When conservatives tried to impeach President Bill Clinton, they asked people if they approved of adultery. Anyone opposed to impeachment lost the argument the minute he accepted that as the correct "frame" for the impeachment debate.
The real question was, should the President be impeached because he committed adultery, and told a white lie about it, which he later retracted? Most Americans decided Clinton should not be impeached for having extra-marital sex with an adult woman, or trying to lie his way out of it. It was a family issue, not a "high crime or misdemeanor" that threatened national security, the rule of law, or our Constitutional democracy.
This is is one of the few times since 1980 that conservatives failed to win a political argument by defining the terms of the debate, and forced liberals to defend their position using conservative terms.
George Lakoff, Linguist
George Lakoff is a cultural linguist who frankly identifies himself as a liberal trying to teach Democrats what they’ve been doing wrong since conservatives first came to power in 1980.
Republicans frame the issues with “values language,” he says. Liberals answer with 5-point programs. People understand and vote for values, not programs, Lakoff says. Republican language gets into the mainstream media, and becomes the terminology of the general conversation. Liberals start using it themselves to defend their programs.
Health Insurance Reform
Barack Obama’s greatest failure, according to Lakoff, is that he did not frame the issues in his own terms, as he did in the 2008 election campaign.
As soon as he referred to his health insurance reform as health care reform, he lost the argument. Though he signed a bill into law, nobody knows what it says because it is so complicated., They know only what the program's opponents say it says.
And most people won’t benefit from it in time for the 2012 elections.
Poll after poll showed most people liked their health care, but hated the health insurance system, Lakoff says. When people think of health care, they think of their doctor, and Marcus Welby on TV. Nobody wanted the government messing with them, and the values they uphold.
Most treatment decisions today are dictated by managed care companies. People and most doctors hate that. Obama’s program was designed to eliminate the worst excesses of that system. So why didn’t Obama call it health insurance reform, Lakoff asks.
By using the term health care reform, not insurance reform, he reinforced the opponents’ claim that he was trying to mess with Dr. Welby and their doctor. The media used the conservative frame to discuss the issue. No other frame was out there.
Obama was forced to deny that the program contained death panels. "We will not pull the plug on Grandma,” he said on television. By denying the conservative frame in the conservatives’ language, he actually made people think about death panels all over again, Lakoff says
Don’t Think of an Elephant
Lakoff named a book on political language Don’t Think of an Elephant. If you try not to think about an elephant, you have to think about an elephant, picture one, and try to force it out of your mind. The harder you try, the more you think of an elephant, Lakoff says.
It does not take long to think of other conservative frames that have come into general use to define issues. A tax on a small number of large inheritances is “the death tax.” Tax breaks that help only the top one percent of people and corporations is “tax relief,” or a “tax cut.” Lawsuits against negligent corporations are all “frivolous lawsuits.” News media are always “the liberal media.” Does that include Fox News, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, and talk radio, Lakoff asks?
Adam Cohen in the NYTimes thinks Lakoff overdoes his argument about framing, and actually gets stuck in his own frame. Cohen says Democrats got too excited about framing when Sandra Day O'Connor retired from the Supreme Court, giving George W. Bush his first vacancy. Political language does not change overnight because it is heavily influenced by history as well as words, Cohen says.
Eliminating “Frivolous” Law Suits
Lakoff goes on at some length to dissect conservatives’ push for “tort reform.” Limiting the ability of individuals to recover damages from negligent corporations actually has many consequences that will further the conservative cause, he says.
- Corporations and their insurance companies can spend less time and money worrying about the safety of their products and plants.
- Lawyers who represent plaintiffs are among the biggest contributors to Democratic candidates. Limiting their income limits their ability to contribute.
- Individuals will lose access to the courts and a chance to get justice if they are damaged by someone’s negligence, Plaintiffs’ lawyers work for a percentage of the damages they collect, and lay out their own money for expert witnesses, costly depositions, office staff, and their own time. They won’t take complicated cases if all they can get is one third of a $250,000 cap on jury awards
Lakoff's conclusions sound like common sense liberals have not seen or can not put into practice. His books and articles are short, pithy, entertaining, and easy to read and understand. He's been writing it since 2001. Cohen is probably right when he says Lakoff over-simplifies. Changing political language that has been growing roots for 30-plus years can't be as simple as Lakoff makes it sound.
SOURCES
Lakoff, George, "How Conservatives Use Language to Dominate Politics," UC Berkjey,
Lakoff, George, Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, Chelsea Green
Lakolff, George, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, University of Chicago Press, 2nd edition, 2002.
Lakoff, George, The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century Politics with an 18th Century Mind, Tantor Press,
Ken Braiterman - Ken Braiterman writes columns for the Concord (NH) Monitor print and online editions. He also writes and lectures on recovery from ...
