Framing: Cure-all or Hype? Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Framing--the art of effectively using language as political rhetoric--has garnered new interest with last Sunday's NYT magazine cover story by Matt Bai.  While the article pointed out the Republicans' successes and the Democratic steep learning curve--this desire to understand a cognitive linguistic perspective has been helpful for liberals.

Much of what Lakoff writes is ponderous, and politics is often uncontrollable,  DNA coded telegenic appearance or the economy, for example.  But framing shouldn't be seen as a simple recipe .  Rather, framing is a technique...done well it provides the alchemy between ideas and politics.  In academia this is similar to the tension between theory and practice--each one informs the other and the key to successful influence is how the relationship between them is organized.

Liberals like lots of data, but don't spend as much energy on conveying ideas.  Our problem is not one of analysis (facts) but of synthesis (marketing).  Conservatives have built a rhetorical empire with marketing. As many have noted elsewhere, the truth behind the ideas is often not important.  So now our government is being run by a bunch of right-wing Toastmasters--thirty years in the making--while we've been yukking it up at wine bars and over sprocket spewing PHD dissertations.   The liberal challenge is not unfixable, but it will take a plan and some time. The framing discussion has jump started this process.  This is good.

Examples from the trenches:

One of the reasons Lakoff's instruction has been so helpful for Democrats is that it gave their problem a name.  Being able to talk about what is happening is empowering.  In psychology, this technique is called  "naming the behavior" and in itself provides a helpful way to move a discussion forward into a new frame.  When I was a court mediator one of the lines I oftened used with litigants was "may I share an impression with you?" I would then--given their permission-- point out how we were jointly botching the prospects for a fair dialogue and possible common agreements. It was remarkably successful in jolting the conversation back to a more balanced terrain.  It seems like this type of verbal intervention could be very helpful for liberals--whose comfort zone includes unashamed appeals to the common good and the public interest.

Back to Lakoff. After election 04, the Dems had him out more than once for intensive sessions on framing techniques.  I remember a conversation I had with a Democratic staffer last February--after one of these sessions.  She told me that her boss--brimming with inspiration--had assigned Lakoff's book "Don't Think of an Elephant" to all the office staff.  A great intention, but very few Hill staff have the time and energy to read something that doesn't directly relate to constituents or immediate duties.  So the conversation stopped right there. 

Contrast this with the zillion follow-up opportunities for conservative staff --outsourced to their institutional ecosystem: yoda-like mentoring, communications training, practical internships, philosophical education and, finally JOBS! Now, why can't the DNC create follow-up tracks, organized regionally for relevant themes and content--for all liberal Hill staff? Cognitive Linguists could be on hand but the real value would be shoring up relationships and building communications skills.

Liberal Hill staff are a highly underutilized resource. They aren't systematically kept in a system that builds ideas and frameworks for understanding them. To my mind, Hill staff make great translators between theory and practice...as they have spent time massaging the relationship between ideas and politics. ( My favorite staff and Members are those idealists who have been knee-capped by the process.  They mend their worldview and become pragmatic dreamers. The best kind of leaders.)

Consider this hypothetical: If the minority leader had been a conservative and lost his election last November, a gaggle of fellow believers, funders, elected officials and movement operatives would have chartered a new "non partisan" think tank down on MacPherson Square and exported the staff there.  In contrast,  we lose our people to the four winds.

National Security is an issue area ripe for reframing. One present challenge for liberals is to stop the Bush administration's absconding with the Grand Strategy of  Democracy.

As Jonathan Chait notes in his excellent article "The Case Against New Ideas":

The idea of spreading democracy may be a powerful one, but we shouldn't forget that it's an adhoc rationale for the Iraq war--hastily put forward after Bush's primary justification, weapons of mass destruction, fell apart.  If Bush believed in democracy-promotion as a central goal of the war, he didn't trust the public enough to make that argument.

Well, now the public no longer trusts the president.  This is a good opening for liberals to step in and take back this issue. What to do in Iraq presents a case study for reframing democracy as a Grand Strategy.

Americans recognize that the use of military force is not the only or the best way to help create a stable, democratic, and prosperous Iraq.  But by the same token, they are not convinced that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq will solve the problems there.  Advocacy that focuses on bringing the troops home may fail to engage or galvanize this “persuadable middle” of the public precisely because these Americans intuitively understand that the military dimensions of the challenge in Iraq are only part of the picture.  Like most Americans, they want to do what’s right in Iraq, and they mistrust policy proposals that seem to treat troop withdrawal as an end in itself, without paying sufficient attention to the larger context.

Liberals threaten to divide into two camps: "out now" and "stay the course".  This is a false division.

The United States needs a comprehensive, creative strategy and the support of other nations if progress is to be made on key political, economic, and security aspects of rebuilding Iraq.   In contrast to today’s failed policies, the new strategy must be farsighted and collaborative; it must unfold on multiple, interconnected tracks that account for the complexity of peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction; it must rely on a full range of tools, not just military force; and it must enable American troops ultimately to withdraw without fear of destabilizing the new Iraqi state.  How can advocates communicate most effectively with the American public and policymakers about such an approach to U.S. engagement in Iraq?  What ideas and stories, messages and messengers might advocates employ to engage the “persuadable middle” of the American public in a new national dialogue about Iraq – a dialogue that includes but is not limited to strategies for phasing out our military presence there?  What ideas and messages might enlarge the space for debate about this highly charged set of issues, so more people are invited into the discussion and a broader public consensus can be created around responsible and effective American policies?

Comments

[Cal]

Gen. McCaffrey has said that we need to start leaving by the fall of next year if we want to prevent a "meltdown" of the army. Most 'out now' people -- including myself -- would accept this. If we can't bring minimal stability to the country by then we never will.

[Alex]

As a former Democrat turned Republican in 2004 (first time I ever voted Republican in my life), the Democrats need to stop kidding themselves that they have the facts and not the marketing. In my book, and admitedly, it is only my view, the Democrats need to understand why their facts might be wrong before they start worrying about marketing. If the "reality community", continues to use the same facts they have for the last 30 years without understanding that the product may not be salable anymore, I'll probably be voting Republican for the foreseable future and that would make for a sad state of affairs.

[rosignol]

The idea of spreading democracy may be a powerful one, but we shouldn't forget that it's an adhoc rationale for the Iraq war--hastily put forward after Bush's primary justification, weapons of mass destruction, fell apart. If Bush believed in democracy-promotion as a central goal of the war, he didn't trust the public enough to make that argument.

I disagree with this. IMO, the emphasis on WMDs was largely due to the effort to get UN approval and provide diplomatic cover for our allies, primarily Britain. Going to the UN and saying "WMDs" and going to the electorate and saying "spread democracy" would have resulted in the UN saying no.

Bush had won the election and gotten Congressional approval to use force early on. It wasn't legally necessary to get any more approval from the electorate, or their representatives. But he did want approval from the UN, and the UN doesn't think promoting democracy is sufficient justification for military action. So he had to base his case on WMDs and Saddam's defiance of UNSC resolutions.

[rosignol]

ps: it's not just you, Alex. Lots of other people are exactly where you are.

[Mikey]

I agree with Alex and, as rosignol points out, he's not alone. I'm also a life-long Dem who voted GOP for the first time in 2004. While a lot of Dems are policy wonks, to be sure, it's a fabrication to characterize our main problem as a lack of marketing skills. This myth of ourselves as a party of better solutions but no ability to sell them is, in itself, a great example of "framing" and we've been doing it for too long to document fully here. But I will say that Dems who can see that "Compassionate Conservativism" is a framing technique but fail to recognize "Planned Parenthood" as the same thing only live in the "half-of-reality"-based community. That we accept our own "frames" as facts without questioning them (or worse, *congratulating* ourselves for them) is a serious problem because it hinders our ability, and our incentive, to develop new solutions that will work. It's time for our party to look in the mirror, not grasp for new gimmicks.

[Caitlyn Antrim]

I think it is too limiting to think of "Framing" as "Marketing". Developing a new frame is a process of development, interaction and revision, one that requires informed participants who value the process of developing not only pragmatic proposals but developing wide public support. For the republicans, this has been facilitated by large and small think tanks and idea centers and by prominent individuals who develop ideas, incorporate ideas from others and hone their message to increase its support in larger and larger audiences. What people and groups fill this role for the democrats/progressives do not have the critical mass to draw the interest and participation of politicians, practitioners, intellectuals and analysts in creating the next transformation of concepts for goals and practice of international affairs.

Democrats still carry an expectation that they are responsible for good government and rational policy, even though they have been shut out of responsibility for running the government. This is understandable since our mentors came from an era when that was appropriate. But now, and pretty much since Reagan's second term, we have to think more about how to change the view of issues and interests while simultaneously developing policies that are best suited for an international system that has made striking changes over the past 30 years with a citizenry that has grown up during the era of republican political dominance.

It takes inspiring ideas and leaders to foster political transformations. Good governance and rational policy are important ideas, but they aren't inspiring. Politicians and the political parties are not the place where inspiring ideas are born or developed. These ideas need to be developed on the border between pragmatic politics and intellectual thought. To many, this role seems neither fish nor fowl and appears to have a lack of commitment to either ideas or to people and party, But it is the area in which transformational concepts are converted into inspiring proposals, and it is the area in which Republicans have been far more committed and effective.

[chaos7023]

For the Dems who voted Republican in 04, what, in your opinion, are the facts that Dems don't get? I'm curious about what swayed you.

[Lorelei Kelly]

I am too. Please comment on what facts were wrong. Thanks for the feedback. All very helpful.

[Stygius]

Nice post, especially on the need for building a better network architecture to let ideas ferment and -- ultimately -- frame themselves. I'm suspicious of the latest idea fad. There is a tendency to fall in love with the latest trendy lingo and substitute talking in the trendy lingo for actual strategy. Democrats don't do gurus. If framing really is concerned with cycles of "revision," then such a healthy fallibilism will include not bowing down to framing itself.

Whether it is "framing," or "branding," or "story-telling," it all boils down to the same thing -- having better ideas, and having a better grasp of the idiom in which to communicate them.

I also think your point on a public suspicious of a Withdraw Now imperative is spot on. Iraq is now a failed state. Granted we made it that way, but it is in failed states that terrorism dwells. Leaving it to its own devices is a concession to terrorism the US pay for for decades.

[Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg]

I think it's important to remember that it's not just Hill Liberals who are lacking viable long term career tracks; otuside of workign on a candidate campaign or in a single-issue org. there's almost no way for a young progressive to push forward in a political career anywhere in the nation. Not that those two activities aren't worthwhile, but what I find distressing is that there is little to no connection within these groups to the larger progressive movements and ideas.

As far as taking on the National Security dilemas of Democrats I think that a few things need to be done. First- Democrats need to adopt a few select national security experts, who may or may not be Dems themselves but who have serious problems with Bush & Co., and promote the hell out of their ideas. For example, Larry C. Johnson and Patrick Lang over at No Quarter, give great reasons for opposing Bush while also pushing a viable "third" option.

Second- we need to convince some of these leaders to run for public office as Dems, which may be difficuly given that many of them will have been lifelong Republicans and/or are currently Gov't employees. I obviously have one candidate in my mind (cough-Antohny-cough-Zinni-cough) who I'd love to see run, but I'm sure that there are many, many out there who could run, and win, at different levels of electoral politics. For example, Paul Hackett's campaign in OH has potential to reframe our and the Republican image (us of and for the people and them of and for corruption, intolerance, and religious extremism). I'd also love to see some of the great guys over at OpTruth drafted to run for offices, but I think most are still active duty.

Third- once we get some Hacketts into Congress we have to put them in highly visible positions and get them in front of the cameras as often as possible.

[Carl Nyberg]

Are you looking for wise policy?

Or are you looking to sell the policy the elites have already decided upon?

If someone says, "we should scrutinize the unquestioning support the United States gives Israel," will Democratic money be available for this intellectual to develop her/his ideas?

[Carl Nyberg]

Alex, you've said nothing specific.

Alex, let me guess. You don't like Arabs and Muslims. And you think killing more of them is a good thing.

[Stygius]

Carl,

What's your beef? You want specific? Then say something specific. Alex has got good ideas. Accusing himof racism is baseless and out of line. I like the fight you've been fighting on Bolton at TWN and confirmbolton, but I don't see what you're hoping to accomplish here.

[Rob]

I read don't think of an elephant. I do feel that Lakoff makes many excellent points in framing. I particularly like his idea of a pogressive norquist like meeting to get a unified pogressive movement pushing back a conservative one.

Where he hits a snag is his lighter argument of bumper stickers for pogressives and comes up with "broader prosperity"

I needed to think about it for a while before I realized how disasterous things would get if we aimed for broad prosperity. Picture a broadly prosperous India or China. How long could we maintain something like that?

If you haven't caught my earlier rants about alternate energy. This is why. We're about as prosperous as we're going to get without a new energy source. We can increase technology to use the resources more efficiently, but we are still dealing with a shrinking resource pie.

But I digress. We need high level meetings with environmentalists (Pope, Gore, Kennedy Jr., Norton, Redford) and connect them with the religious left and unions (Wallis, Bruce Bauer, Stern) They need to talk with Lakoff and Dean and hammer out a pogressive agenda that will;

1. Get us off oil.
2. Without crippling the economy.
3. While staying globally competitive.
4. And giving the poor a leg up.
5. While reducing idleness.

Frame it in a sexy attractive way and nab as many seats as we can in 06 and 08.

So is Lakoff on all accounts correct? In my opinion, no.
Does he list out some action items for us to perform as a road map to retaking congress and the white house? Yes he does.

I think would be well advised to learn what he is trying to teach us. Those who play chess need to play their game not their opponents.

[Carl Nyberg]

Stygius, perhaps you can translate Alex's post into something that has meaning.

[Rob]

Mikey,

I'd agree with you about not resorting to gimmicks, if in fact we weren't being hooked by them. By playing into conservative "tax relief" we have a bunch of GOP lite Dems playing up to republican positions.

I wouldn't say their gimmick but as you say, taking a pogressive position, and selling it in a pogressive way. Selling pogressive ideas in conservative frames is like selling capitalism and christianity as good to Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels or Jews as the chosen to Adolf Hitler.

[alex urevick-ackelsberg]

Stygius-
I'm pretty sure that Carl's talking to the other Alex, the first one to post, which most definitely isn't me (I sure as hell would never vote for the maiacs in the White House). Not sure, but Carl was an early supporter of my idea to Draft Zinni and actually gave me the idea to make it into a blog, so I hope he doesn't think I'm racist now. But hey, thanks for sticking up for me!

Carl- did I write something that makes you think I'm racist?

This, somewhat tangentially, brings something else to mind. Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to have a conference of progressice national security related bloggers and writers? As a pretty active activist I've found that bringing people together in one room to talk about these issues and ideas can create stronger ties between the people involved and longerlasting bonds...

[Lorelei Kelly]

Alex, I think that's a great idea. (am a big Zinni fan too)

[Stygius]

Right you are. I couldn't figure out where in the hell he was reading this stuff into your comment. I still don't think he had grounds to play the race card on the ex-Dem Alex.

[Dan Kervick]

While Chait might be right to point out that Bush did not put forward democracy promotion as his main pre-war rationale for the invasion of Iraq, it is wrong to say that he did not employ the theme at all. Bush sold the war by opening up several rhetorical fronts at the same time. On the eve of the invasion, he gave a major speech at the AEI outlining the ambitious democratization agenda. But that speech simply summed up a body of accumulating rhetoric that had been worked into the war pitch as a significant ancillary theme.

I know this is a tough pill for New Republic-style Democrats to swallow. In 2002 and 2003 the hawkish, “muscular” Democracy-crusading wing of the Democratic Party was foursquare with Bush on foreign policy, whether they like to admit it now or not. Now they are all scrambling to cobble together positions that are variants on the theme “He did the right thing; but he did it for the wrong reasons!” This, even though his reasons hardly differed at all from their own most favored reasons. The other differentiating gambit is the somewhat more plausible complaint: “He did the right thing, but he bungled it!” Yet the left-hawks are possessed of an uncanny amount of virtuous hindsight, and are happy to blame Bush exclusively for policies they either supported, or didn’t challenge very loudly, when they were taking shape.

For example, it now appears that one of the major bits of bungling was the draconian de-Baathification scheme that stripped Iraq of a functioning military and police force. Yet I don’t recall that there were great crowds of Democrats protesting loudly about this scheme when it was announced. So its rather convenient to have swum eagerly with the war tide when it was coming in, only to rest on the shore and criticize Bush now that it is going out.

Bush sold the war by telling a story, a story that was simple, crude and direct. Bush himself didn’t have to articulate the less attractive themes in the story in blunt speech, since he had an army of less decorous talk jocks articulating it for him, and all he needed to do was toss out a few code words to show the public he was tuned in the savage AM-talk wavelength. His job was relatively easy after all, since the public was up in arms after 9/11, and all they needed was someone to point them in the general direction of the enemy – any enemy - and let them loose. These were the main themes of the insipidly beguiling Bush storyline:

1. There is a single enemy: Arabs = Muslims = ragheads = camel jockeys = terrorists = sheikhs = mullahs. These are just different names for the same stinking collection of bad guys.

2. They are all in on it together. There’s no diversity of outlook or approach. It’s just one big America-hating conspiracy. And *en masse* they’ve declared a holy war against us.

3. They hate us because they hate freedom, democracy and Christianity. And they’re stewing with envy. They want what we’ve got: more money, more cool stuff, more freedom, more women in hot clothes.

4. They’re basically just evil – evil, evil, evil.

5. They are also very dangerous – they’ve got nukes; they’ve got germs; they’ve got poisons; they’ve got gasses. They are probably behind the anthrax attacks.

6. And they want to take over the world. If they get their way, then before long we’ll all be bowing toward Mecca – wherever that is. And our women will all be in harems wearing sacks.

7. They all live over there in, you know, that deserty place where they’re all from: The Middle East, The Arab World, Iranistan, Afghania, Paki Arabia, I-rack …whatever.

8. They talk funny and write backwards. They’re dirty and smelly and don’t bath enough. The men are skinny and wear sissy dresses and stupid headgear. The women wear sacks. They believe in some crackpot religion whose central tenet is the dream of humping virgins in paradise.

9. They’re also completely nuts. Psycho. Maybe it’s the heat, but each and every one of them is a total nut job who would drive a plane into a building at the drop of a hat. They are basically feverish, rabid animals who only understand one language – the one that comes out of the business end of a gun.

10. America has been way too nice. We’re basically sweet guys who mind our own business and don’t bother anyone. But that’s not good enough, so it’s time to take the gloves off.

CONCLUSION: In light of the above, let’s go kill a bunch of Arabs and show them who’s boss.

This is the story that sold the war. It was written in blood and raw meat carved from the raging beast that was the irate American Public. To compete with this account of the world, Democrats will need to find a story that appeals just as directly to the hearts of many millions of Americans. It likely will have to be equally crude, simple and direct. I suggest some good old fashioned populist class warfare. But the point is not to listen to me, or Lorelei or any other individual writer. It’s to get out there and listen to lots and lots of people. The story must be *found* not *written*.

The Democrats are not going to be saved by more “hill staffers” – even hill staffers bubbling over with enthusiasm to try out the tricks they learned in latest framing class. The Dems don’t need more input from the pros, thank you very much. What they need is more input from the amateurs. The Democratic agenda for 2008 should be allowed to bubble up from the hustings, and should reflect the grown-up concerns of ordinary working (and out-of-work) Americans. It shouldn’t be cooked in Washington by a bunch of privileged and clueless young interns, lobbyists and staffers.

The secret of the Republican success in recent years has been the talk radio phenomenon – now expanded to include talk cable television. The Republicans have a veritable Army of rabble-rousing message crafters out there in the trenches. They try out themes and popular appeals on the airwaves, and learn what works and how to push the hot buttons. But they don’t just rant - they *listen* and they *learn*. The successful themes spread rapidly throughout their partisan network. That’s when the training of staffers and operatives comes in – after the message has been found, not before it.

By the way, it is not my impression that most work-a-day Americans are particularly interested in “democracy as global strategy”. What most Americans want their government to do is *protect* them. They want it to protect their lives, protect their families’ lives and protect their prosperity and way of life. They supported Bush when they thought his gloves-off, go-it-alone, global smackdown idea would keep them safe from terrorists and other evil-doers. Many began to abandon him when it started to look like he had made things worse.

My guess is that if Democrats want a good theme for 2008 they should focus on the themes of defense and prosperity. And I don’t mean “defense” as a euphemism for “cool, exciting, chivalrous, world-fixing stuff you can do with a military”. Most Americans want their president to use their military, populated as it is with their own children, to defend the country, not to set off on a risky adventure to fix every rotten country in the world. (Of course, most of the party leaders and staffers in Washington do not have children in the military.) Americans know the difference between defending their own country and butting into other peoples’ countries. They are willing to but in when they think it is necessary to protect themselves. But once it bcomes clear that the defense-by-offense line is a tall story, built of fantastic hypotheses, told to advance an ideological agenda that really has little to do with defending the country, they opt out.

This was the obvious lesson of Vietnam. But stupidly, we have had to learn it all over again.

My vote then for a Democratic theme: “The Democrats: Defending the American Dream.”

[lorelei kelly]

Well put Dan. I like your theme. I would disagree about the degree of worthlessness of Hill staff, however. Although I also think that the answers are not to be found in DC--or even originate on Capitol Hill, Congress is a vital link between the people and the government--and it's all we have right now. I don't subscribe to either "get outside the Beltway" or "take it to the elites" I think we must do both at the same time. I wrote about Hill staff because, to me, its an easy fix, a niche in the echo chamber that would be ever so simple to fill.

[Max Payne of Virginia Beach]

I must say "Don't Think of an Elephant!" has been getting a lot of positive reviews even in red states like MS and ID having read the customer reviews. This book, in addition to Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America" would be a perfect guide for Democrats to use in all 50 states, not just 18 states. This book has helped me figure out why Democratic Lt Gov Tim Kaine of my state who's trying to win the gubenatorial race that's scheduled for later this year isn't doing all that great compared to Republican Jerry KILgore who's getting a lot more excitement of support from conservatives and even reluctant support from swing voters despite his known association with Christian cultists like Pat Robertson and Jerry FARTwell is Kaine keeps on trying to pander to the right on death penalty and abortions and trying to come up with repackaged versions of tax cuts. All this of course falls into the conservative frametrap and the rest of it becomes slippery slope from there.

P.S.: On the radio and tv, we'll even get ads by conservatives painting Warner-Kaine as divided on these issues.

[libertarian soldier]

An excellent post by Mr. Kervick. I would call it perfect until he went too over the top in describing how Bush sold the war and his--to my mind--overly harsh characterization of interns and staffers (and not being harsh enough on lobbyists). My limited experience with the first two groups while in OSD was positive. Certainly, by definition interns were inexperienced, but clueless implies to me a wanton ignorance rather than a situational one they worked hard to remedy. And as for staffers, even though we were almost invariably on opposite sides of the issues (Armed Services and Foreign Relations) they were professional and defending what they thought their bosses' positions were, and never refused to at listen to the other side. And the Intelligence committees' staffers were exceptional.
Having worked for both Zinni and Clark, I would never vote for either and would support whoever was running against either one.

[Dan Kervick]

I shouldn't have been so snide about staffers and interns, who I am quite certain are on the whole very smart and idealistic, and extremely hard-working. They mostly do a lot of unglamorous heavy lifting, and run the grinding machinary of national government.

But my point is that, at least from my outside perspective here in New Hampshire, the Washington environment seems to produce a tremendous amount of insularity and group think, and is also conducive to a haughty, overconfident "we know best" wonkery. The spectrum of established Democratic opinion inside the beltway is so narrow and orthodox that you couldn't slide a playing card between the gaps separating the supposed opposing "camps". So this is just the wrong place to look for the kinds of authentic popular movements and perspective-altering cultural innovations that will capture the hearts of millions of people, and potentially draw converts to the Democratic party. The political professionals in Washington may produce innovative and imaginative policy proposals that advance established agendas in interestingly novel and efficient ways, but nobody looks to Washington as the birthplace of significant new directions in American popular culture. It's a boring company town.

It is also my impression that Democrats in particular have come to put an inordinate amount of faith in book-learning and professional policy studies. Now I spent 18 years of my adult life as a college philosophy professor, so I am the very last person to denigrate the value of academic learning. But the analytic investigations and smartly-crafted policy agendas represent the brain of the party, not its heart, and the party should lead with its heart. There is a tremendous difference between political talent and academic talent, and the political talent must be allowed to rise from the local precincts. The brainy stuff is essential and very valuable, but the thinkers should be in the background like the brain trusts of old. And their work should aim to serve the fundamental desires of the people - not aim to tell people what their desires ought to be.

Many Democrats these days seem to fall back on the idea that if they just study enough poll numbers, and tweak and craft the "message" to get it just right, they can win over the people they have lost. I think this is dead wrong. Most people do not respond to that sort of inauthentic craftiness and studied agreeableness. And most voters do not think of people as mere baskets of positions. (That is the self-concept of the wonk however, who seems to define herself by her "views" on "issues".) The typical voter has much more respect for a bluff, stand-up straight-shooter whom they disagree with, than for the watery-charactered, eager-to-please nebbishes the party increasingly puts forward.

The public face of the modern Democrats is white, college educated, smooth, gentle and well-mannered. The rough and unkempt labor leaders, the street-wise city bosses, the brassy feminists, the progressive hayseeds, the identifiably ethnic local leaders and various other populist pols have been expunged or hidden away. Of course people actually once voted for those guys. Now the classic Dem politician is a sort of bland TV anchor man.

Blacks leaders, for example, are openly mocked, derided and ignored. They all seem to live in a sort of government ghetto called the Congressional Black Caucus, and when the various wise men and wise woman make the television rounds on Sunday morning, they are not seen.

The national Democratic party treat many of the people who should be the party's lifeblood as though they were a bunch of crazy and uncouth relatives who must be hidden at a corner table at a wedding reception. Consider the last Democratic convention. The enthusiastic pilgrims to that convention, who represent all the shades and classes and outlooks of the Democratic Party, and are its heart, were told to sit down, shut up and hide their rabble-rousing signs. This so that St. Paul's and Yale educated John Kerry - well-meaning, decent and excruciatingly thoughtful, but ponderously serious, with all the color of a bleached Oxford shirt and the temperament of a melancholy undertaker who forgot to take his Prozac that week - could pitch his inoffensively centrist tent in front of the camaras. If a Hollywood director had said, "get me a guy who is the complete opposite of foksy", he could not have hoped for better than John Kerry.

And yet we keep going for these losers! We did slip up once though, and hit the jackpot by mistake. Clinton looked pretty safe to the establishment: Georgetown, Yale and Oxford - a good boy with good grades. But it turned out that the good schooling hadn't completely smothered the bad-boy, white trash, appetitite-driven bumpkin within. He was elected twice.

Gore had his moments of passion, and I actually liked him a lot. I think he would have been a great President. But I notice that the main thing that got his blood up, and penetrated his formal and regal aristocratic manners, was the insufferable stupidity of his inferiors. That's not really a great tool for a "Democratic" politician.

And Dukakis - don't even remind me.

[Blar]

I think that you're right that Democrats need more synthesis - developing frameworks in which the facts, values, and ideas that are important to Democrats can come together. And they need to repeatedly make reference to these frameworks, so that they come to seem like the natural way to think about and discuss the issues.

The newness of this argument has been overhyped, as has its power as a cure-all, and, most of all, the role of George Lakoff has been overhyped. As a corrective to the hype, you might want to read more from other cognitive scientists on Lakoff and framing, like

[Blar]

That is,
As a corrective to the hype, you might want to read more from other cognitive scientists on Lakoff and framing, like here: http://mixingmemory.blogspot.com/2005/07/lots-to-say-about-lakoff.html

[alex urevick-ackelsberg]

Well, I'd be down to help a conference happen in any way I can. I work at the New School in NYC, which would probablly be willing to host it if I hastled the right people...

Also- if anyone on this site is attending the Young Dem Conference in SF in 2 weeks and would like to meet up, drop me a line. You should also come to the Drinking Liberally semi-official parties- trust me, we're throwing much better parties then the official YDA parties.

[fat sam]

Lorelei: thanks. this brings up timely questions on how far down the Lakoff road we should be going. Useful, but potentially dangerous if it becomes disingenuous, as Dan notes.

Dan K.: NH in the summer-- you lucky man. Two excellent, excellent comments. Thoughtful and insightful.

Libertarian soldier: I've heard those criticisms from military folk about Clark before, but not Zinni. Can you 'nutshell' your beef(s) with him? Just curious.

Rosignol: The WMD line was primarily for UN consumption, not domestic? Good Lord. I respectfully disagree, point by point, with the entirety of your comment. Trying to keep this short(ish), but if you like, I will clarify in detail.

Dems until '04: Several responses ran through my mind, but, to paraphrase Dan K, the only one to 'come from the heart' was: Are You F-ing Kidding Me?? In short, your voting Republican in '04 says a helluva lot more about you than it does the Dem Party. 'nuff said.

[Carl Nyberg]

alex u-a, you are correct. when I wrote "Alex" I meant the person posting as "Alex".

[libertarian soldier]

Nutshell, I has to do with his decision to refuel ships in Yemen instead of Djibouti, resulting in the deaths of the sailors on the Cole. There is a highly classified report that details the decision making involved that was prepared for Franks when he had to go up on the Hill to answer "what happened".

[save_the_rusthbelt]

The Dems seemed to have framed themselves as follows:

More abortions
Higher taxes
More money for public employee unions - competent or not
More government, effective or not
Less security

Now I know this isn't a true and complete picture, but it would be hard to tell from watching a Democratic convention.

In the Y2000 convention the Dems invited some 14 year old Boy Scouts to present the flag, and then booed them. Gee, that sells well with the mniddle class. Somehow the Dems need to get their looney left-wing under control - instead of complaining about the looney right-wing.

Where's Scoop Jackson when you need him?

[fat sam]

Lib'n soldier, thanks for the info-- I'll look for more stuff about that...

[rosignol]

Sam, feel free to email if you think it'd be out of place here.