This diary is about framing, and about how Republicans do it well and Democrats do not. More importantly, it is about understanding why this is the case, why attempts to replicate GOP success do not work for Democrats, and what we can do differently to build our messaging prowess.
This diary is not an academic exercise in issue framing theory - it is a call to join in an experiment to see if there is a better framing model we can use than the top-down approach that works so well for Republicans.
If you are frustrated at GOP messaging success and are ready to actually do something about it, join me after the break...
It cannot escape notice that Republicans generally speak with one voice on any given issue, and that Democrats rarely do. This is, or course, not accidental. Be it the "death tax" or "Obamacare", the framing used by Republicans is carefully chosen, tested, and broadly disseminated. No GOPer watching Fox and listening to right-wing talk radio can fail to hear the message. And when talking to their neighbor or co-worker, they know exactly the words to use, since all GOP sources are using the same pre-tested language.
This is a systematic process that those of us on the left have not been able to duplicate. While attempts have been made to forge a consistent progressive message, such as the now-defunct Rockridge Institute of George Lakoff, none have succeeded in creating a unified progressive voice sufficiently strong to find its place in the media and public discourse.
The reason that progressive framing efforts have failed is primarily because liberals and conservatives approach issues in very different ways.
Liberals seek Cooperation - Conservatives seek Authority
It is probably the first thing on my list when discussing the differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals seek cooperation and consensus. Conservatives seek an authority figure. So when conservatives create their messaging, they choose a centralized process and the results are promulgated from the top down. The conservative masses fall in line, and following the edicts of their authority, they adopt the designated language for the issue in question.
What makes anyone think this can work for liberals? Frankly, it can't. We don't respond to authority figures the way conservatives do. Respect for authority, while it has its place, is not a central tenet of liberalism. Centralized messaging from the top down cannot take hold in the liberal mind like it does in the conservative mind. So what do we do instead?
An Experiment in Crowd-Sourcing
Rather than a top-down approach that is tailored for the conservative mind, we need to find something that works from the bottom up, something that embodies our needs for cooperation and consensus. Something like crowd-sourcing.
The idea is that we build a group here on DKos where we take a specific issue and develop and test framing language for it. Alternate framing candidates are proposed, debated, and ultimately voted on. Think of it as an open focus group, where specific issue framing language is tested for its effectiveness, and where a group consensus in favor of a particular framing emerges.
There is no certainty that this idea will work. For now, it is an experiment. There are plenty of reasons why it might not work, from trolls interfering with the "focus group" results to the group getting insufficient visibility to impact the real world discussion. And there is no assurance that media personalities will pick up our language and make it part of the public discourse. But the factor arguing most strongly in its favor is that it works the way we do - from the bottom up. If anything can get all of us talking in the same language, even if just to our friends and neighbors, it must be based on cooperation and consensus.
If you think it is important that we improve our framing and messaging efforts, and if you think I have outlined a viable way to approach it, I am asking for your help in making it a reality. Let's try the experiment. Let's see if this can work.
Here is a list of things you can to do help:
1. Recommend this diary. The viability of this idea depends upon having enough people participating, and having sufficient initial visibility to attract enough people is crucial.
2. Follow the Frameshop group. From your "My Page", select Following, Groups, and add Frameshop. We cannot count on receiving front page visibility, rather we need our participants to see framing diaries published through the Frameshop group.
3. Volunteer to become a member of the group. If you believe that you have a sound understanding of framing theory and wish to contribute issues in need of framing work to the group, becoming a member is the way to do that. If the idea works and the volume of activity requires it, editors will be selected from the membership to help with publishing and moderating tasks.
The procedural details have not all been worked out, and of course they are likely to change over time as we gain experience. But the important thing right now is to try this out and see if it can work. And that requires the participation of many. Ultimately, the purpose of this diary is to gauge the interest level, to see if there are enough people supportive of the idea and willing to help so as to make it fly. If so, if we can find enough followers and recruit enough members to the group, then the next step in the experiment would be to try an actual framing exercise surrounding a real issue. Feel free to use the comments to suggest issues in need of framing work, as well as any other suggestions for how this idea should work or even why you think it might not work.
I think we are all tired of watching GOP talking points gaining traction everywhere. Are we ready to do something about it?