Pacific Views

Framing Issues

Digby has a fantastic post that takes George Lakoff's Moral Politics and applies an even better frame. Digby points out although Lakoff was exactly right about the importance of framing issues, Lakoff was mistaken in using the terminology "strict father" and "nurturing parent" because the terms themselves call up negative connotations. Digby says:

If it is necessary to frame the political divide in family terms, I might have done it as “rigid parents” vs. “conscientious parents.” The analysis remains the same, but the words don’t imply character traits that people automatically associate with strong vs weak leadership, but rather they connote negative vs positive leadership.

I hope that Lakoff will consider Digby's suggestion, because his analysis is right on. In my opinion, Digby is one of the best at understanding how imagery plays and what symbols sell.

Lakoff is one of the founders of a new think tank, the Rockridge Institute, where he is framing issues for progressives and telling them not to use the frame that the right uses. In this paper he takes on the free market and why this phrase is really a "frame" and one that is really not true. When using the phrase "free market", the realization that all markets are human constructs and thus favor some and not others is lost. When the right uses the term "free market" they mean to take the rules governing that market outside of human control.

Getting our terminology right will be essential in winning the next election and in creating a sizable majority in the long run. The Republicans have Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz to frame their arguments. And until we can use language and imagery as effectively, we will lose the battles for how people view the issues.

Posted by Mary at October 30, 2003 10:54 AM | TrackBack