MyDD :: Losing the Election One GOP Frame at a Time

Losing the Election One GOP Frame at a Time

by Chris Bowers, Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 07:59:52 PM EST

The blogosphere has roundly endorsed, drooled and quite frankly orgasmed over Kerry's speech at Temple University yesterday. While I like Kerry's newfound voice on Iraq, one major element of Kerry's sharpened criticism needs to be dropped, and dropped fast. Specifically, Kerry, and Democrats in general, need to immediately stop using the phrase "War on Terror" or we are in big trouble both in this election and beyond.

The term "War on Terror" is a GOP frame invented by Bush's communications team in the rhetorical aftermath of 9/11. People who buy into that frame overwhelmingly support Bush. According to Zogby from earlier this week (emphasis mine):

Kerry continues to lead on four of five top issues but some possible worrisome details. Among those who say the economy is the top issue, Kerry now leads only 49% to 43%. He maintains wide leads among those who cite the war in Iraq as top issue (55% to 37%), those who cite health care (56% to 32%), and those who cite education (53% to 36%). But the President has widened his advantage over those who cite the war on terrorism to a 56 point lead -- 75% to 19%. This is still very close but has Kerry stopped the bleeding?

Yet, despite this, Kerry and Democrats in general continue to use this frame, which can only serve to help Bush and Republicans. The more we are complicit with the most powerful GOP frame of this entire election, the more we will help prop up Bush in the only area where he leads Kerry. And we do it a lot. For example, the title of the campaign press release for Kerry's speech at Temple was Kerry Pledges to Fight a More Effective War on Terror. Not only that, here was the backdrop to Kerry's set during the speech:

Good God! Why don't we just sign Bush's renewed lease papers for him? This is almost as bad as if the DNC were to start running ads calling Kerry a flip-flopper.

We need to come up with a new frame, and we need to do it now. Re-label the primary task of American foreign policy on terms favorable to progressive policy. Instead of either calling the term "War on Terror" idiotic (which it is) or simply being complicit with it (which we are) we should have been developing a new frame. We should have been doing it years ago. Do it now.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 32 Comments :: Post a Comment

New Name for Kerry's War on Terror... (none / 0)

The Fight for Freedom
(a return to the Four Freedoms of FDR...)

Freedom of Speech and Expression -- everywhere in the world.

Freedom of Religion -- freedom for every religion from persecution and for all people from extremism.

Freedom from Want - economic freedom for everyone in America, and around the world.

finally, and most importantly...

Freedom from Fear -- a fight to the ends of the earth against those who would keep us affraid. This includes you, Mr. Bush.

by eshap on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 08:58:10 PM EST

Let's give Kerry some credit (none / 0)

He's not dumb and neither are his campaign advisers.

I think he has a two or three-step shift going on here:

First, unlike Bush, he says we can win the war on terror.

Second, he points out that Iraq is not the war on terror.

Three, he is starting to drive home the point that Bush failed to get Osama.

You don't just "reframe" things by hanging a new sign up in the background. You have to lay some groundwork.

by Alan S on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:13:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's give Kerry some credit (none / 0)

I agree. Kerry knows what he is doing. The point is less about how Kerry frames it but what is embedded in the mind of people. If people are comfortable with the phrase "war on terror," Kerry is not going to run from it but use it.

A good frame would be "A smart war on terror." (Okay, I'm not going to quit my job anytime soon--oh wait, I don't have one).

One thing Kerry has to do is to hammer home the fact that he is national security expert who wrote extensively about the war on terror back in 1997 when foreign policy for George Bush was border issues with Oklahoma.

by Ono on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 01:36:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

reframming "the war on terror" (5.00 / 1)

Chris,

I think your right about this and it would be helpful to suggest a way to reframe it.

One other necessary point is needed to move this forward.

Yes, it is plainly idiotic but when Bush recently correctly said the "war on terror" could not be won in a conventional sense - meaning don't expect the terrorists to formally sign an uncondtiional surrender document on the deck of a US battleship, he was right but was then charged by Kerry as having a defeatist attitude about winning the war on terror.

Kerry has as a result recently started emphasizing "I want to win the war on terror, and I believe we can do so." While implying Bush was defeatist about it, and Bush had to back track the statement.

So this shows that Bush is also trapped to a degree by the idiotic language that the issue has been framed wtih.

In fact, it is and has to be a war against certain specific terrorists.

Are we in the US at war with the terrorists from Chetnia who have attacked Russia? ... Should we be? Should we divert resources from the OBL hunt to fight the Chetin terrorists?

Are we in the US at war with the Spanish Basq seperatists? Were we in the US at war with the Irish terrorists?

If you accept the simplistic term "war against terrorism" and combine it with the other simplistic and idiotic Bush term "Your either with us or your against us and ypur with the terrorists", then these simplistic terms "logically" lead to the idea that we must have an all out war against all terrorists fighting against every legitimate government in the world at any time in present or future history, which is obviously an impossible task.

Bush included Saddam Husein in that overly broad group.

Democrats tend to see Saddam as having been a vile and murderous dictator, but not exactly in the same terrorist grouping as is Osama ben Ladin.

If Kerry wants to make the charge that the Iraq war was a problematic diversion against the fight against certain terrorist who attacked us on 9/11 he does have to narrow the target and reframe the issue.

by leschwartz on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 09:13:24 PM EST

Re: reframming "the war on terror" (none / 0)

Old Greek saying..."Whom the Gods would destroy they would first make mad". The "War on Terrorism" is a Bush cachet and each time Kerry says it votes go to Bush. Notice Bush never once says "Senator Kerry", it's always "my oponnent" I am constantly amazed at the ineptness of Kerry's handlers

by hambro on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 09:34:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The shrinking majority... (none / 0)

I tend to disagree with your assessment.
I happen to think, but can't prove beyond the empirics of my immediate surrounding, that the pool of people citing "war on terror" as their top issue is shrinking. I think the Kerry message is dislodging a number of non-diehards to drop that as their top issue. In all likelyhood, they have come to realize that the administration did drop the ball on the war on terror in favor of a vendetta-for-papa-Bush war, ergo it is no longer a relevant issue for the election. The percentage of those citing that issue that support Bush will increase while their numbers are shrinking (higher purity pool of ideology, so to speak).
I wonder whether the number show such a trend. Any insights?

by Coptic on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 09:18:47 PM EST

Re: The shrinking majority... (none / 0)

Wrong, in fact with the bogus claim about the economy improving recently polling data shows that the "war on terror" is still one of the top issues concerning people and it plays into the bogus "Kerry is a wimp - Bush is a macho super-hero" being played by the GOP.

Its an imperative which plays to the simple minded male ego which cannot be contradicted in rural non-urban American culture - Red states.

Are you an unwavering and resolute American macho like Bush or are you a frenchified wimp surrender monkey like Kerry?

by leschwartz on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 09:28:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The shrinking majority... (none / 0)

L. E.,
I don't wish to put the onus of disproving my viewpoint on you, but my very casual, and possibly erroneous, look at the "internals" did not indicate in an obvious manner that the number of folks THAT ARE PERSUADABLE (beyond party ID, etc...) that are voting Bush because of this issue is in fact INCREASING. That is, while the issue is still significant, the meme itself is not effective in moving votes, which would cause that percentage to become more significant.

Having said that, while I am not satisfied with the mere assertion that I am wrong, I profess ignorance of sufficient magnitude with respect to analyzing the numbers as to accept a change of mind. I am looking for someone to elicit the meaning out of the numbers, and shed some light beyond opinion.

I am also not advocating rosy-scenario complacency either.
Cheers

by Coptic on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 10:21:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The shrinking majority... (none / 0)

The persuadable are the most likely to be moved by the semantic framing and are the least able to resist it with independent thinking on their own when it comes to that final moment when they have to pull the lever and vote.

by leschwartz on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:05:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The shrinking majority... (none / 0)

That's an interesting analysis. For those who become convinced that Kerry would do as good a job as Bush in the "War on Terror," the WoT probably becomes a less important issue than those on which the candidates differ significantly in that voter's perception. I think it's too late to change the frame; it's been in practically universal use for three years now, and the Republicans would just jump on us for going against what "everyone knows." Kerry needs to cut into Bush's lead on that issue; this article by Will Saletan (who writes the "Ballot Box" and "Frame Game" columns in Slate) shows how he can do that during the first debate. Here's hoping someone in Kerry's debate-prep group reads it.
Later,
Alex

Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for President! Beat McCain!

by Alex on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 09:36:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well... (4.00 / 1)

I'm not sure I agree. Believe it or not, I actually study framing (and I used to do focus-group work, go figure) and my instinct is that the Democrats should be using the phrase "war on terror." Why? Bush and company will continue to link the "war in Iraq" to the "war on terror" (war <--> war). Thus, if the Democrats can break through with the current claim that Bush's strategies are incompetent and that he lives in a fantasy land vis-a-vis the "war in Iraq," there will probably be a spillover into public perceptions of the "war on terror." It makes for a cleaner set of arguments and linkages.

That being said, if I had to choose a new frame it would be the "struggle against terrorism." Struggles can be forwarded using a variety of means - not just military action - and the addition of an -ism highlights that the struggle is against a strategy, not an existential condition. The next stage would to argue that this is a struggle on all fronts: military, policing, world opinion, and so forth. The problem with the Bush administration is that they have neglected key tools in our struggle, and thereby have made us more vulnerable than we would otherwise be.

However, the same argument can be made with "war on terror." That also allows the metaphor of Bush having neglected key "weapons in our arsenal," and sounds good with the "war of ideas" and the "war of opinion" which Iraq is undermining. Then you quote the Dict- er, President of Pakistan in some commericals.

by dnexon on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 09:29:24 PM EST

Re: Well... (none / 0)

Changing the sub term "war on" to "struggle against" does not change anything.

As long as the link between the Iraq invasion and "war against terror" is seen as legitimate as Chris said, Bush has an advantage.

And you can see that Bush / Rove also perceive this and are very much on the defensive about it.

Every day they link the war on terror and the Iraq invasion on the one hand with the suggestion that Bush is resolute and determined verses Kerry who is nuanced and therfore implied irresolute on the other hand.

by leschwartz on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 09:55:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well... (none / 0)

I agree that there's no real difference. But I disagree that this is an example of a frame that intrinsically disadvantages the Democrats.

by dnexon on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 10:25:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well... (none / 0)

Well, let me express my respect for your differring opinion about it, but it is my perception that Bush and Rove see this as a key issue and it is a keystone in their posturing and portrayal of both Bush (macho-American, resolute, determined, unshakable, fearless, decisive, strong character - leader) and Kerry on the other (flip-flopper, irresolute, frechified surrender monkey, nuanced, cut and run, phony war hero, not fit to lead the nation or be president).

Not important?

by leschwartz on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 10:33:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well... (none / 0)

Importance by itself doesn't mean much. It could be important that we continue along the path, or important that we change the path.

It certainly could seem that the issue is as I stated--changing the path vs not--but consider if you will that most people likely see Iraq and Afghanistan as the WoT. Any attempt at reframing therefore is likely break any association between what Kerry says about that war, and Bush's misdeeds.

Beyond reframing the WoT, perhaps to the War Against AQ (WAAQ), is perhaps a greater issue--the distinction between the war in Iraq and the WAAQ. This issue is important specifically because Kerry is trying to point out that Bush was wrong to go into Iraq. Framing it as part of the WOT (or WAAQ) makes an end run around the 'wrong' argument.

I remember hearing Kerry associate the actions in Iraq as the WoT. This is where we have real problems and where we must get the word to the campaign.

by Fr33d0m on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 10:58:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well... (none / 0)

Two preliminary points:

A "frame" is not always univocal, i.e., that it doesn't always imply one set of linkages and interpretations.
Not all frames are alike. Let's take an example from Lakoff's argument: "tax relief." The reason that this framing of the taxes debate disadvantages Democrats is that it implies (a) taxes are a burden, like a headache or disease, and (b) that the person who lowers taxes is a hero. Thus, it begins the debate with the presumption that cutting taxes is a good thing.

"War on Terror" implies a number of things: (a) that dealing with terrorism requires a military response, (b) that there are only two sides -- for and against terrorism, (c) all terror(ism) and all terrorists are on the same side, and (d) that the US should be on a war footing. The Republicans would like (b)+(d) to imply that all dissent or criticism is aiding an abetting the enemy, but I am not convinced that there is anything the Democrats can do to shift the terms of the debate enough to prevent at least some people from buying this, and I am not convinced that the implications of the "War on Terror" frame inevitably help the Republicans. If "War on Terror" is linked to competence, adaptability, responsibility, and the effective use of all the weapons in our arsenal, the Democrats can use the notion of a "War" to their advantage.

Moreover, the metaphor of a "war" opens up important arguments, such as the notion that Iraq was a "diversion" (we opened up a front that weakened our ability to fight the true enemy). In the best-case scenario, which I have already suggested, it turns Bush's problems in Iraq into a drag on his terrorism ratings. I believe this already underway, but it may be too little, too late.

The last problem with attempting to change this particular frame is that, because the "War on Terror" metaphor is already entrenched, the attempt will probably resonate with the "Democrats are weak on terror" argument.

by dnexon on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:05:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well... (none / 0)

I think at this point, it might be too late to really re-frame the phrase "War on Terror." The debates are coming up, time is getting short. I recall Gore's many clumsy attempts to create new frames and slogans that were so transparent it was painful. ("You ain't seen nuthin' yet," for example. sigh)

These things to take a certain investment of time. Look how much labor the Repubs invested in "flip-flopper." Everybody knew what they were up to. They even made fun of it on SNL. But they were persistent with it.

I think they may be pursuing the best strategy. Take "War on Terror" head on, right now. Defang it, just a little. And, most importantly, decouple it from "War in Iraq." That is something that is long overdue and so many people have been waiting to hear.

The focus of this campaign will change again. It's not going to stay focused on the WoT. The war on body bags is going to grow in importance.

ALSO -- this is worth a diary of its own, but just thinking of it now...

Who the hell do the Bushies think they are persuading with those Kerry wind-surfing ads? Sheesh... I'm from southern California. That just makes him look cool! He looks like the Cheetos Cheetah on a surfboard, all sunglasses, grins, and roaring speed. We should hope they keep up with that.

by Dumbo on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:34:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well... (none / 0)

You're right

It is too late to change the semantics...we'd be wasting time and money changing the language

I say we're better off just making people believe we're stronger than convincing them it's something else

if we said the fight for freedom (which would be wrong) or some other nomenclature, someone on the right would use it against us

by PHDinNYC4Kerry on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 10:43:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Take the War on Terror Fight to the Opponent (4.00 / 1)

I haven't found an issue where I've disagreed with Chris, but this is one.

Granted, the so-called 'war' isn't a war in the conventional sense, and it is BushCo framing.

That said, it is now well established terminology, like the equally misleading 'war on drugs'.

To try to change not just the Dem. message, but to get the media to adopt another label is just not going to happen in 4 or 5 weeks.

There would also be the danger (in trying to reframe) that Kerry would be accused of running from the war on terror.

Far better, IMO, is to take the fight directly to BushCo: make clear that Bush has not fought this battle well, etc., as he's doing with Iraq. Kerry has said many of the right things, but he hasn't put a strong spin on the term. We need and effective, cooperative, and even-handed (no refuge in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and former Soviet regions) application of sustained intelligence, law enforcement, and, where applicable, military strike forces.

In summary, not just claims of a war on terror, but effective war on terror.

Kerry can't reframe this issue. He's got the right ideas, but he needs to take the fight directly to Bush on Bush's failure to deliver.

"Pay any price, bear any burden"

by JimPortlandOR on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 10:32:15 PM EST

Re: Take the War on Terror Fight to the Opponent (4.00 / 1)

Obviously I agree wth Chris's points and I feel very strongly about this.

The terminology has to be changed and Bush has to be challenged for his simplisitc approach to the issue, otherwise the cultural imperitives are on Bush's side, especially in the good old American heat-land amd among persuadables in the 1/3 non-party aligned who will determine the outcome.

A "war on terror" all terror, any time, any place and any terrorist can not be won. Even Bush admitted as much, but had to back track.

A war against certain specific terrorist, declaired enemies of the US who have taken action against us and who are identify-able could be won.

With that frame Bush's Iraq invasion is more than just incompetant, it is criminally negligent because it distracts from the legitimate war on enemies who have attacked us. Again, this has already been an important part of Kerry's framing of the issue and he is already responding to the importance of the issue.

That sort of reframing (limiting which terrorsts we should go after first and prioritize) is possible and is not too complex for the red-necked to perceive. It is an argument which highlights the folly of having spent $200 Billion plus so far and more t han 1000 American lives and having acomplished nothing against those who did attack us on 9/11.

Kerry and the Democrats broadly know this aspect of the issue, but as Chris stated they also need to move the lingusitic framing of the issue, or we could likely have the same results in 2004 as we had in 2000.

by leschwartz on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 10:58:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Take the War on Terror Fight to the Opponent (none / 0)

Well, I think you're mixing up the 'content' with the 'label'. The content as Bush frames it is just wrong. So say so.

As to the 'label', it doesn't matter what it is (and one label is very well established), but if the points are made that the management, strategy and tactics are wrong, and that Bush is misleading the public and the world, then Dems can win with the war on terror label, but with different content.

"Pay any price, bear any burden"

by JimPortlandOR on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:06:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Take the War on Terror Fight to the Opponent (none / 0)

Jim's right, of course. Labels are not frames. However, "War on Terror" is, I think, a powerful way to frame the debate because "war" implies some pretty clear scripts.

by dnexon on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:12:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Take the War on Terror Fight to the Opponent (none / 0)

The most effective linguistic frame unites content and label to some important degree as the phase "war against terror" clearly does.

The extent to which this phrase accomplishes that and is also a cultural imperative, it has great influence on the persuadable and the entire political race.

I have to say that all to all of those arguing against these points your arguments have not persuaded me, and the universal rejection in the face of the clear emphasis on these points by by the Bush and Kerry campaigns in the day to day campaign language is "interesting".

I think another mechanism is at work here having to do with your resenting my personally joining you little debate society.

Thats ok I can take a little rejection, I'm up to it.

The frame is moveable (it is far from too late) and must be moved.

Without doing so Kerry continues at a key disadvantage, and when he moves THIS FRAME, he deposes Bush as king of the anti - terrorism hill, the last isssue where polling (if it can be believed) shows a Bush advantage.

by leschwartz on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:26:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Take the War on Terror Fight to the Opponent (none / 0)

I don't quite get the 'joined-the-debate-society' issue. I'm new here myself.

From my perspective, the real problem with the war-on-terror frame is its deleterious effects on legitimating policy decisions. The US is fighting a war against some Islamicist transnational networks and against an insurgency on Iraq. We are not fighting a war against a concept or an existential condition. The war on terror means, by necessity, a war that cannot be won. We've already seen the effects of the "war on drugs" label. I'd prefer we didn't make the same mistakes.

I still think, however, it isn't as big a problem as you suggest from a partisanship standpoint :-).

by dnexon on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:53:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

While I Admire ... (none / 0)

the passion and desire to give advice on this, I think you're very wrong. One of the things Republicans do much better than Democrats is manipulate the symbols of our common culture. For a Democrat to cede such a powerful image as "war on terror" to the opponent would be a bad move. He'd be seen as running from the issue.

Moreoever, we are all guilty of assuming that small things like this are what wins and loses campaigns. They're really very peripheral. Voters get a sense of who a candidate is based on a variety of cues, many non-verbal. This is not a big deal.

by AS on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:06:19 PM EST

Re: I agree (nt) (none / 0)

"Pay any price, bear any burden"

by JimPortlandOR on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:09:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing the Election One GOP Frame at a Time (none / 0)

A "Smarter War On Terror"

This uses the current jargon, nothing hard to remember(for the voting masses).
Plus; Uses an Action word that automatically puts Kerry in front of the Republicians. Hell, anybody can see that Iraq is just getting to be a quagmire. Change the equation and make it work for us.

by NvDem on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:42:53 PM EST

OK, so I'm a flip-flopper (none / 0)

I wrote on the Kerry blog a week or so on this very subject, advocating an attempt to change the diction used to talk about the fight against violent international anti-western islamic radicals from the 'War on Terror' to something else, suggesting the 'Fight against Terrorism' instead.

I've changed my mind.

Though the word 'war' does come with a lot of baggage suggesting the use of force, the military, and allows the famously specious excuse 'We are at war' for all sorts of repressive and dangerous actions, there are a couple reasons dems shouldn't take steps to get rid of it at the moment:

It's too late - we're too close to the election to successfully change the language and hope the american people will follow that's we're talking about the same thing. Kerry's message on Iraq versus OBL is getting traction; to risk causing a disconnect with the public on semantics at this point would be foolish.
The public has been exposed to 'war on XXX' terminology for more than two decades now, with the war on drugs and, with less exposure, wars on things such as hunger, poverty, and illiteracy. In such contexts the term 'war' is used somewhat metaphorically, and people know this. There's no organized enemy army to fight in the 'War on Terror' - any more than there is in the war on illiteracy.

All that said, I do think the language is flawed, and to some extent serves the republican agenda coupling Iraq and Afghanistan/Al Qaeda. Because inroads are being made decoupling those two ideas in the public consciousness anyway, it's not such a thorn that the benefits outweigh the risks.

However, when Kerry/Edwards wins the election, I do think they need to put the 'War on Terror' to bed, and start talking about the 'Fight Against Radical Islamism' instead. None of the metaphorical 'wars' has been won, and my money is against any of them being won in our lifetimes. That track record is not good company to be in.

by forethought on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 07:11:35 AM EST

Re: OK, so I'm a flip-flopper (none / 0)

You know, it just struck me that most of the polls that ask about issues treat "The War on Terror" and "The War in Iraq" as two separate wars. That may be helping us redefine this frame more than anything Kerry says about it. The more polls are published, the more this distinction is likely to seep into the public consciousness. Kerry should just ride that, not try to go against the flow by renaming the WoT.
Later,
Alex

Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for President! Beat McCain!

by Alex on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 04:04:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Al Qaeda War (5.00 / 1)

Let's call the so-called "war on terror" what it is: the Al Qaeda War. That is the war of necessity. We are in it because Al Qaeda attacked us, and we can't avoid it. Everything else is unnecessary and detracts from our ability to defeat Al Qaeda.

We are not in a war against all terrorists, and we do not need to be because not all terrorists target the U.S.

We are not in a war against Islam, and to suggest this is extreme folly. That is not only an unjust and unnecessary war, but it is a war we cannot win.

We are not in a war against all Islamic terrorists. To equate Al Qaeda with the terrorists who seek Palestinian statehood or Chechen independence involves us in moral confusion, creates unnecessary foes, and distracts from Al Qaeda.

Let's get the terms right, and maybe we'll stop giving Bush a free pass to drag the US into what are in fact new wars of choice.

by berith on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 04:38:34 PM EST

War on al-Qaeda (none / 0)

I remember someone else saying it before either of us, but I agree... let's call it what it is and was supposed to be - the War on al-Qaeda. You cannot fight a war against an abstraction. You are inevitably going to pump money down a black hole if you do that.

We are fighting a war on al-Qaeda, and that should be how we frame the national debate.

Think about how clear that simple turn of phrase makes everything:

Instead of a philosophical debate that can never fully be decided -- are we safe from terror? well, we don't know! really, can anyone ever truly be 100% secure? -- the country is given a very specific question that can be answered: Has al-Qaeda been eliminated as a threat?
Deposing the Taliban in Afghanistan was an important step in the War on al-Qaeda.
Taking out Saddam served no purpose, and in fact was a step backward in the War on al-Qaeda. We are now committed financially and militarily to a war that most of us don't want, and every time a civilian is killed we give al-Qaeda recruitment material.

There are other important issues in the world debate - Iran, North Korea, Sudan, etc - but they each need to be dealt with on an individual basis by experts, rather than lumped all together in some abstract "war on terror".

by drewthaler on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 11:51:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing the Election One GOP Frame at a Time (none / 0)

I don't really care if the Kerry campaign tries to change the WOT frame -- they've shown pretty good judgement and at this point all most of us can do is put our shoulders to the wheel and push -- that is, canvass and GOTV. They seem to believe such a change can't be achieved in a campaign time frame and I think Kerry is a pretty smart guy, so I'll try to trust that.

BUT if Kerry is going to govern, he and his people must get rid of the WOT frame after the election. The very real threats confronting this country are too complicated to respond to a simple-minded appeal to annihilate an abstraction. How do we protect ourselves, make peace with most of the world, isolate those who would break the peace, re-establish the notion of the rule of law (foreign and domestic), and enable some real social and economic progress worldwide to reduce the appeal of lawlessness? That's the project of actual governance, not some dim-witted WOT.

Can It Happen Here?

by janinsanfran on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 02:52:07 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.