I wrote this diary years ago, but in the wake of the recent “Critical Race Theory” war on historical truth, I felt it was time to resurface these ideas.
We've been told time and time again How to talk to people about important things. But Democrats and Progressives just simply can't or won't get with the program. Linguist George Lakoff has written book after book about how liberals and conservatives think and how to talk to them. But progressives hang on to the MISTAKEN belief that "the truth will set you free" and that it stands on its own. No, you have to fight for it. You have to speak to the values and fears of the group that you want to influence. You have to understand what is causing people to hold to a line of thinking and belief in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
Conservatives have known for decades how to do this. But they often separate truth from appeal. Liberals don't have to stoop to their level but it will require talking about things and in ways that may not be comfortable to Liberals. From just hanging around here, most know the concept of memes but I'd venture a guess that most don't know how they are made. Public Relations types are masters at this. And unfortunately, they work mostly for the other guys. This has to change. We need to constantly without tiring to be instigating memes, and talking values. Our elected officials from the dog catcher to the Senate Leader have to adhere to a script that reinforces the message you want to send out. There have been brief bouts where Democrats actually acted in unison with a coordinated script. But it's not built-in, it isn't automatic. Someone has to work to herd the cats. So, rather than try to construct the how-to which has already been covered in diaries over the years, I'll point to a few of them and quote a salient quote... More on framing, unframing, reframing ala Lakoff
Unless you frame yourself, others will frame you - the media, your enemies, your competitors, your well-meaning friends. I have so far hesitated to offer suggestions. But the movement appears to maturing and entering a critical time when small framing errors could have large negative consequences. So I thought it might be helpful to accept the invitation and start a discussion of how the movement might think about framing itself. About framing: It's normal. Everybody engages in it all the time. Frames are just structures of thought that we use every day. All words in all languages are defined in terms of frame-circuits in the brain. But, ultimately, framing is about ideas, about how we see the world, which determines how we act. In politics, frames are part of competing moral systems that are used in political discourse and in charting political action. In short, framing is a moral enterprise: it says what the character of a movement is. All politics is moral. Political figures and movements always make policy recommendations claiming they are the right things to do. No political figure ever says, do what I say because it's wrong! Or because it doesn't matter! Some moral principles or other lie behind every political policy agenda.
Framing vs. Fencing: A post-Lakoff analysis
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.
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.
In summation, if we don't actively work to control message framing, our opponents will continue to do so even from their minority position. For those who are squeamish about such things consider this:
The key difference is that progressives can create memes that are based on truth. But I argue that sometimes, it pays to be aggressive, such as the idea of advocating the impeachment of certain Supreme Court Justices. We have a legitimate list of grievances, their actions have hurt the country, but you and I know that barring something overtly criminal (such as being caught being directly bribed), impeachment isn't likely to be won. But the very act of calling for it causes our opponents to spend energy fighting it. We have almost always been on the defensive end of Conservative mischief-making including the most recent "impeach Obama" movement. It's time we gave them a dose of their own medicine.