Tories speak Blair's language/Kos article in the Guardian

[cal04]

The Conservative party shares the same problem as the US Democrats, their opponents have framed the political language. That is Tony Blair's chief legacy, writes US blogger Markos Moulitsas

The 2004 elections were quite the shock to American liberals. For far too long, Democrats assumed their electoral exile was a short detour, a minor statistical error easily remedied in the following election cycle. But with the Republican sweep of 2004, Democrats have finally come to terms with its minority status. And with that realisation has come a desperate effort to study the factors fuelling the rise of the American right

The factors are various, but key among them is the notion of "framing" - that is, controlling the political language. Republicans realised decades ago that those who controlled the language, controlled the political battleground. A sort of electoral high ground, providing a tactical advantage in the battle of ideas. For example, activists from both sides of the abortion divide speak either of a "culture of life" or about "choice". Republicans have fought the framing wars across the issues landscape, from turning the estate tax (applicable to only the richest Americans) into the "death tax", to selling the Iraq War as part of the "war on terror" despite Saddam Hussein's utter lack of involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

But there has been no greater framing success in the last 30 years than the GOP's demonization of taxation and the social services those taxes buy. It is near impossible for a Democrat to run for office without promising tax cuts of some fashion or another, yet this is inhospitable territory for a centre-left party, expected by supporters to provide for the social welfare of the public. Indeed, there has been deep grumbling amongst Democratic party activists for some time about "Republican-lite" candidates - Democrats who talk Republican, wielding Republican language and talking points. These Democrats are also known as DINOs, or "Democrats in Name Only". And given the chance to vote for Republican-lite or a true Republican, the past two election cycles prove that voters will choose the genuine article nearly every time.

rest of the article
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/comment/0,15803,1474522,00.html

[Nothing Without Hope]

1. Good for Kos! Interesting that the idea of framing seems like it's rather

new to the writer's audience. Wonder if that discussion is later in the UK than here?

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. 'Framing' hasn't been used so much here

though people will talk about 'controlling the agenda', and similar things. But for a long time people have talked of a 'ratchet' - that is, the expectation that there's an irreversible direction that politics is going in - and the most one side can do is hold things steady. At first it was assumed to be to the left, after the second world war - but then Thatcher reversed it. Blair only got in by imitating the Conservatives in many ways (promising to stick to their spending limits, for instance) but without their incompetence and sleaze. Now, the direction is switching back - but Labour still can't consider reversing the tax cuts that Thatcher made.

[blogbear]

2. This comes as a bit "Greek to me"..I wouldn't call '04 a sweep in the US..

However I wouldn't mind seeing DINOs becoming extinct..