A collection of ill-edited essays on political and linguistic framing, triggered by the Democratic party's losses to George W. Bush back in 2000 and 2004. Author George Lakoff offers fellow Democrats a how-to book on how to shape and control rhetoric for future elections.
Unfortunately, this book is nowhere near as good as I'd hoped. It desperately needs an editor to unify the chapters: see, for example, how the author repeats his "nurturent parent/strict father" models of Democratic and Republican worldviews in identical detail despite the fact that it's already been explained in nearly every other essay. Worse, some of the essays are undergrad-level in caliber, and one (Chapter 5) is near-incoherent.
An "expert" in framing discussions and debates should be better at framing his own writing.
Despite needing some help, the book has insights. The author rightly encourages sticking to your own carefully chosen language, offers techniques to maintain your own framing and contextual control of a debate, and warns readers to avoid attacking the other side's frame (this reinforces their frame and obscures yours). All good reminders. After all, anyone involved in any debate needs to know how to use rhetoric and framing to put their best foot forward.
It is interesting how in the early 2000s Democrats practically forgot how to use these tools while Republican ran rhetorical circles around them. Typical well-executed rhetorical reframes from that era were things like renaming inheritance taxes "the death tax" and renaming tax cuts "tax relief" (I mean, who doesn't want "relief"?). It's still hard to believe the Democrats lost to George W. Bush not once but twice, but when you give away this much rhetorical high ground it becomes apparent how it could happen.
Amusingly, this book is itself an act of framing as it frames Democratic political views positively and Republican political views negatively. Game recognizes game!
Finally, an irony, a sad one. The politics so urgently fought over in this book's era make almost no sense in today's monoparty/bureaucratic state era. We simply do not have the two-party system we had back in the early 2000s and before. And it's quite shocking to look back at the political issues of 20 years ago and see how today the parties are either colluding (both want deficit spending and moneyprinting) or have "flippened" (Democrats are the pro-war party now, while Republicans are now [uh, partially] becoming the party of bodily/medical autonomy).
I don't know whether it's unsettling or appalling that the Democratic party now looks a lot like the Republican party of the '80s and '90s, with its authoritarian tendencies, its lockstep Orwellian messaging, its medical/media censorship, and its psychopathic warmongering. As I think over these issues (discussed extremely usefully in Balaji Srinivasan's book The Network State), I find I have almost no interest in politics any more. Can you choose the illusion of a choice?
[Whoops: sorry, one last irony] Fascinating to see George Soros blurbing[1] the book, while also being cited as a "friend" in Lakoff's acknowledgments. When this book came out back in 2004, Soros was nowhere near as radioactive as he is now. I wonder if the author will mention him in future editions.
Footnote:
[1] Although "I learned a lot from Lakoff. You will too." might be history's most low-effort blurb.
Notes:
Preface:
"Frames are mental structures that shape the way we see the world." Part of the cognitive unconscious, not consciously visible or overt but known by their consequences
Part One: Theory and Application
Chapter 1: Framing 101: How to Take Back Public Discourse
* "Don't think of an elephant" which causing you to not be able to not think of an elephant! See also Nixon's infamous "I am not a crook" quote, which caused everybody to presume he was a crook.
* "Do not use their language. Their language picks out a frame--and it won't be the frame you want."
* Other good examples of framing/rhetoric: "Tax relief"; "We do not need a permission slip to defend America" [Some of these framings are genuinely brilliant, it's hard to believe they came from George W.!)
* Extensive discussion of James Dobson, Christian parenting/disciplinarian and author, which Lakoff spins into a (rather strawmanned) metaphor for conservative politics. The author does something pretty savvy here, he infantalizes conservatives at the same time as he explains why the "we don't need a permission slip" slogan resonated with them! Well done.
* Lakoff contrasting the parenting disciplinarian conservative model with a nurturent progressive model frame
* A key myth believed by liberals and progressives is that if you just "tell people the facts" they'll reach the right conclusions; in reality the truth must fit people's frames, and if the facts don't fit a frame the frame stays and the facts bounce off.
* The author is mystified why Democrats are always confused that people vote against their self-interest, warning Democrats that self-interest is not the only thing that one votes for! (Further one may conclude incorrectly what's in someone's self-interest, or not be aware that someone is correctly concluding that just because words that sound like one's self-interest, to make sure that they actually are.)
* Lakoff's warnings on Orwellian language would be particularly useful today.
* Another good example of rhetoric: launching "slippery slope" initiatives: The example given here is the Republican effort to ban "partial birth abortion" as a foot-in-the-door technique to get the ball moving downhill, and then start banning abortions more aggressively later. [In the interests of equal time I think we could cite "banning assault weapons" as an analogous Democrat example.]
Chapter 2: Enter the Terminator!
* On the framing of Arnold Schwarzenegger's election: the author goes through various preceptions/framings of that election ranging from "[recalled governor] Gray Davis can't communicate" to "those kooky Californians," ultimately concluding that the "correct" frame is "it's a right-wing power grab."
* Strange that this chapter refers all over again to the author's nurturent parent/strict father worldview models of Democrats/Republicans, wasting multiple pages fully explaining the models all over again when we just read all about it a few pages ago. Worse, we have to reread repeated references to mental models like Arnold Schwarzenegger movies and The Cosby Show (the last is of course exceedingly unfortunate, given what we know now about "nurturant" Bill Cosby's penchant for rape).
Chapter 3: What's in a word? Plenty, If It's Marriage
* On the conservative arguments against same-sex marriage, which rely on "two powerful ideas: definition and sanctity. We must take them back."
* On how the phrase "gay marriage" went from being effective for conservatives, but then was taken back by gay activists. The phrase had different types of rhetorical power for different sides at different times.
* Once again a terrible editing error here where the author explains (again!) the conservative "strict father model" and the liberal "nurturant parent" model.
* Reframing the "Do you support gay marriage?" question into "Do you think the government should tell people who they can and can't marry?"
Chapter 4: Metaphors of Terror
* This is an essay written just a few days after 9/11, then re-edited it in 2004, discussing various metaphors of 9/11: of the buildings, of the event itself, etc.
* Admittedly a bit gross and creepy to hear the author discuss phallic and vaginal imagery of the towers and the Pentagon.
* The concept of War doesn't fit, so there is a frantic search for metaphors among the political right; Lakoff goes over the Bush administration's various attempts at metaphorically framing it, starting with "crime" moving on to "cowards," then arriving at "evil."
* The author also adjusts the frame himself still further: framing it as "the problem of fundamentalism" of "theocracy" and so on, thus this likens conservatives to the Trade Center attackers themselves.
* This chapter is the weakest and least engaging yet.
* The author unintentionally reveals a lack of understanding of how Social Security works and of how monetary policy works. Sadly, this fits into a frame too: of the "midwit, mushy-headed liberal."
* Fascinating to read this author's fear of perpetual war (which he blames on Republicans) in the context today of the perpetual warmongering of every Democratic administration ever since. Who is in favor of war these days? Seems like everybody is?
Chapter 5: Metaphors That Kill
* Making a person (Saddam Hussein) a metaphor for a country in order to justify war.
* Other metaphors: "rogue states," "underdeveloped nations," nations that need to be "disciplined" (by, say, the IMF), etc.
* Justifying the first Iraq War with the (later found out to be false) "rape of Kuwait" frame; Justifying Iraq 2 with "stopping Al-Queda" and "WMD" (both also false).
Chapter 6: Betrayal of Trust: Beyond Lying
* Re: Bush's comments justifying the second Iraq War; "is it a lie or is it true?" seems less important than "does he believe it?" Did he intend to deceive? Was it just an honest mistake?
* On the difference between "mere lying" and betrayal of trust.
Part Two: From Theory to Action
Chapter 7: What the Right Wants
* This chapter is an interesting framing exercise itself, where Lakoff describes the characteristics of the political right in ways that would appeal to readers from the left, and this description literally frames the debate. It is by far the weakest chapter of the book, largely because it damages the book's credibility to use the author's own framing tactics in such a naked way: it looks very much like dishonest rhetoric, and the author would have made this rhetoric-at-any-cost into something much more persuasive if he had included just a single self-effacing comment like "I'm going to frame the other side in a really negative way just to show how it's done." This is a good example of an author failing to go beyond first-order thinking: he fails to see that a too-transparent use of naked framing costs him his credibility.
* Note also that this framing exercise is likewise an exercise of psychological projection! See how the author claims Republicans consider "The vast and increasing gap between rich and poor is thus seen to be both natural and good." The author also thinks that conservatives believe "Unruly students should face physical punishment (for instance paddling)."
Chapter 8: What Unites Progressives
* More unfortunate irony here in a book about framing! In describing what unites progressives, the author puts the reader to sleep. There's very little in here that captivates or enthuses the reader. Lakoff writes earlier in the book about avoiding seeming like a mushy-headed liberal, but then writes this mushy-headed chapter. This is a great, albeit unintended, metaphor for the Left's challenge to frame their positions in a way that captures the imagination.
* It's also interesting to see this author's attempt at matching the so-called "conservative ten-word philosophy" with his own "progressive 10-word philosophy," but again the progressive list is... boring! Lakoff may be an expert in framing, but he is clearly not an expert in creating frames.
Chapter 9: FAQ
* Again we get yet another rehash of the strict father/nurturant parent models. [!]
* Some basic/foundational concepts of framing: how reframing sounds manipulative but why it isn't; how "spin" is "the manipulative use of a frame" per the author, whereas "propaganda" is "an attempt to get the public to adopt a frame that is not true and is known not to be true, for the purpose of gaining or maintaining political control." "The reframing I am suggesting is neither spin or propaganda."
* An interesting passage here on certain nuances of slippery slope initiatives:
"What is a strategic initiative, and how is it different from regular policy making? There are two kinds of strategic initiatives: the first is what I'll call a slippery slope initiative. The idea of a slippery slope initiative is to take a first step that seems fairly straightforward, but gets into the public eye and additional frame that you want to be there. The idea is that once the first step is taken, then it is easier and often inevitable to take the next step and then the next step and then the next step." By contrast, a strategic initiative would be something like tax cuts which have wide effects across many areas: driving cuts in spending because there's not enough money for all the things you want to do in the government, also (per the author's ideology) you get to reward the rich! Tort reform, per the author, would be another example of a strategic initiative. [I guess you'd think of the strategic initiatives in terms of both desired first- and second-order impacts/effects.]
* The FAQ on "tax relief" is an amusing example of terrible framing:
"Isn't tax relief the natural way to talk about taxes? I'm a progressive, but I have to admit, they do seem burdensome sometimes. Homework in school is burdensome too, but you have to do it if you're going to learn anything." [Homework? Once again, our intrepid author is clearly an observer of framing, but not too much of a creator of framing.]
Chapter 10: How to Respond to Conservatives
* This chapter is weak and patronizing: I think a reader who's willing to pick up a book on framing wouldn't need to be told to "show respect," "avoid shouting matches" and "remain calm."
* On "biconceptuals": those who use both the (oft-repeated) nurturant model as well as the strict parent model, but in different parts of their life.
* "Once your frame is accepted into the discourse, everything you say is just common sense.".
* "Never answer a question framed from your opponent's point of view. Always reframe the question to fit your values and your frames."
* Here's a sophisticated example of reframing the abortion issue by bringing up the wedge issue of whether we should make abortions available to female American soldiers who are sexually assaulted. It sets an inescapable rhetorical trap: either 1) you hate our women soldiers or 2) you sanction abortion.