I just watched a video clip of Joe Biden being interviewed on CNN about Sarah Palin's despicable slanderous spew of vomit at the RNC. Throughout the interview, the right-wing interlocutor (John Roberts) posed question after question in frames that directly attack Biden's character or Obama's character.
How did Biden respond? By repeating over and over again HOW GREAT SARAH PALIN IS!!!!! What the crap??!! No wonder progressives keep getting their asses kicked. By accepting conservative frames and responding within the frame, instead of breaking the conservative frame and replacing it with a progressive frame, they simply reinforce the assertions underlying the character attacks.
How should Biden have responded? More below the fold...
Here is the video clip I'm referring to:
Biden takes every opportunity to congratulate Palin on her greatness. When asked if he will attack Palin for her confrontational claims, he starts off speaking about her speech, debate skills, etc.:
"Boy, she's going to be a tough debater"
"Her speech was an amazing speech... It was incredibly well crafted and delivered."
"She's so good."
"You watched her last night. She was good. She was really good."
This is a problem for two reasons. First, our brains are wired to strengthen connections that get repeated. Every time Biden repeated the praise, he reinforced the ideas in the brains of viewers. Secondly, he framed his response in the form of "She's really good. I've got different policy plans. Here they are. Boy, she's good." This placed Palin in the foreground and made all of his views (and democratic views more generally) into filler that falls into the background.
Which part of his answer do you think will be remembered by viewers? (Hint: Not the part that progressives want to advance)
Then Roberts asserted several memes designed to undermine Obama's credibility:
"Last night she was almost mocking in her tone about the Democratic ticket, talking about a lack of experience on the part of Senator Obama, also playing to what some analysts have said is a lack of substance in his rhetoric. Does he need to put a little more meat on the bones in terms of what he talks about and how he talks about it in the next sixty days?"
(emphasis added)
These are the memes planted months ago by right-wing strategists to frame Obama in the negative, with the added benefit of shifting "presidential credentials" away from helping real people and toward criteria of "commander in chief" - a conservative framing of the meaning of the presidency. (Learn more about this strategic framing issue here: We Need a President, Not Just a Commander in Chief)
How did Biden respond? By listing a series of policy positions and appealing to rational self-interest! (Some day I might write a book about how deeply wrong-head and ineffectual this approach is... we humans are much more sophisticated than the selfish motivations asserted by neoclassical economics) That's not a very effective way to respond when your partner's character is under attack.
The interview goes on and gets even more subversive. Roberts plants seeds of suspicion and doubt with the standard some-people-are-saying-that technique to frame rumors and propagandist memes as factual presuppositions:
Roberts: "Now that the campaign is fully launched here, a lot of people are asking a number of different questions about experience, background, things that have happened over the last few years...
Then, he goes on full frontal attack and accuses Biden of corruption with lobbyists!! The context is set with a comment about how this election is about "change", a different kind of politics, and corruption followed by:
"Your office has had contact with a lobbying firm, which your son is a member. Has he ever lobbied you directly?
Notice how this sets Biden up as a deceiver who claims to be an agent of change, but is actually a minion of corruption, all with one simple question. Biden responds by stating a fact: "I can look you right straight in the eye and guarantee you my son has never ever ever lobbied me." True, for what it's worth. But a lingering issue remains in the context of the original question... has Biden been corrupted by lobbyist influence? Is he really an agent for change? Sure, he may not have taken bribes from his son, but that doesn't mean he hasn't taken bribes from anyone else?
(After all, isn't the concern about lobbyist influence really about bribes and dirty deals?)
This is a character attack against Biden. And he's blind to it.
How should Biden respond to these attacks?
I'm going to take the liberty of being an arm-chair quarterback - unless anyone in the Obama campaign sees fit to contact me and request my services for future strategic counseling (hint hint) - and offer a few rebuttals that would stop these attacks in their tracks and advance the progressive movement at the same time.
First off, I recommend everyone read Sara Robinson's fantastic article published on Our Future earlier this summer, Why We Don't Shoot Back. She lays the groundwork for seeing how important the cultural differences are between New Englanders and most of the rest of the country in terms of political strategy. Of particular importance is the difference in how moral character is understood.
In the New England area, there is a sense of propriety and honor in rising above the slanderous statements of scoundrels. A person in good standing doesn't need to "justify the claims" of those in ill-repute. (It helps if the person's character is well known... think of John Kerry in '04 as an exemplar of this mode of moral expression. As I recall, he didn't fare too well when his character was called into question.)
Throughout the Midwest and the South, things are very different. I should know, I grew up in rural Missouri where honor is about defending yourself (or yo' mama, or yo' girl, etc.) when issues of character come up. The best way to come off as a lily-livered coward with no backbone is to let someone call your mother a whore and get away with it. Sound familiar? It should. Progressives across the land are notorious for being "too good" (i.e. more pure, above, etc.) to engage in a battle of below-the-belt jabs. This has the strategic benefit - for conservatives - that it reinforces the liberal elitist frame that has become so pervasive across the land.
I'm not going to recommend any below-the-belt responses. After all, we are better than those repug scoundrels. Instead, I'd take the moral high ground that resonates with both cultures of moral character.
When asked about Sarah Palin's speech, I wouldn't congratulate her for spinning slime. I'd respond with something like:
"I know that I said I wouldn't attack Sarah Palin, but I do have to stand up and say ENOUGH when a person addresses the United States as the Vice Presidential nominee of a major political party and insults the very essence of patriotism.
This is a time of seriousness in this country. And I care deeply about the future of the United States. I care so deeply that I cannot stand idly by and let Sarah Palin mock the foundation of strength in our communities - the people who shed blood, sweat, and tears to help their neighbors during times of need, community organizers. In her effort to cast my colleague and friend, Barack Obama, in dim light, she made a grave error. Her low blow is exemplary of what is wrong with the politics of the past. She is so out of touch with the people of this great country that she thought it wise to insult churches where people come together to offer a hand up, to criticize workers who've long known that it takes the power of people unified to stand against tyranny, to try to score political points when people everywhere know the only way to strengthen our communities is to change the nature of the game instead of trying to win cheap points."
When Roberts claimed that "there are some who say" Obama is inexperienced and lacks substance, I would have responded with something like:
"I find your question a bit ironic when Sarah Palin has less experience than any nominee for the Democratic or Repubilcan parties. How is it that Barack Obama's extensive experience as a state and federal legislator, a constitutional lawyer, and a long-time public servant is considered questionable when McCain sees fit to pick a VP choice who has no foreign policy experience whatsoever? The only answer I can come up with is that "some people" don't want to see Washington serving the people for a change. I have to wonder who those people are and why they care so little for the people of the United States that they'd smear a good man who has devoted his life to making America a better place."
And when Biden was accused of corruption, the challenge was more direct. A more direct response seems appropriate:
"Now John, we've been friends a long time and had many conversations on the air. I'm frankly offended and disgusted by the accusational tone of your question. When John McCain has lobbyists running his campaign, you presume to call me a taker of bribes. I'm here to clean up the corruption, not pander to it. Don't offend our friendship with outlandish assertions about lobbyist influence. It's clear to me, and to the American people, where the corruption really lies.
In each of these responses, Biden is able to stand firm and promote progressive values. He demonstrates that he is a man of honor, rises above the slanderous below-the-belt attacks. And he reframes the questions by shifting the context of the discussion.
Any questions?