It Isn't the Message, Stupid!

[wyldwolf]

Interesting article I found here admonishing Democrats to not put too much emphasis on "reframing the debate" and "buzzwords" a la George Lakoff.

The author (who isn't pro-Democrat)advises Democrats to put forth new ideas and plans, not try to repackage them with new terminology.

I don't subscribe to his overall point of view. Especially the final paragraph of the piece. But he does make a good point or two. For example:

Soon after the November elections leading Democrats agreed that the party was ailing and in dire need of a new direction, a new focus, new ideas to lead it forward. "It's critical we realize why the electorate voted the way it did," Representative Bob Menendez, of New Jersey, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said of the party's devastating loss in the presidential election and its setbacks in both houses of Congress. In February, House Democratic lawmakers held a retreat in Virginia to hash out what to do next.

Something miraculous happened. They recovered—or at least they're behaving that way. Setting aside all the frank talk about the need to re-examine fundamentals, they identified an altogether different sort of affliction. The Democrats returned from Virginia not with an exit strategy for Iraq or a national-security blueprint or an economic policy but with a book—Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, by George Lakoff, a linguist at the University of California at Berkeley. Lakoff's seductive thesis is that how you frame an idea largely determines the response to it. George Miller, a California congressman and an enthusiastic disciple, gave a copy to each member of the caucus, and the notion that "messaging" lies at the heart of the Democrats' woes has had growing currency in the party ever since.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200505/green

Here is an analysis from Greg's Opinion blog: http://www.gregsopinion.com/archives/005864.html#005864

One particular comment from his analysis interested me:

I think there's a good deal to learn from Lakoff. But the confusion over "message" equaling "framing" is way too wide of the mark.

Thoughts?

Complaints?

Smear of the author to avoid thoughts and complaints?

[adwon]

1. Thought

Framing is a tactical issue. Message is a strategic issue.

You frame individual issues. The message is the coordination of issues into a coherent vision.

The author isn't wrong about new ideas and programs. Those really are the best way to show the party as one of progress. Those ideas, however, should not be based on GOP assumptions. The assumptions should bear some relation to reality.

[wyldwolf]

3. good points.

[cornermouse]

2. I prefer substance or message or framing.

Please don't tell me they're becoming Bushesque.

[wyldwolf]

4. well, "framing" has been all the buzz in Democratic circles...

Howard Dean even said he wanted Lakoff to be our Frank Luntz.

[cornermouse]

5. Actually, framing is not entirely bad.

But it seems that the frame tends to become more important than the picture. As we have seen with Bush, a frame without a picture is not a good thing.

[xchrom]

6. it's good old fashioned marketing.

there are folk here at du that are genious at framing all sorts of issues.
it works -- it makes sense -- and most of all in this day and age of short attention spans and super fast media -- it is a tool that cannot be ignored.

swifties took that marketing tool and boxed kerry in -- that they lied and got their stories debunked became a nonissue because they went ahead of the curve.

it's the same bush's 00 election slogan ''it's your money'' -- the gopers framed it just right -- came in ahead of the curve and made it stick.
again -- the idea was successfully refuted -- but a minute too late.

we have to learn and adapt.

[ElectricIron Sweeney]

7. Talking Points

Framing the argument has been essential in history with those who could do it best succeeding best. Words can be more deadly than an army, and more dangerous. Words are the arrows of perception. Then there is paradigmatic reference. Some problems can be seen through, though people should never be seen through. Programs, plans, projectiles, or philosophies should never become more important than those people they are meant to help. The people are not wrong. It is certain we have wrong laws or we would not want so many people in uniform or jail. It is certain we have wrong government or all elections would be landslides. It is certain we have wrong religion or they would not have to advertise in the paper. It is hard to convince people they are happy when they are not, but all too easy to turn their fears into hate, and their hate into frustration. The hand that divides us defeats us in turn.

[Gyre]

8. How is correctly framing the issues

going to unwind the mechanisms set up to steal national elections?

Gyre