Framing vs. Fencing: A post-Lakoff analysis
Framing vs. Fencing: A post-Lakoff analysis
Framing vs. Fencing: A post-Lakoff analysisby Hudson Thu Mar 10th, 2005 at 20:39:11 PSTSUBTITLE:
Some limitations of Lakoff's "framing," and the evolving Republican strategy to fence voters off from Democratic ideas, leaders and values -- before the debate even begins
INTRODUCTION: BEYOND THE FRAME
In the past year, like so many other Democrats and progressives, I latched onto George Lakoff's advice about "framing" with the ferociously desperate optimism of a drowning man spotting a passing tree trunk.
I pre-ordered Don't Think of an Elephant, I googled a half-dozen Lakoff interviews, and I urged every liberal-minded friend to do the same.
Indeed, framing has become an unremitting refrain of every progressive op-ed piece, Haloscan post and DFA Meetup. Just mention framing, and heads bob appreciatively up and down across the (chat) room. "We must frame our arguments better!" is fast becoming a latter-day gloss on the naive proclamation of Boxer in Animal Farm ("I will work harder!") -- a pledge he makes right up to the minute the pigs ship him off to the glue factory. Diaries :: Hudson's diary ::
Despite the following criticisms, Lakoff's exhortation remains a welcome and commonsense one. To re-take control of the national discourse, Democrats of course must redefine the terms of debate in ways which predispose the audience to be more accepting of progressive arguments--all the while exhibiting the same or greater "message discipline" as our Republican nemeses.
As the 2004 campaign wore on, however, two things became apparent: (1) that John Kerry and other prominent Democrats were not showing much skill, charm or even discipline in these new framing efforts--which the Republicans had been practicing for a least a decade; (2) even more devastatingly, that just as Democrats began to try to master framing, the Republicans were one step ahead with a more powerful, and far more underhanded strategy.
For lack of a better term, I've started to call that more recent Republican strategy "fencing."
ANALYSIS: WHAT IS FENCING / WHAT IS A FENCE?
A fence is any political idea, campaign or mindset which is intended to wall voters off from the opposite side before the public even gets to hear the opposing argument.
In fairness to Lakoff, a fence may just be a kind of superframe: far cruder, far less permeable, and virtually insurmountable once erected. But if frames are a window to view the world through, then fences block much of that world out -- rendering the frames largely irrelevant.
A candidate or party doesn't get a chance to frame its issues if a metaphorical fence separates it from the audience. When the voters can't (or, more accurately, won't) see and hear our side of the debate, all those handy new frames become useless.
To better explain how Republicans are using fencing to trump the Democrats' newfound interest in framing, one first needs to take a brief look at the underpinnings of framing.
Framing starts with the assumption that there is going to be an actual debate about issues. As Democrats, we like to think that the public sincerely wants and deserves to hear at least two cases about various key issues (such as abortion, taxes, the environment, security) and then decide for ourselves which side made a more convincing argument.
Lakoff's insight was that in any debate, the side which spends more time crafting clever "frames" to define each of those issues has a major advantage. One of his oft-repeated examples is the right's clever invention (and endless repetition) of the phrase "climate change" in place of "global warming," to make that urgent and potentially devastating crisis seem more natural, just part of a gradual trend, rendering the public more apathetic.
Therein lies the problem with the Democrats' late adoption of framing: it assumes that people always want to hear from more than one side before taking a position.
This is where the increasingly common and infinitely more insidious Republican strategy of "fencing" comes in. As we Democrats play catch-up on the framing of specific issues, the Republicans (having largely mastered framing already) have refocused and redoubled their efforts to fence voters off from ever contemplating Democratic and progressive frames.
While still holding up their end when necessary to frame a debate, the Republicans are spending more and more of their time browbeating the public into blocking out our arguments altogether.
In the Bush-Kerry campaign, "fencing" mostly took the form of playground insults and other humiliations:
Kerry looks French. Kerry spends a fortune on haircuts. Kerry is vain and pompous. Kerry has funny hair. Kerry's voice is funny. Kerry reminds people of Lurch on The Addams family. Kerry wears Lycra--fluorescent-striped Lycra. Kerry rides a fancy European bike. Kerry looks fruity when he windsurfs. Kerry wears expensive suits, ties, sunglasses, shoes and belts. Kerry asks for French mustard when he orders a hot dog. Kerry falls when he skis, then blames it on the Secret Service. Kerry hung out with Hanoi Jane. Kerry threw his medals over a fence. Kerry faked his war wounds. Kerry only marries rich women. Kerry's latest wife is a rich, loudmouthed foreigner whom he can't control. Kerry is a phony. And of course, Kerry flip-flops.
Almost all of these jibes--which most sixth graders would be embarrassed to say--were also accompanied by photographs or video.
The goals of these juvenile but relentless attacks was obvious: To make Kerry into a ridiculous figure. To put the very idea of taking John Kerry seriously out of the realm of possibility. To make people dismiss Kerry's candidacy no matter how much sense he made. Don't listen to the French-looking phony. Whatever he says, it can only be an absurd lie, coming from such a pompous, traitorous, pampered Lurch-like gold digger.
Though you'd think that most Americans would resent such below-the-belt and immature jabs at a serious politician, the effect over time is to build an edifice of humiliation that does effectively fence a significant number voters off from the opponent. This further enabled the Bush campaign to focus narrowly on turnout and winning that slim margin among undecideds--while Kerry was still innocently trying to run a 1959-style campaign.
Like the trumped-up "Gore invented the Internet" line, these fencing efforts started at sites such as Drudge and on wingnut talk radio. These refrains were quickly picked up by late night comedians and Fox News; and eventually came home to roost in the legit media, as ostensibly liberal wits like Maureen Dowd simply couldn't resist joining in the junior high chorus of teases and taunts.
Fencing is increasingly used by Republicans very early in campaigns, both for public office and for specific initiatives, to brand the opponent as untouchable, so as to get as many voters as possible to don a blindfold -- voluntarily putting their fingers in their ears the minute a Democrats starts trying to framing an issue.
The Republican goal is to fence off voters from Democrats, so that only a small number of people need to be actually convinced via good old-fashioned logical persuasion, and to keep the party's base from ever straying off the reservation.
This allows Luntz, Rove & Co. to slice and dice the undecideds into even more bite-sized pieces who can be focus-grouped and sold the appropriate bill of goods--because they've already got close to a majority in their pocket. And it allows the Republican GOTV efforts that much more energized and targeted.
BACKLASH: WHEN FENCING GOES BAD
Like any political strategy, fencing is only as good as its implementation, and has to be tailored to each situation. The recent anti-Social Security campaign by USANext is shaping up as a textbook example of bad fencing--which due to its bullying nature can backfire far more explosively than a weak frame.
USANext's apparent hope was to fence the public off from the AARP. By trying to permanently tag that association with "anti-military"and "pro-gay" labels, it thought it could make voters ignore all the logical arguments (and also all the anxieties) that AARP could muster in defense of Social Security. The most obvious problems with USANext's approach were:
(A) the lack of an advance campaign to work up to the more outrageous charges, (B) the sheer clumsiness of its first round ads, (C) underestimating the credibility of its target and its ability to strike back, and (D) forgetting that nothing breeds aversion to change like a cashable check in one's mailbox every month; and lastly (E) the total implausibility of the allegations.
One could argue that the knocks against Kerry were equally ridiculous (French? Lerch? Lycra? Who cares?) ... and that these should have backfired, too. After all, how could this decorated combat veteran be turned into a phony sissy, while this Vietnam-dodging, costume-wearing former cheerleader is praised as a tough guy? It seems so improbable, in retrospect.
The differences between the successful Republican fencing of Kerry and the increasingly disastrous attempt to fence AARP were that with Kerry, the Republicans laid their groundwork, and had a vulnerable opponent. Against Kerry, they patiently engineered a slow escalation of personal attacks--and as it became clear that their target neither intended to retaliate, nor had a strong base of support to defend him, the attacks became more brazen -- culminating in the Swift Boat lunacy. If the Swift Boat ads had been run at the start of the campaign, they would have been laughed off the air. But by the time Rove launched this salvo, the public was all too ready to believe the charges, and had already begun to tune Kerry out.
Fencing helps explain why, despite appearing to demolish Bush in all three debates, Kerry still lost: by that time, there were not enough people still listening to gain ground.
CONCLUSION: CAN--OR SHOULD--DEMOCRATS FENCE, TOO?
So how do Democrats and Progressives counter these Republican's fencing strategies, and what does this mean for our party's nascent framing efforts?
I am not recommending that we totally abandon Lakoff's advice on framing. Rather, Democrats need to make sure that even as we become more adept and disciplined at framing specific issues, we haven't allowed ourselves to be hidden from the public behind a virtual fence that will keep us from being seen and heard at all.
Without stooping to the thoroughgoing unscrupulousness of our adversaries, we need to find opportunities (for example, with the current Social Security debate) to fence voters off from the right-wing for years to come. We should be saying at every opportunity: Bush doesn't respect the elderly. Cheney is lying again. Republicans are fiscally irresponsible. They want to give your savings to their Wall Street donors.And it could get harsher without straying from the truth: Republicans don't care if your grandmother is evicted or your grandfather has to eat cat food.
We need more than clever, soothing frames. We need to create solid, defensible fences of our own around this new Washington gang of so-called conservatives, who are more like quasi-fascists or Robber Barons. We need to be less shy, even as we continue to speak the truth -- which is adequately damning, so long as it's spoken plainly.
Our fences should be built not only from well-framed arguments, but also with powerfully accurate labels that stick permanently to the opposition. With the facts squarely on our side, it is possible to fence the Republicans based on reality, which is an insult enough to their Fox-y fantasy world.
The election of the outspoken Howard Dean as DNC chair is just one step in this direction for a party which needs to both play smarter and hit harder. We now need to turn the hubris of the current administration against itself, to relentlessy boost the number of voters who just won't believe anything Bush, Cheney or their successors say anymore.
And above all, to paraphrase both Pink Floyd and Gene Autry: We need to tear down the wall when anyone tries to fence us in.
- - - - - - - - - - -
ENDNOTE: The preceding thoughts are meant merely to introduce the concept of "fencing" as a political strategy which is related to yet distinct from framing.
I am still fleshing this analysis out, and the exercise of writing these thoughts down both helps me to clarify the fencing phenomenon, but also will surely expose some flaws or gaps in the approach.
I would welcome your comments and thoughts on whether this idea has utility, other recent examples of fencing, and how to put the awareness of this strategy to best use. Thanks for reading.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/10/233911/553
Framing vs. Fencing: A post-Lakoff analysisby Hudson Thu Mar 10th, 2005 at 20:39:11 PSTSUBTITLE:
Some limitations of Lakoff's "framing," and the evolving Republican strategy to fence voters off from Democratic ideas, leaders and values -- before the debate even begins
INTRODUCTION: BEYOND THE FRAME
In the past year, like so many other Democrats and progressives, I latched onto George Lakoff's advice about "framing" with the ferociously desperate optimism of a drowning man spotting a passing tree trunk.
I pre-ordered Don't Think of an Elephant, I googled a half-dozen Lakoff interviews, and I urged every liberal-minded friend to do the same.
Indeed, framing has become an unremitting refrain of every progressive op-ed piece, Haloscan post and DFA Meetup. Just mention framing, and heads bob appreciatively up and down across the (chat) room. "We must frame our arguments better!" is fast becoming a latter-day gloss on the naive proclamation of Boxer in Animal Farm ("I will work harder!") -- a pledge he makes right up to the minute the pigs ship him off to the glue factory. Diaries :: Hudson's diary ::
Despite the following criticisms, Lakoff's exhortation remains a welcome and commonsense one. To re-take control of the national discourse, Democrats of course must redefine the terms of debate in ways which predispose the audience to be more accepting of progressive arguments--all the while exhibiting the same or greater "message discipline" as our Republican nemeses.
As the 2004 campaign wore on, however, two things became apparent: (1) that John Kerry and other prominent Democrats were not showing much skill, charm or even discipline in these new framing efforts--which the Republicans had been practicing for a least a decade; (2) even more devastatingly, that just as Democrats began to try to master framing, the Republicans were one step ahead with a more powerful, and far more underhanded strategy.
For lack of a better term, I've started to call that more recent Republican strategy "fencing."
ANALYSIS: WHAT IS FENCING / WHAT IS A FENCE?
A fence is any political idea, campaign or mindset which is intended to wall voters off from the opposite side before the public even gets to hear the opposing argument.
In fairness to Lakoff, a fence may just be a kind of superframe: far cruder, far less permeable, and virtually insurmountable once erected. But if frames are a window to view the world through, then fences block much of that world out -- rendering the frames largely irrelevant.
A candidate or party doesn't get a chance to frame its issues if a metaphorical fence separates it from the audience. When the voters can't (or, more accurately, won't) see and hear our side of the debate, all those handy new frames become useless.
To better explain how Republicans are using fencing to trump the Democrats' newfound interest in framing, one first needs to take a brief look at the underpinnings of framing.
Framing starts with the assumption that there is going to be an actual debate about issues. As Democrats, we like to think that the public sincerely wants and deserves to hear at least two cases about various key issues (such as abortion, taxes, the environment, security) and then decide for ourselves which side made a more convincing argument.
Lakoff's insight was that in any debate, the side which spends more time crafting clever "frames" to define each of those issues has a major advantage. One of his oft-repeated examples is the right's clever invention (and endless repetition) of the phrase "climate change" in place of "global warming," to make that urgent and potentially devastating crisis seem more natural, just part of a gradual trend, rendering the public more apathetic.
Therein lies the problem with the Democrats' late adoption of framing: it assumes that people always want to hear from more than one side before taking a position.
This is where the increasingly common and infinitely more insidious Republican strategy of "fencing" comes in. As we Democrats play catch-up on the framing of specific issues, the Republicans (having largely mastered framing already) have refocused and redoubled their efforts to fence voters off from ever contemplating Democratic and progressive frames.
While still holding up their end when necessary to frame a debate, the Republicans are spending more and more of their time browbeating the public into blocking out our arguments altogether.
In the Bush-Kerry campaign, "fencing" mostly took the form of playground insults and other humiliations:
Kerry looks French. Kerry spends a fortune on haircuts. Kerry is vain and pompous. Kerry has funny hair. Kerry's voice is funny. Kerry reminds people of Lurch on The Addams family. Kerry wears Lycra--fluorescent-striped Lycra. Kerry rides a fancy European bike. Kerry looks fruity when he windsurfs. Kerry wears expensive suits, ties, sunglasses, shoes and belts. Kerry asks for French mustard when he orders a hot dog. Kerry falls when he skis, then blames it on the Secret Service. Kerry hung out with Hanoi Jane. Kerry threw his medals over a fence. Kerry faked his war wounds. Kerry only marries rich women. Kerry's latest wife is a rich, loudmouthed foreigner whom he can't control. Kerry is a phony. And of course, Kerry flip-flops.
Almost all of these jibes--which most sixth graders would be embarrassed to say--were also accompanied by photographs or video.
The goals of these juvenile but relentless attacks was obvious: To make Kerry into a ridiculous figure. To put the very idea of taking John Kerry seriously out of the realm of possibility. To make people dismiss Kerry's candidacy no matter how much sense he made. Don't listen to the French-looking phony. Whatever he says, it can only be an absurd lie, coming from such a pompous, traitorous, pampered Lurch-like gold digger.
Though you'd think that most Americans would resent such below-the-belt and immature jabs at a serious politician, the effect over time is to build an edifice of humiliation that does effectively fence a significant number voters off from the opponent. This further enabled the Bush campaign to focus narrowly on turnout and winning that slim margin among undecideds--while Kerry was still innocently trying to run a 1959-style campaign.
Like the trumped-up "Gore invented the Internet" line, these fencing efforts started at sites such as Drudge and on wingnut talk radio. These refrains were quickly picked up by late night comedians and Fox News; and eventually came home to roost in the legit media, as ostensibly liberal wits like Maureen Dowd simply couldn't resist joining in the junior high chorus of teases and taunts.
Fencing is increasingly used by Republicans very early in campaigns, both for public office and for specific initiatives, to brand the opponent as untouchable, so as to get as many voters as possible to don a blindfold -- voluntarily putting their fingers in their ears the minute a Democrats starts trying to framing an issue.
The Republican goal is to fence off voters from Democrats, so that only a small number of people need to be actually convinced via good old-fashioned logical persuasion, and to keep the party's base from ever straying off the reservation.
This allows Luntz, Rove & Co. to slice and dice the undecideds into even more bite-sized pieces who can be focus-grouped and sold the appropriate bill of goods--because they've already got close to a majority in their pocket. And it allows the Republican GOTV efforts that much more energized and targeted.
BACKLASH: WHEN FENCING GOES BAD
Like any political strategy, fencing is only as good as its implementation, and has to be tailored to each situation. The recent anti-Social Security campaign by USANext is shaping up as a textbook example of bad fencing--which due to its bullying nature can backfire far more explosively than a weak frame.
USANext's apparent hope was to fence the public off from the AARP. By trying to permanently tag that association with "anti-military"and "pro-gay" labels, it thought it could make voters ignore all the logical arguments (and also all the anxieties) that AARP could muster in defense of Social Security. The most obvious problems with USANext's approach were:
(A) the lack of an advance campaign to work up to the more outrageous charges, (B) the sheer clumsiness of its first round ads, (C) underestimating the credibility of its target and its ability to strike back, and (D) forgetting that nothing breeds aversion to change like a cashable check in one's mailbox every month; and lastly (E) the total implausibility of the allegations.
One could argue that the knocks against Kerry were equally ridiculous (French? Lerch? Lycra? Who cares?) ... and that these should have backfired, too. After all, how could this decorated combat veteran be turned into a phony sissy, while this Vietnam-dodging, costume-wearing former cheerleader is praised as a tough guy? It seems so improbable, in retrospect.
The differences between the successful Republican fencing of Kerry and the increasingly disastrous attempt to fence AARP were that with Kerry, the Republicans laid their groundwork, and had a vulnerable opponent. Against Kerry, they patiently engineered a slow escalation of personal attacks--and as it became clear that their target neither intended to retaliate, nor had a strong base of support to defend him, the attacks became more brazen -- culminating in the Swift Boat lunacy. If the Swift Boat ads had been run at the start of the campaign, they would have been laughed off the air. But by the time Rove launched this salvo, the public was all too ready to believe the charges, and had already begun to tune Kerry out.
Fencing helps explain why, despite appearing to demolish Bush in all three debates, Kerry still lost: by that time, there were not enough people still listening to gain ground.
CONCLUSION: CAN--OR SHOULD--DEMOCRATS FENCE, TOO?
So how do Democrats and Progressives counter these Republican's fencing strategies, and what does this mean for our party's nascent framing efforts?
I am not recommending that we totally abandon Lakoff's advice on framing. Rather, Democrats need to make sure that even as we become more adept and disciplined at framing specific issues, we haven't allowed ourselves to be hidden from the public behind a virtual fence that will keep us from being seen and heard at all.
Without stooping to the thoroughgoing unscrupulousness of our adversaries, we need to find opportunities (for example, with the current Social Security debate) to fence voters off from the right-wing for years to come. We should be saying at every opportunity: Bush doesn't respect the elderly. Cheney is lying again. Republicans are fiscally irresponsible. They want to give your savings to their Wall Street donors.And it could get harsher without straying from the truth: Republicans don't care if your grandmother is evicted or your grandfather has to eat cat food.
We need more than clever, soothing frames. We need to create solid, defensible fences of our own around this new Washington gang of so-called conservatives, who are more like quasi-fascists or Robber Barons. We need to be less shy, even as we continue to speak the truth -- which is adequately damning, so long as it's spoken plainly.
Our fences should be built not only from well-framed arguments, but also with powerfully accurate labels that stick permanently to the opposition. With the facts squarely on our side, it is possible to fence the Republicans based on reality, which is an insult enough to their Fox-y fantasy world.
The election of the outspoken Howard Dean as DNC chair is just one step in this direction for a party which needs to both play smarter and hit harder. We now need to turn the hubris of the current administration against itself, to relentlessy boost the number of voters who just won't believe anything Bush, Cheney or their successors say anymore.
And above all, to paraphrase both Pink Floyd and Gene Autry: We need to tear down the wall when anyone tries to fence us in.
- - - - - - - - - - -
ENDNOTE: The preceding thoughts are meant merely to introduce the concept of "fencing" as a political strategy which is related to yet distinct from framing.
I am still fleshing this analysis out, and the exercise of writing these thoughts down both helps me to clarify the fencing phenomenon, but also will surely expose some flaws or gaps in the approach.
I would welcome your comments and thoughts on whether this idea has utility, other recent examples of fencing, and how to put the awareness of this strategy to best use. Thanks for reading.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/10/233911/553
posted by stebaldos at 6:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home