Whoever frames the issue wins the debate. Period. End of Story. In the past Democrats have allowed Republicans to frame the issues (e.g., health care debate, debts and deficits, etc.) and have lost the narrative. Finally, Team Obama has aggressively promoted positive framing for Democratic principles, and we are starting to win the messaging wars.
But Republicans are masters of framing, and the Paul Ryan pick, while it gives Democrats a great opportunity to saddle Romney with all of Ryan's unpopular proposals, is by no means a "slam dunk". Why? Because Republicans are already out there LYING about the Democratic positions on Medicare, and unless we succeed in FRAMING THE MEDICARE DEBATE on our terms, lower-information voters may be taken in.
The Framing War has already started. We need to win it.
The Romney team has already hired the PR firm that helped BP clean up its image even as it failed to clean the Gulf. Rachel Maddow brought this to light a while ago when she talked about the Romney hire of the firm that tried to clean up the image of various dictators, felons, and corporate bad actors.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/...
We may think we can win because we have "the facts" on our side, but these guys are masters of framing and -- let's say it out loud --LYING.
Now that Ryan's Medicare positions have become a liability, the Romney campaign has already come out with an aggressive new ad that says something like "You've Paid Into Medicare all your Life and Now that you need it (picture of wheelchair) it won't be there for you because Obama has robbed $700 billion from Medicare to fund a big new government program -- OBAMACARE that you won't benefit by." To a voter who isn't familiar with the facts, it's an effective ad, and gives the impression that Romney is the one who wants to "protect Medicare".
I know I know -- Team Obama calls BS on the facts, and points to the fact that Ryan's budget "has the same cuts" but that's not enough.
We have to frame the Medicare debate in a simple, easy to understand sentence, and so far I haven't seen anyone do that. Voters will have difficulty understanding the difference between Ryan's $700 B and the Obama cuts.
Framing has to be simple and -- somewhat like a "push poll" -- steer the narrative to a desired response. For example, I feel one reason the Republicans have been so successful at rolling back reproductive rights is that we have allowed them to call it "Pro Life versus Pro-Abortion" Who doesn't prefer Life to Abortion? We have to consistently insist that we call it "Pro-Choice versus Anti-Choice" . Unfortunately, even someone as great on the issue as Rachel Maddow, last night was talking about "abortion rights" instead of "freedom of choice versus the government makes a decision about your body." We've lost the framing on reproductive rights, and it's making the battle harder.
The same thing happened during the health care debate. We let the Republicans frame it as a "giant government takeover of health care -- the government, not your doctor, decides," blah blah blah. And though we got Obamacare (and I LIKE that name because it means Obama Cares) we lost the messaging war, and the greatest increase in health care access in decades became something that a huge number of people were against, because they never understood what it did. (Yeah, single payer would have been better, but let's deal with what we have.)
Health Care should have been framed as "giving everyone has the same health care program as members of Congress." Let THEM argue why their health care should be paid for by the TAXPAYERS while ours doesn't. Had we framed the issue thus to begin with, the health care debate would have been won long ago.
The same with "debt and deficit". We let the Republicans frame the debate as "out of control spending by a nation on the edge of bankruptcy" so that everyone jumped on the deficit bandwagon and tried to out cut the other side, and we had months where the Republicans won the "austerity" debate.
Here's ONE issue where we REFRAMED the issue and -- almost immediately -- the momentum swung to the other side. Remember how it was an uphill battle for "gay rights"? And how finally the pendulum swung when we started framing it as "Civil Rights" and "Equal Rights".
We MUST do that for the Medicare debate. So -- I wish I had a slam dunk framing, but it's a complex issue. Here's what I can think of, but please, comments very welcome with your own best framing:
Single Payer Medicare versus Tax Cuts for the Wealthy.
Obama Cut $700B from payments to Insurers to fund greater benefits (preventive screening). Ryan Cut $700B from Benefits to Fund Tax Cuts for the Rich.
Or All Ryans' budget cuts -- including those to Medicare -- go to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. Obamas 700B cuts wasteful spending on insurers to fund preventive care for seniors.
We need an answer to the "But everyone knows Medicare is going bankrupt and so we're trying to preserve it for the existing seniors while "saving" it for our children" BS that the Republicans are (successfully) arguing.
Who can provide the "magic bullet" framing that wins the Medicare debate for us?Can anyone out there frame the Medicare debate so that there is no question whose plan preserves Medicare?
Let's get the best minds in this community to take a shot at the framing, and see if we can gather the best answers and disseminate them.