Framing and Messaging: Republicans Get Them, Democrats Don’t

Democrats continue to refuse to look at how important framing and messaging is in driving a core set of principles.  Republicans figured out their importance decades ago and that’s a big reason why this country has taken such a radical turn to the extreme right since.

Why is these two abstract concepts so important?  Take the recent health care debate as an example.  Specifically, let’s look at the public option and what Republicans did about it internally:

At the height of the health care reform debate last fall, Bill Sammon, Fox News’ controversial Washington managing editor, sent a memo directing his network’s journalists not to use the phrase “public option.”

Instead, Sammon wrote, Fox’s reporters should use “government option” and similar phrases — wording that a top Republican pollster had recommended in order to turn public opinion against the Democrats’ reform efforts.

Did this doom the public option all by itself?  Of course not.  But these phrases resonate with folks who have been purposefully trained to think of anything the government does as inefficient and wasteful (on the nice side of the spectrum).  Republicans have mastered the two-word soundbite culture.  The phrases that pass through Luntz’s playbook and into the Republican machine are some of the most recognizable and effective in our political lexicon today.

Democrats do themselves and this country a disservice by continuing to brush framing and messaging off as something beneath their notice.  They think if they fully explain every nuance of every policy, the facts by themselves will win over enough of the public to implement their ideas.  It hasn’t worked in decades and it will be less effective in the future.

Hickenlooper Continues Business-Worship Trend

John Hickenlooper, Denver’s current mayor and candidate for Colorado’s 2010 Governor race, is continuing his bid to show Coloradans who can worship the most at the feet of the business community: himself or Con candidate Scott McInnis. Coloradans are looking for a choice, Mayor. If you try to paint yourself as Republican-lite, Coloradans will choose the true Republican.

What has raised my ire today? Another Denver Post article detailing the mayor’s words at a Chamber of Commerce meeting yesterday. According to the mayor, Colorado is now known as an anti-business state, Ritter sided with “overboard” environmentalists and raising taxes in a recession is “crazy”.

At this point, Hick is going to have to work very, very hard to secure my vote this November. I don’t want a person with a “D” after their name in the Governor’s mansion governing like he wants to be a Con.

One Democratic Party Problem: Communication & Messaging

One of the biggest problems the Democratic Party has is its failure at communication and messaging.  They’ve had this problem for a long time and at times it doesn’t appear like they care to do anything about it.

What’s in the health bill?  Can “average” Americans describe it?  I doubt it.  Can elected Democratic officials?  They haven’t yet, that’s for sure.  Instead of a five minute, convoluted laundry list of “cool things”, how would this have played out:

Medicare For All.

Look at the Language

As Republicans at every level across the country find themselves behind, and in some cases way behind, their Democratic opponents, they’re resorting to increasingly violent outbursts that are clearly based on their narrow worldview.

Those outbursts have unfortunately become familiar to all of us: racial tensions obviously underlie attacks against Barack Obama; ideology forms the basis of attacks on economic policies (even if R’s have become schizophrenic about them).

Races in Colorado are no different.  They merely have their own unique facet of the larger worthless rock that the Republican party represents.  I read an article covering Sarah “Socialism” Palin’s visit to the rabid Republican base found in Colorado Springs.  One piece of language in that article caught my attention.

Here is the Rocky Mountain News article.  Here is the quote (emphasis mine):

“This race for the presidency – and my race for the Senate – is all about one thing: It’s about whether we choose freedom and liberty or bureaucracy and bondage,” [Bob] Schaffer told a cheering Colorado Springs crowd.

Schaffer has said some incredibly stupid things this election cycle.  His campaign manager (perhaps the real candidate, depending), Dick Wadhams, has a resume chock full of campaigns whose candidates all too willingly share their … fringe views with potential voters.  But including the word “bondage” in a description of what the presidential race is about while one of the candidates is half-African is particularly tasteless.  It was not included by accident, either.

Republicans this election season have been left to run with what remains of their base: those most prone to their fear-mongering.  They have to pander hard to those who are most scared of foreigners with different skin color, to those who think they’re frightened of “socialism”, to those who are scared of anything resembling change.

Thus, we see Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s rant about pro- and anti-american members of the House, which smacks of McCarth-ism in all its depravity.  Thus, we see Rep. Robin Hayes challenging Bachmann to go even further with her hate speech by saying “liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God”.  Thus, we see Bob Schaffer using the word bondage, pushing the buttons of racists in an effort to invoke feelings of victimization among his extremist base.

Schaffer, McCain, Palin, Bachmann, Hayes and the rest of the loonies on the right are letting voters know exactly who they really are.  They’re offering up continual proof of their fringe attitudes.  Unsurprisingly, they’re still bleating about the “bias in the librul media”.  Despite their best efforts over the past 30 years, 50-70% of Americans aren’t as extreme as they want them to be.

Cross-posted at SquareState.

Netroots Nation 2008: Day Three

Nancy Pelosi was scheduled to participate in a Q&A this morning.  In a surprise announcement, Al Gore joined her!  The conversation was lively.  It also provided an additional example of two folks who are ready and willing to work together for a larger cause.

I sat in on a healthcare discussion, which was led by nyceve,, an activist who has gone way above the ordinary in terms of illustrating the human element of our failed health care system.  She assembled a wide set of voices on the issue, including someone she doesn’t always see eye-to-eye with, Ezra Klein.  A lot of passionate people were in the room, which is good to see.  Ezra provided one of most salient points, I think: we won’t get universal single-payer care (not coverage!!!) unless we defeat politicians standing in the way.  Max Baucus, for instance, chairs the Senate Finance Committee.  One of its purviews is healthcare.  We have to get Max on our side of the issue or find a suitable replacement.

I’m going to a framing discussing this afternoon, possibly followed by a screening.  Donna Edwards is scheduled to address us later tonight.

Good framing example

I read an excellent example of framing today: a Newsweek reporter talking to Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) about the importance of external oversight to the FISA program.

“In the modern political climate you’re more likely to hear about amnesty with respect to undocumented workers than you are about the amnesty for the phone and Internet companies who helped the government break the law before the act was passed.“

Yeah, that “liberal media” has just been going to town on the brown invasion from Mexico, hasn’t it? And since we know how much Democrats hate business, that same “liberal media” has totally been using the same language to talk about telecommunication corporations doing Bush’s bidding. Wait, they haven’t? Well gee, what’s wrong with those two assumptions?

This is one of the better examples of how to correctly frame an issue, and quite frankly one I wish I had thought of before reading it. That being said, I don’t mind incorporating it into my lexicon.

h/t mcjoan

Evolution is a law

In catching up on reading while on vacation, an article by Clive Thompson in November’s WIRED magazine put in writing something I’ve been quietly pushing to friends: science will do more for our society when scientific ‘theory’ is referred to as ‘law’ in public discourse.

Unfortunately, the American public remains woefully under-equipped to understand the difference between the two. And the fringe right has exploited this to their benefit: folks are rejecting concepts like evolution because scientists refer to it as a theory, thinking that it means the concept has fatal flaws.  Strangely, it’s okay to believe in “God” with less proof than that provided by evolutionary scientists.

Thus, I have decided to adopt the following language: evolution is as valid as gravity: both are laws.

Global warming & Right-wing media 1/9/2008

One goal I have this year is to highlight the right-wing misinformation campaign surrounding global warming. Despite an ever-growing body of evidence to the contrary, these folks still want us to believe that everything is hunky-dory. Today’s example: Amy Oliver got caught by Colorado Media Matters trying to extend Denver’s weather in 2007 to the state of global warming.

Oh my. An analogy: people that believe this shouldn’t go to doctors with licenses. Why pay attention to the people who actually went to school to specialize in the field? Global warming denyers are selling goods that are no good.

Here’s why: it makes no sense to leverage the weather Denver might (or might not have) experienced in 2007 to the shifts in climate the planet might be forcing. You see this type of argument a lot from righties: since the top 1% of wealthy Americans reported 2007 as a good year economically, that must mean everybody shared in their prosperity. It’s just not so.

Through the first 11 months of 2007, the global average temperature for the year, including ocean temperatures, was the 3rd highest on record. The Arctic ice cap last year shrank to an extent that shocked even experts.

Amy Oliver claimed on her January 7 1310 KFKA broadcast that “overall 2007 weather was average,” then stated, “I realize, global-warming alarmists, that’s probably blasphemy to you.” Oliver cited no source for her assertion about “average” weather and did not clarify what location experienced such conditions.

That’s an interesting quote, Amy. Notice the frame: “global warming alarmists, that’s probably blasphemy”. She name calls, then demeans people who understand the science involved and calls them out as though they’re religious fanatics. Just like … terrorists who happen to be Muslim. Muslims have no monopoly on terrorism. What about all the crazy white people that ran around in 2007 killing innocent people? What religion did they practice?

So Amy takes this parental tone and tries to lecture all the dumb, gullible people out there who have bought into the left-wing conspiracy of global warming. But it’s telling that there’s no attempt to establish dialogue here: you’re dumb and reactionary; people like Amy are calm and adult-like, with no leaning toward unseemly behavior.

It’s disgusting that as the planet hangs over the precipice of forced climate change, the fringe right continues to bash people who lean toward scientific consensus. When the ice caps are gone and one billion people are forced to move to higher land around the world, I’m sure they’ll still be screaming at us with their shrill voices that it’s the greatest hoax perpetrated on mankind.

Framing 1/1/2008

Happy New Year! Last night was fun – I got together with a group of friends, had a nice dinner and partied just past midnight. I’m glad the wind has died down today, however. Days on end of it was starting to get irritating.

So here’s what’s on my mind: the way in which issues are discussed, or framing. For instance, this article at the Denver Post carries this headline: “Colorado’s use of terror grants blasted.” The story behind that headline? Gov. Owens’ (R) administration didn’t set up response systems according to Department of Homeland Security guidelines. Some funding wasn’t allocated properly, other funds were moved around to obstruct proper accounting and there was a lack of communication between a Hazard Committee and the former governor. You know, pretty common Republican methods of governance.

Here’s the kicker: at what point of the article did Owens’ administration come up as the party of interest? The 13th paragraph, within a segment of the article subtitled “State officials point to progress“. Which state officials are those: Owens’ officials or current Gov. Ritter’s officials? The latter, of course. It’s interesting that the cause of the problem is identified in the solutions part of the article, instead of the section where the background is laid out.

Now, what might this have to do with framing? What if the roles were reversed and Owens was cleaning up after Ritter? I know, that comes straight out of an alternate universe, but let’s go with that line of thought for a moment. How would the article have been written then? I’m not screaming conspiracy, but I have a sneaking suspicion that Ritter, being a Democrat, would have been identified earlier. In fact, I bet he would have been named in the headline. Something like “Ritter worked to undermine CO citizens’ safety” or something close to that. Because you know the corporate media loves to label, or frame, Democrats as weak on security issues. Because from the media view-point, Democrats aren’t masculine enough to even want to protect citizens. Despite mounds of evidence to the contrary.

Just a little more on this subject: “Owens rejected a bipartisan state Senate panel’s unanimous recommendation to unite homeland security efforts in one department. Owens said the senators showed a “pervasive lack of understanding” of the state’s homeland security efforts.”

Isn’t that interesting. Owens rejected a bipartisan state Senate panel’s unanimous recommendation. Because they showed a “pervasive lack of understanding”?! How incredible is that statement? Did Owens try to communicate the efforts he cited to that panel? We don’t know because the article fails to mention it. Or did Owens act like the father figure and ignore advice from the non-father figure? He knew better than everybody else how best to act, apparently. Except for the little problem of spending money he shouldn’t have and acting against policies that were set up at the federal level. Hmm, another example of a Republican supporting state’s initiative when it works for their interests.

2nd Project

I’m sure I’m going to come up with way too many of these, but a back-of-the-head project milling around for a while:

Come up with better names for bills – both in CO and the US Congress.

I’ll  admit it freely: Democrats suck at naming their legislation.  Republicans don’t.  I want to change that – through exercising options.