A Progressive Guide to Framing
by RFK Action Front, Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 05:36:39 PM EDT
Cross posted from: RFK Action Front
George Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute have done a tremendous job of educating progressives about the importance of framing. But as I troll through the progressive blogosphere, I notice that even some of the best bloggers (who, out of courtesy, will remain nameless here) make basic framing mistakes. So as the risk of repeating what may be obvious to many--here is my Progressive Guide to Framing:
1. LEFT and RIGHT refer to baseball pitchers and driving directions not political ideas or policy choices. It seems to me that the biggest framing mistake progressives make is referring to progressive ideas as "left" or "lefty" and Republican or fundamentalist Christian ideas as "right" or "right wing."
Why is this such a disadvantageous frame?
The word "right" of course, has several meanings. For example, "right" can mean "correct" as well as "politically conservative." Only 8 to 15% of the adult population is left handed. Every time you use the terms right and left to refer to politics you are using a Republican frame that implies that Republicans are correct and progressive only represents 8-15% of the population. See the problem?
2. By the same token, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson are not members of the "religious right", the "right wing," the "radical right," or even "evangelical." Rather, based on their desire to impose the brutality of the Old Testament upon our culture and modern political institutions, they are properly referred to as "fundamentalists, extremists, regressive, or fringe."
3. There is nothing "conservative" about modern day Republicans. They don't conserve the environment, they don't conserve energy, they don't even conserve international law or the Geneva Conventions. Contemporary Republicans are thus not properly referred to as "conservative." Proper adjectives to describe Republican policies include "regressive, destructive, extremist, fringe, fundamentalist, violent, hateful, and anti-family."
4. Use affirmative declarative sentences to say what we believe rather than always debating what THEY are doing wrong. For example, "Barack Obama has a vision that can heal our nation" or "Hillary Clinton is perhaps the hardest working person in American politics today," is better than, "Bush is a dumb ass." We've got to get in the habit of repeating our frame over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. When we go on offense by making affirmative declarative sentences the other side is often forced to go on defense (and in the process of trying to refute our frame the other side repeats and reinforces our frame).
5. Humor is more viral than anger. Check out this quote from Laura Crawford--the RNC's main viral video editor:
"I try not to make [the videos] political at all," says Crawford, "because anything political gets an automatic negative reaction, even from people with a strong party affiliation. They want humor.... We want these things to be viral, and if they're argumentative instead of clever, they just won't be." (from Time Magazine)
For example, Jon Stewart is more viral (and more effective at moving a message) than Democracy Now! Both are necessary but The Daily Show has more leverage in shaping the debate right now because of the way they package their message.
Okay that's all I got for now. If you've got some additional ideas, feel free to add them to the comments.