“Framing” is to politicians and pundits what storytelling is to concerned parents. The term was coined by George Lakoff, Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley—who calls it the mechanism by which conservatives structure public debate on just about every issue.
 |
| Professor George Lakoff |
Politicians and parents seek to convert their audiences to their point-of-view, and both leverage overwhelming tactics to prevail. Although the tactic of shouting loudly can be intimidating and overwhelming, it lacks the power of sustained, repetitive framing which blocks consideration of facts and interpretations that don’t fit the frame. If you say something often enough, it begins to sound true.
Some examples of framing: government regulation is interference in free markets; poor people are undisciplined and to blame for their own poverty; environmentalists are idealists who care more about frogs than people and progress; critics of US foreign policy support the enemy—and my personal favorite—tax cuts are tax relief.
As Lakoff says:
When conservatives discuss tax reduction, the phrase ‘tax relief’ is repeated over and over. For there to be relief, there must be an affliction, an afflicted party harmed by the affliction, a reliever who takes the affliction away and is therefore a hero. And if anybody tries to stop the reliever, he’s a villain wanting the suffering to go on. Add ’tax’ and you have a metaphorical frame: taxation is an affliction. The taxpayer is the afflicted party, the conservatives are heroes and the liberals are villains… Read more of Lakoff’s illustrations of framing at http://changethis.com/manifesto/show/5.GeorgeLakoff
As the image implies, a well-built frame deflects logic, facts and other inconvenient truths. Frames are built around values shared by self-interested people seeking support and reassurance from like-minded souls. Since values tend to ignite passions, they tend to trump facts-- which is why political arguments are rarely won based on the facts.
To win, it is usually more effective to reframe an argument. Again from the very sage Lakoff:
Suppose he (your opponent) starts touting smaller government. Point out that conservatives don’t really want smaller government. They don’t want to eliminate the military, or the FBI, or the Treasury and Commerce departments, or the nine-tenths of the courts that support corporate law. It is big government that they like. What they really want to do away with is social programs. Such a position contradicts the values the country was founded on… the idea of a community where people pull together to help each other…
It is generally agreed that conservatives wield a more forceful framing hammer because their common interests, values and world views are more cohesive than those of progressives. Having more varied, often conflicted stakeholders under the tent is no excuse for not seeking common ground upon which to build a frame, however. After all, the vast majority of progressives can rally around equality, democracy, government providing a better future, ethical business practices and moral foreign policy.
These progressive principles provide sturdy structural elements that support focused and enlightened frames around political discourse.
Framing is not a bad storytelling device. It aids the audience by providing context in which an argument is relevant. In fact, progressives should master the technique to elevate the health of our competitive national political discourse and our collective understanding of the issues that affect us.
