We’ve Been Framed
If you are enjoyably reading this blog, you are likely a "tax and spend liberal" [13,700 hits for that exact phrase on Google], rather than a "reactionary conservative" [4,030 hits].
Right after the November election I began putting together a list of word labels to use against conservative debaters as a counter to what they have been throwing at liberals. Here is what I wrote: use anti and ism, reactionary, backwards, fundamentalist, intolerant, quasi-religious, extremist, radical right wing, ultra-conservative, arch conservative, self-appointed messengers from God, church controlled government, majority domination demanding minority submission, holier than thou attitude, religious prejudice, God bless America and no one else, might makes right, religious Presidency, one-sided, and selective biblical mis-interpretation.
The much more qualified George Lakoff, linguistics professor and author of "Don’t Think of an Elephant; Know Your Values and Frame the Debate" [high on my list of books I have yet to read], is offering much needed guidance to progressives about how conservatives have successfully used language to frame the political debate to the linguistic disadvantage of holders of the traditional liberal point of view. The basics of what he is doing is discussed in this article, also cited in the Sense posting on Fatherhood: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml
If you are a progressive, you are going to need to participate in taking back the language to keep the neo-cons from hijacking the debate in the future. If you have read Lakoff’s book, I defer to his advice, but in the meantime, my advice is, in any discussion with a political non-progressive, to stop the person when he or she uses a word that might have a political connotation and suggest the word be defined by each participant to see how it may mean something different to each of them. Don’t do this in a defensive or threatening way, but rather approach it as a joint effort to make sure the communication is as clear as possible, free of confusion over terminology.
Many more discussion words need definition than we might realize. In fact, starting the process with more generic words may be less emotionally charged and may lay a groundwork for later discussion of more volatile terminology. Take a word like "success" as in "a successful person should be entitled to reap the rewards of their success" (an argument you may hear in support of "tax relief"). The word itself only means to attain a goal - it includes no value judgment about the goal itself. Osama bin Laden was highly successful in the attacks of 9/11. What the speaker really is doing is challenging the concept of taxing the financially successful. But who else can be taxed if not the financially successful? Failures are not good sources of tax revenue. So the issue is not really the taxation of financially successful people, but rather what is the fair amount of taxes for them to pay.
Let’s shift to the word "taxes". Many conservatives talk as if taxes are inherently evil. Taxes are assessments for the support of the government. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society". In our American system, taxes are assessed under laws passed by our elected representatives as part of a government budget they approve, which specifies the purposes for which the taxes will be used. Some taxes are earmarked for certain purposes and others are not. Taxes in general are neither good nor evil, they are just a necessary reality.
What about the word "fair" as in "paying one’s fair share of taxes". Now we are getting somewhere. Fair means just and equitable, which are subjective terms at best, and in a political discussion are often used to describe one’s own pre-conceived position. To a conservative businessman, it is not fair that his hard earned income be taxed to support a "welfare queen", and to a single mom paying a small amount of tax on a modest income, it is not fair that her tax money goes to "corporate welfare".
If the businessman and the single mom were the two people having the discussion, we might have an ending worthy of Frank Capra, the director of "It’s a Wonderful Life". After a healthy give and take, the businessman would say to the mom, "You’ve got a good head on your shoulders, much better than old Potter’s niece who really wants to run away and join the circus instead of being our PR person. Why don’t you come to work for me as our new PR person?" To which single mom replies, "I’ll do it if you listen to me and provide day care and other decent benefits for all your employees, and if you let me show you how to increase net income by providing a better product at a fairer price while becoming a better corporate citizen in the community."
See what can be accomplished with better communication?
Right after the November election I began putting together a list of word labels to use against conservative debaters as a counter to what they have been throwing at liberals. Here is what I wrote: use anti and ism, reactionary, backwards, fundamentalist, intolerant, quasi-religious, extremist, radical right wing, ultra-conservative, arch conservative, self-appointed messengers from God, church controlled government, majority domination demanding minority submission, holier than thou attitude, religious prejudice, God bless America and no one else, might makes right, religious Presidency, one-sided, and selective biblical mis-interpretation.
The much more qualified George Lakoff, linguistics professor and author of "Don’t Think of an Elephant; Know Your Values and Frame the Debate" [high on my list of books I have yet to read], is offering much needed guidance to progressives about how conservatives have successfully used language to frame the political debate to the linguistic disadvantage of holders of the traditional liberal point of view. The basics of what he is doing is discussed in this article, also cited in the Sense posting on Fatherhood: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml
If you are a progressive, you are going to need to participate in taking back the language to keep the neo-cons from hijacking the debate in the future. If you have read Lakoff’s book, I defer to his advice, but in the meantime, my advice is, in any discussion with a political non-progressive, to stop the person when he or she uses a word that might have a political connotation and suggest the word be defined by each participant to see how it may mean something different to each of them. Don’t do this in a defensive or threatening way, but rather approach it as a joint effort to make sure the communication is as clear as possible, free of confusion over terminology.
Many more discussion words need definition than we might realize. In fact, starting the process with more generic words may be less emotionally charged and may lay a groundwork for later discussion of more volatile terminology. Take a word like "success" as in "a successful person should be entitled to reap the rewards of their success" (an argument you may hear in support of "tax relief"). The word itself only means to attain a goal - it includes no value judgment about the goal itself. Osama bin Laden was highly successful in the attacks of 9/11. What the speaker really is doing is challenging the concept of taxing the financially successful. But who else can be taxed if not the financially successful? Failures are not good sources of tax revenue. So the issue is not really the taxation of financially successful people, but rather what is the fair amount of taxes for them to pay.
Let’s shift to the word "taxes". Many conservatives talk as if taxes are inherently evil. Taxes are assessments for the support of the government. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society". In our American system, taxes are assessed under laws passed by our elected representatives as part of a government budget they approve, which specifies the purposes for which the taxes will be used. Some taxes are earmarked for certain purposes and others are not. Taxes in general are neither good nor evil, they are just a necessary reality.
What about the word "fair" as in "paying one’s fair share of taxes". Now we are getting somewhere. Fair means just and equitable, which are subjective terms at best, and in a political discussion are often used to describe one’s own pre-conceived position. To a conservative businessman, it is not fair that his hard earned income be taxed to support a "welfare queen", and to a single mom paying a small amount of tax on a modest income, it is not fair that her tax money goes to "corporate welfare".
If the businessman and the single mom were the two people having the discussion, we might have an ending worthy of Frank Capra, the director of "It’s a Wonderful Life". After a healthy give and take, the businessman would say to the mom, "You’ve got a good head on your shoulders, much better than old Potter’s niece who really wants to run away and join the circus instead of being our PR person. Why don’t you come to work for me as our new PR person?" To which single mom replies, "I’ll do it if you listen to me and provide day care and other decent benefits for all your employees, and if you let me show you how to increase net income by providing a better product at a fairer price while becoming a better corporate citizen in the community."
See what can be accomplished with better communication?
posted by Tom Blake | 3:15 PM
2 Comments:
Tom,
Is your switch from the label "liberal" to the label "progressive" an unspoken example of what you are espousing in this entry? I am seeing the progressive term used more and more. Reagan made liberal a dirty word and it may take generations to bring it back. But I hate to see it go. And I don't like to see it replaced by "progressive". As I remember, "progressive" was a term used by the Bryant Democrats at the turn of the 20th century. They were attempting to relax the rigid monetary policies that rewarded the Eastern establishment and penalised Western businessmen and farmers. Progressives are most famous for demanding that the basis for currency should be relaxed from the gold standard to the silver standard.
I think today's need is for the liberal concept of the 60's and 70's: concern for the individual as opposed to government groups, business groups, religious groups, etc.; tolerance for creeds, nationalities, race, and sexual preference.
The term "progressive" is too narrowly directed at economics, in my estimation.
John from Phoenix
Yes, the Right has so confused and perverted [framed?] the meaning of the word liberal, that I think it is best to generally drop use of it for now. Traditional liberals now need to frame what they stand for with a new label that has not yet been distorted by the Right. Progressive seems to be the one coming into strongest play and I like it.
Webster says progressive in the political context refers to progress in political and social methods, referring specifically to Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive Party. The TR association is the same one I have had: trust busting economics, protection of our natural wonders, basic protections of workers from abuse, a speak softly foreign policy backed up with a big stick if necessary [the spanish-American War not being an example of that].
I consider the LBJ Great Society and Civil Rights laws of the 1960's the mid-century version of Progressivism. We now need to update the concept for the start of the 21st Century. The new concept should include authentic public/private joint ventures, including some faith-based groups, but not such frauds as non-competitive handouts of government contracts to Halliburton and use of Federal money to subsidize proselytizing by religious fanatics.
Post a Comment
<< Home