the wage slaves here in America do… but I forgot that they weren’t worthy to join your club of “hard working Americans”… even though half of you ditto-head taskmasters just sit behind a desk and order the wage slaves around.
Posted by: Ryan at April 30, 2005 01:25 PMI want anyone who attended law school to be forbidden to take elected or appointed positions within any level of American Gov.
Yeah, ‘cause it’s a great idea to have people making, enforcing, and interpreting the law who don’t understand it. Can’t have actual educated experts doing that, now can we?
Posted by: Jarin at April 30, 2005 01:37 PMGay marriage? Why do we no longer call a deviant a deviant? I refuse to call homosexuality “normal?.
For the same reason that we no longer call people deviant for interracial marriages.
Posted by: Jarin at April 30, 2005 01:39 PMRecently Al has been trying to reframe Republicans as ‘intolerant right-wing religious zealots’ who are power mad, shredding the constitution, and monopolizing all three branches of government. Never mind that any majority Republicans have is due to the voters and could easily be reversed by the voters.
Nice framing, Eric. But Gore wasn’t talking about them having a majority, he was talking about them trying to do away with the filibuster rule that the republicans themselves have used in the past against judicial nominees. He was talking about the threats to judges after recent rulings, and how such tactics may make judges less likely to issue fair rulings independent of politics or popularity.
I can’t even believe you seriously wrote an article indicating that the GOP doesn’t reframe (aka spin) things and that this is an awful tactic only being used by the democrats. If it weren’t for the comments you’ve gotten here in support of your article, I would have thought people would be too smart to take such a claim seriously.
Posted by: Jarin at April 30, 2005 01:51 PMJarin,
Don’t be too surprised by Eric’s article. His standard MO for articles is to point out something distasteful but normal that Democrats do and pretend like it’s a shocking, shocking abuse of the American system and a violation of American ideals.
I was really surprised during the last election cycle that he never posted the logical extension of his views: “Kerry Sneezes; Hates America.”
Posted by: LawnBoy at April 30, 2005 02:02 PMRyan, under our policy you are free to call an idea foolish. But it should be quite obvious to any who can read that our policy does not permit calling another person a fool. You are of course free to take your name calling elsewhere.
WatchBlog Manager.
Posted by: WatchBlog Manager at April 30, 2005 02:04 PMRyan,
You speak of the minimum wage earners and the uninsured as if they didn’t have a choice. Sometimes this is true however, in most cases that I know of people are in the position they are in because of choices they have made during their lives. Most minimum pay jobs are entry level positions and are not meant to support a family or even an adult living on his own. Igrew up in a “poor” part of Atlanta and worked part time during school to help support myself and lessen the burden on my parents. I have benefits at work because I work for them.
In order to pay a person $20 per hour, that person has to produce appx $50 per hour. How do you expect a company to pay that without raising prices? I don’t want to pay $10 for a big mac.
William,
I’d be interested in knowing what your definition of what the heart of liberalism is.
Chops,
Yeah, you’re probably right about my description of the timing of progressive dominance. The rise and fall of memes is a fascinating subject to me and I’d like to devote more time to researching the history of socialist/left ideology. (Unfortunately our oppressive capitalist system affords me no time.) I also don’t think progressivism is anywhere near extinction. In fact I would predict that the next crop will be even more radical in the coming years. The anarchist and anti-capitalist meme is alive and well in Europe for instance. Busy hating America I suppose.
It’s funny you should say mommy party and daddy party, to the extent that both parties tend to assume such roles I think it is wrong. For one, I don’t think the constitution supports a parental role for our government.
Jerry,
I agree. But it’s not so much ‘framing’ that I am aiming at. It is the unfortunate blindness about it in terms of what it is and why it’s important. I have no problem with ‘honing your message’. That’s the name of the game. Free speech is primarily about the free market of ideas. Let the best argument and the best message win. We are all consumers of opinion here.
I’m just not so sure that these guys see it that way. I think that when someone like Norman Lear associates Republicans with Goebbels, and quotes him in the context of the Iraq war, he may actually believe it!
…”Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist government, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”That was Hermann Goering speaking at the Nuremberg trials after World War II. It is one thing to be forewarned. Will we ever be forearmed? Norman Lear
Stephen,
If you are to denounce us, do so in particular.
I thought I did.
It’s not the progressive message that needs reframing, it’s the policies. Isn’t that fairly specific?
Posted by: ericsimonson at April 30, 2005 08:10 PMDamn, Eric,
You almost made through another thread without using the word Facist.
You’re starting to scare me.
Posted by: Rocky at April 30, 2005 08:48 PMEric,
I’m going to assume that this was to me, since I don’t see anyone here named Jerry…
I agree. But it’s not so much ‘framing’ that I am aiming at. It is the unfortunate blindness about it in terms of what it is and why it’s important. I have no problem with ‘honing your message’. That’s the name of the game. Free speech is primarily about the free market of ideas. Let the best argument and the best message win. We are all consumers of opinion here.
Strange you would say that… your post spoke about framing as if it was synonymous with the democrats lying to the public. Or was that just an attempt at framing the issue?
I’m just not so sure that these guys see it that way. I think that when someone like Norman Lear associates Republicans with Goebbels, and quotes him in the context of the Iraq war, he may actually believe it!
I’m sure he does. And so far, there is precious little evidence to prove him wrong. The threat of Iraq proved to be far from credible, and yet many people still see the war there as synonymous with the war on terror. The free market of ideas is a wonderful idea, but it only works if one can assume that the ideas and messages involved are truthful… when deception starts being the name of the game, rather than allowing ideas to compete honestly, the quote from Hermann Goering is chillingly accurate. Do you really think there would have been public support for the war on the grounds that are being touted as justification after-the-fact, freeing the Iraqi people and spreading democracy? We had those grounds for years, and never acted on them. I can’t help but think the response of the people, if that was the justification that had been presented to them, would have been to ask the hard question of the administration: why now? A question I think they would have had no answer for. But they did not have the chance to ask that question, since other justifications that proved false were used instead. That is not a free market of ideas.
Posted by: Jarin at April 30, 2005 09:20 PMWilliam,
And so Eric, maybe that agenda isn’t not as universal as you think. Maybe some of your Red-Team friends aren’t quite as committed to these ideals as you claim to be - and maybe there is a place for a party that’s a little more committed to that “universal” agenda.
The difference being that whoever you are, you have the right to be charitable as you see fit. I happen to like helping people, and will go out of my way to help someone if I can. But I suspect that has less to do with politics than it does the person. I’ve known both liberals and conservatives who were less than charitable and vice versa.
The question is, how does creating a monopoly of healthcare make you a better person?
Honestly, I would like to know if your definition of compassion begins and ends with advocating government programs.
Stephen,
Communism is just another form of predatory power, in the end. Most Democrats wanted no part of that. However, your party needed scapegoats for ineffective policies and atrocious abuses of power, so Democrats were the designated victims. Have we taken it lying down? no. And we won’t this time.
Scapegoats? Which policies? Which abuses of power are you talking about? and when?
The fact remains that much of the left was sympathetic to communism and still is. Most democratic ideology is based on the ideas of socialism. Still, I’m sure most liberals don’t think of themselves as socialists much less communists. They are probably completely unaware of how much the phrases, concepts, and rhetorical arguments they espouse are straight out of socialist writings. (To be fair there are a wide variety of socialists.)
For example, before the election there were a lot of reports about how middle America appeared to be ‘voting against their own interest’. Thomas Frank even wrote a book about it. Voting against their own interest? I was intrigued. I even recall Kerry (or was it Edwards) even mentioning it in a speech.
What they mean is that anyone who votes for Bush is voting against their own self-interests. Inferring that they have been somehow duped by Republicans. Same concept explored above by Lakoff, correct?
Voting tax breaks for millionaires! What are these people thinking?!
But whether John Kerry’s supporters are now celebrating or seeking asylum abroad, they should be feeling wretched about the millions of farmers, factory workers and waitresses who ended up voting - utterly against their own interests - for Republican candidates.One of the Republican Party’s major successes over the last few decades has been to persuade many of the working poor to vote for tax breaks for billionaires.
nytimes
Strangely enough there is a term for this and it’s right out of the Communist handbook!
In Marxist theory, a failure to recognize the instruments of one’s oppression or exploitation as one’s own creation, as when members of an oppressed class unwittingly adopt views of the oppressor class. bartleby.com
It’s funny how disdain for markets, demonization of corporations (the bougiouse in commie parlance), all seem to coincide isn’t it?
Now, am I saying rank and file democrats are commies? No. I’m saying that liberal ideology is easily 51%+ descended from socialist ideology. Memes. Ideas. Ideas which have a life of their own.
Ironically, the term liberal originally referred to the progenitors of conservatism.
Posted by: ericsimonson at May 1, 2005 01:47 AMJarin,
Actually, it was Jeffrey I was responding to. Sorry Jeffrey, I mangled your name. Next time I’ll just call you Bob.
But I’m happy you responded Jarin!
…when deception starts being the name of the game, rather than allowing ideas to compete honestly, the quote from Hermann Goering is chillingly accurate. Do you really think there would have been public support for the war on the grounds that are being touted as justification after-the-fact, freeing the Iraqi people and spreading democracy?
First, there was no deception. Well, perhaps we can make the case that there was some self-deception on the part of the left, but other than that, Democracy and freeing Iraqis was the first among reasons for going into Iraq after 9/11.
The revision of history on the part of the left is entertaining if nothing else. What was the whole evil neo-con thing about remaking the middle east? What was Condi Rice talking about if not creating democracy in the middle east. This is the war on terror after all.
How do we decrease the amount of terrorists? Bread and circuses. If we can somehow get them arguing with each other, you know… the kind of petty partisan political prattling we’re engaged in now, they won’t have any time to construct bombs and plan airline hijackings.
Hell, the anti-war protestors started before we invaded Afghanistan. Deception?
Anyway, the point I’d like to make is that sometimes it seems as if some on the left have completely bought into their own propaganda. I begin to fear that they might fall victim to Sauromon’s Affliction. Who basically studied the enemy so closely that in the end he became just like him.
The sad thing is that ‘the enemy’ is more a construct of the left’s own propaganda.
Posted by: ericsimonson at May 1, 2005 02:25 AMRocky,
Damn, Eric,You almost made through another thread without using the word Facist.
You’re starting to scare me.
Believe me, it wasn’t easy. But I did it for you.
Posted by: ericsimonson at May 1, 2005 02:52 AM…and I’d like to devote more time to researching the history of socialist/left ideology.
Dude, you could teach a course on it. You’re far more steeped in wacko-commie ideology than any Democrat I’ve ever met.
I look forward to your posts so I can keep tabs on what the three remaining hippies in the Democratic Party are plotting in their van over a couple doobies.
Scapegoats? Which policies? Which abuses of power are you talking about? and when?
When, where: Red Scare, Vietnam, Now in Iraq. Abuses of power like McCarthyism, Watergate, Iran/Contra, the lies and the denials that helped start this current war.
As for being crypto-communist, we can take such rhetoric and call you crypto-fascists, crypto monarchists, or whatever. We already have. And guess what? It’s a cheap tactic, used because it’s hard to deny convincingly in the abstract that you’re something, when the very point being made is that you’re in denial. Truth is, we do take terms and concepts from more extreme factions in our political landscape. But It’s been my observation that people can work such ideas in creatively, adjusting and moderating them. Example: the anti-affirmative action phrase “reverse discrimination” is a product of white supremacist rhetoric. Does it mean Republicans using it are white supremacists? Not necessarily. Ideas and words can be repurposed. Class Warfare is a socialist term for something positive that Republicans have turned into something negative.
Also, people tend to deal with ideas more in weight than in logic. They will accept potentially harmful policies to themselves, if they have been convinced that there is something principled about it, or if they are convinced that they are under threat.
I think you Republicans have these people so scared about the left that they are not looking at their own situation as a consequence of their alliance. It’s not that people are stupid. It’s just that they don’t always see the big picture.
There’s nothing uniquely communist about this concept of voting or working against one’s interest. Christians in the Balkans during the Muslim occupation there may have used the same rhetoric.
As for the demonization of big corporations, that didn’t start with communism. That’s an ancient part of the Democratic party, from when it was the party of agrarian, populist interests in the early 19th century. In evolution, if we’re speaking about memes, there is a such thing as developing similar traits in entirely parallel course of adaptation. Eyes, wings, fins, etc. One does not have to be an heir to a tradition like communism to have similar ideas in places.
And yes, there was deception in Iraq. It was a mixture of self deception and deceptions of others. Regardless, we were thrust into a war that had no strategical victory at its end for the war on terror. We can only realistically hope to break even. There is no guarantee that the Iraq we see at the end of this generation will be strong enough or cohesive enough to fulfill its prupose.
We are not the Saruman in this exchange. But a good case can be made that you all are the Denethors of this debate- the power hungry but ultimately ineffectual chickenhawks for whom experience and wisdom are impediments to exercises of will.
We do have an enemy. It’s just not here. It’s there waiting across the world planning on killing American regardless of their party affiliation.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 1, 2005 03:11 PMStephen,
“Regardless, we were thrust into a war that had no strategical victory at its end for the war on terror. We can only realistically hope to break even.”
Well, let’s put everything into money terms shall we? 1,500 Soldiers dead at $3,000 biannually for pensions equates to 67.5 million dollars (apparently you can put a price on life). That plus the amount of money the war itself costs, $166.8 billion, and you get a war that costs quite a pretty penny. To compensate for that we would need 336 million barrels of oil (at $50 a barrel, not adjusted for money taken out of that in the selling/shipping/etc.) to cover the cost. Iraq has 112.5 billion barrels of oil reserves. That means we should be able to quite easily cover the cost of the war by simply siphoning off large amounts of crude oil. See? That’s way better than breaking even AND it’s realistic (I would say probable).
Posted by: Zeek at May 1, 2005 11:21 PM
