Framing, the ultimate mind-weapon or the end of discourse?

Hephaistos (and others),

Yesterday this thread was burning out so I didn't reply when you posted your last message. But it was a good post and deserves a response. It's at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2669592#2671950

Also, I re-read several of the posts in that thread and I now offer a revised perspective.

I'm not simply trying to discredit framing as a tool for our side. I've been encouraging Dems to understand and use this tool for some time now. Lately though, I've pulled back a bit to look at the larger picture - and I don't think it's pretty.

I fully appreciate the power of framing - and the power of marketing, which is what framing is. It is causing the listener to attach your product to good feelings - and your opponent's product to negative feelings. The stronger the emotions that you can attach to a product, the more effective the framing, either negative or positive.

It is a mind-weapon. Like a nuclear bomb, you can't offer a little bit of framing as a defense against a powerful frameset coming from the other side. When you frame, your's has to be more powerful - or you don't just lose the skirmish, you lose followers. A successful frame becomes part of one's worldview. No-one likes to have their worldview discredited.

Newt Gingrich brought this mind-weapon in from product marketing and applied it to politics. He kicked it into high gear back in the early nineties with his list of emotionally charged negative words to attach to liberals and our policies - and the good words for his side and their polices. After just a few months of that, Americans were ready to turn the House over to the Republicans where it has remained ever since. The candidates that were elected using this technique are a particularly unsavory bunch. They gleefully impeached one of the brightest and best Democratic presidents of the twentieth century - someone whose policies did a lot of good for average Americans.

I am suggesting that a world where both sides use framing to it's fullest extent, whose power hasn't even been fully developed yet, will be very bad for democracy in the long run - and especially bad for Democrats.

(Notice, I said suggesting. I'm only asking you to consider this possibility while suspending your emotional need to crush the opposition - something that we share.)

It will be bad for democracy because citizens will have two choices: they can become completely cynical about the political process and totally tune it all out - or they can become an extreme partisan, hating every person and every policy that the other side is remotely associated with. (I think we are about 60% there already.)

You are looking at levels of divisiveness and hatred not imagined yet - or, total mistrust and disengagement from the process. Is that who we want to be voting for our leaders and polices in this country?

After a dozen years of this treatment, almost totally coming from the right and aimed at the left, you can see the result. Americans are more divided than we have ever been in most of our history. With both sides fully armed with this potent "mind weapon" our political process will become much worse than it already is, if that's possible. It could well end in armed conflict before too long.

The worse part is that this election has shown that millions of Americans whose thinking processes have been successfully "framed" are obviously willing to suspend their ability to reason and completely follow emotion regarding their votes. They are willing to gladly vote against their own interest. That's what marketing is. That's it's purpose; to make people do things they wouldn't do otherwise, if they took the time to think about it.

A salesperson learns to "sell the sizzle". Facts and reason will kill the sale, every time. But democracy only works when most voters understand intellectually where their interests lie and vote for them. Framing makes politicians into consummate salesmen. It places voters' interests in a completely emotional context. It removes the possibility of the educated voter.

It will be particularly bad for democrats because liberal politics is by definition, intellectually based. Liberalism depends on people approaching problems of governance with an open, non-ideological mindset - both voters and politicians. Conservatism does not. It thrives on the emotional certainty that they are right and moral we are wrong and deserving of their contempt and hatred. Framing is a conservative weapon. If we embrace it and use it fully - in that sense we are no longer liberals.

I suspect that many liberal voters, especially women, would resist the use of framing by our side if we fully committed to it. And we can't commit to it just a little bit. It's a fierce weapon that both sides will have. Either we destroy them with it or they destroy us. Once both sides start firing, many liberals would simply decide that politics has become too vicious and hateful and would join the disengaged in very large numbers. I think we are already seeing this.

I believe that those on the right would not be similarly affected. I fear that people with a conservative psychological mindset would be more likely to decide that politics was finally arousing their interest as much as Monday night football. I believe that when Democrats embrace this weapon it would not bring Republicans to our side, it would only enrage them against us further - and it would turn many liberals off to the whole process. I believe this election provides a good indication of what's in the future for us in a world where framing has been fully adopted by both sides.

By fully embracing framing, we could be ensuring a decades-long victory for our enemies. I believe that by taking up this weapon and using it to the fullest extent we will not only lose on the numbers, we could be driving the final nail into our democratic process.

You say we have to use this technique to beat them, or capitulate. I don't think we can beat them at this game. And I'm not sure we'd have a system worth defending any more if we did.

You see Americans being offered the choice of two competing framesets - liberal and conservative. I say people don't choose the frames they look through at the world. They don't choose their worldview. They are psychologically inclined toward one or the other. In times of fear, the conservative mindset will offer the greatest relief from fear - the strongest feelings of security. Wherever people are on the liberal/conservative bell curve, when seriously threatened, they will shift to the right.

For that reason, 9/11 was an immense gift for them. Now in power, there's no way they will end this war against "evil". Their political lives totally depend on its existence. With this war they have the opportunity to create a permanent shift toward the conservative mindset - a permanent acceptance of their frames and a rejection of ours.

As I said before, this may be a problem without a solution. I'm sure Gingrich knew that when he put this powerful weapon into practice. He knew we'd catch on eventually and that when we did, there would be nothing we could do about it. He knew we'd have to start using it in defense and that we could never use it as effectively as his side could. I'm sure he knew in 1990 that he had a weapon that would ensure ultimate victory for his side.

Perhaps, our only chance is to let them create the havoc and chaos that their "government-by-ideology" is already producing. Then, voters' emotions, even Republican voters emotions', will turn against them. That's how reformations die out. They are never defeated by the forces of enlightenment in a war between good and evil - as Tolkien imagined. After enough casualties have been consumed by the fire people get tired of the constant conflict. Their wars of reformation just die out. And then, the forces of enlightenment, those who are still alive, are allowed to come out and clean up the mess and bury the dead.

I'm not at all certain about this. I'm just asking the question. But I wonder if us taking up the framing weapon and fully using it will only create more casualties on our side and damage to our democracy in the long run.

I wonder if the path that will get us through this as soon as possible with the least damage - would be to help them burn out as quickly as possible.

I'd really like to see someone here offer an argument that would convince me otherwise.

McGhee

It's a dirty job but we need to do it better than we are doing it now. It need not be deceptive.

However, I kind of think it needs to be done...

The situation is like Harry Truman faced at the end of WW2. We can contribute to the development and useage of this "mind weapon", or we can gamble on a costly "invasion", trying to reach through to the people who have been mind-bombed with every day interaction and facts.

Of course, this weapon is already in use, so it's the analogy is hardly perfect.

We need an educated, thinking electorate.

Framing just leads to emotionally charged "reasoning" (if you can call i that). It will lead to divisiveness. Unfortunately, when the Republicans have the nukes, what else are you going to use?

Folks, not every Republican is evil, not all their ideas are inherently evil, even if many Republicans would frame the democrats as "morally depraved" and "evil". Often I see people, even on this forum, blinded by ideology. Everybody needs to learn how to step outside the box and walk around in somebody else's shoes.

. . Unfortunately, when the Republicans have the nukes, what else are you going to use?

I am struck by how similar framing is to a weapons race.

The only sure result is that a lot of people will die.

Thanks for your comment.

to reduce our information processing load. People often need to be highly motivated to attend to information that doesn't jibe with what they aleady believe. People need to have relatively easy access to the non-confirming information, and they need to have the mental ability to make sense of that information. When motivation, access, and ability are high, we can better influence perceptions.

. . always ready to drop into position. Strong emtions is what causes that to happen.

Framing is enlisting and encouraging strong emotions throughout the political process.

That's the dilemma I see.

Recent research has suggested that the experience of negative emotions (but not extreme emotional arousal) can actually enhance the attention process and reduce the degree of selective attention. For example, now that we are two weeks out from the election, we Dems and liberals may be more likely to notice and consider views that we don't agree with. Immediately after the election, when most of us were in a highly negative emotional state, we were more likely to fall back on our own mental models of reasons for political success and failure.

This is all good stuff we are discussing here but I have to get these papers graded. Talk to you later.

. . hope to hear from you again on this.

but it just ain't gunna happen, at least not for a while.

The term "American sheeple" is still in the popular vernacular cuz its true.

Framing only serves to draw them in to your point of view. Issues properly framed issues need not be deceptive.

The fact is, we (mostly) have truth on side. Framing the truth is not at all a bad thing.

Sometimes we need to look at the facts instead of ideology. Framing encourages ideological thinking and leads to doing stupid things. Look at those folks who vote Republican and listen to Limbaught, all because of ideology. Liberals can fall into the same trap sometimes.

. . problems come in all shapes and flavors. Most require an intelligent combination of both liberal and conservative worldviews to arrive at the optimum solution.

Framing is the effort by each side to cancel all contribution from the other side - throwing away half of all possible solutions with merit.

But what Viking12 says below may be true. Perhaps, we're not in Kansas anymore. Maybe that's why wars start. There's no way to avoid them. People get to the place where they'd rather destroy their own world if that's what it takes to destroy the other side.

and Progressives will continue to lose. Putting our values forward in the best possible light is absolutely necessary. There will be no cease fire agreement with the Reich concerning framing. This is about Power and Money to them.

What reasons do you have that support your belief that it will be successful. Or, does it just fit well with your worldview - that because they have attacked us you'll feel better when we're engaged in mortal combat with them.

That worldview is what causes all wars.

The prime difference being the Eye of Rove spun as much as they framed. On the other side, i.e. the losing side, we have Kerry campaign which shovelled out contradictions by the thousands to Bush's claims and yet they seemed to have gained popular support.

You seem to confuse deception, spin, dishonesty, unwitting manipulation, etc., with framing. Lakoff makes very clear that framing without substance is not what he's advocating. We absolutely must stand for the values expressed by the new language. But no question, the language must evolve.

cognitive scientists believe this is simply how we think. I know it can sound pretty deceptive, but we're trying to get the truth of our message and our ideas out there, not make anyone think we mean one thing when we mean another.

For example, *'s "Healthy Forests Initiative" is about allowing the clear-cutting of forests that most of us hold dear. I don't think too many people would call a forest that's been clear-cut a forest at all, let alone a healthy one. Yet, that is what the initiative is called. That's deceptive. That's not what I'm talking about doing when I talk about trying to reframe some of our issues.

All language use is framing. Read Kenneth Burke. Your argument against "framing" is simply an argument to re-frame politcal discourse. IMHO you are arguing for a frame that is ineffective in contemporary politics. Your focus is misplaced, your emphasisis is on the symptoms rather the root causes. If we are to frame political discourse to appeal to the "educated voter", we need to educate the voters.

I am trying to analyse the nature and effects of framing - in an intellectual, non-ideological way. Obviously, I have offended your ideology.

All language is not framing. The more discourse is used analytically rather than emotionally, the further it gets from framing - and the closer it gets to rational discourse.

IMHO educating voters means helping them to understand the importance of removing emotion from discourse as far as possible - so that we can come up with the best possible solutions to problems.

However, I believe it is OK to be somewhat emotional about that belief. I also believe that it is good to be emotional about the freedoms that are embodied in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It's OK to get emotional when they are threatened.

But that emotion should be channeled to energize us to defend those ideals. One of those ideals is the use of reason rather than strong ideology as a tool for governance. Framing attacks those ideals.

Much of the religious right movement is overtly anti-intellectual in nature.

Framing is anti-intellectual. By embracing it we are opposing that which makes liberalism better than the other side.

Again - I'm just offering another view. I could be wrong. Show me how.

You said, "I'm just offering another view" = framing. Your preference for "rational discourse" is just a frame in which you'd like discourse to occur. I tend to agree with that preference. "Rationality" is an emotion. You are not asking that we move away from emotional discourse, rather that we change the emotion. Again, I tend to agree with that preference. However, as I stated in my previous post, cultural and educational conditions are not conducive for such a frame.

As I pointed out yesterday, you are repeating DesCarte's error that there is a mind/body binary where such a binary doesn't exist.

. . you are using semantics to avoid my premise.

In my first post I said that framing is attaching strong emotions to your position.

Rational discourse requires the opposite, judiciously removing strong emotions from your position. When one side violates that rule you no longer have rational discourse.

Framing and rational discourse are opposites. By combining them as just different versions of framing, as you say, that allows an "anything goes" approach to government and political discourse.

That's the danger I am trying to describe. I am not trying to win an argument with you.

See if you can refute my position by first accepting the inherent differences between framing and reason - whatever words you use to label them.

Thanks

"Framing and rational discourse are opposites." They are not. Uncritical and critical thniking are the opposites to which you are referring.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with your preferred frame for political discourse. I am disagreeing with the political possibilites for that frame of discourse; in the age of marketing and soundbites critical thinking on political issues is a lost virtue. In the long-term strategic effort to develop critical thinking as the preferred mode of discourse, we can't overlook the tactical necessity to employ the style of discourse you find so abhorrent. We can't win the game if we don't score some points. It's a Faustian bargain, indeed, but it's a deal we've got to make.

Let me digest that for a while. You could be right.

A list, even short, of, say, 3 completely un-framed central issues and which would be at the core of the democratic/liberal perspective. What would come out without any effort at making it pallatable to the market.

I'll start.

Democrats/liberals think that government must be strong in order to defend the interest of the largest number against private interests.

List away and re-frame away. Without lying, of course.

And don't take that the wrong way, some people say he's a genius. But he looks at the world the same way you do, saying things like when people are afraid they will vote republican...

Don't you think people were afraid in the 1930's???? Things were a lot worse back then, and it was a democrat standing up to say "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" that helped frame the problems for people, get them to realize if they worked togethor they could ALL win. There's no reason why the right should "own" scary times. Unless we let them.

Also, this sentence is just flat out wrong: It (framing) will be particularly bad for democrats because liberal politics is by definition, intellectually based.

There's no truth to that. Yes, some of us are smarter than some of them, and many people with high IQ's and advanced degrees vote democrat, but it's just flat out wrong to assume that there is something inherently "intellectual" about being left on issues. That's just pride talking. The republican party would not have survived and been successful if it was just empty slogans, their side has spent thirty years developing their "intellectual" case, and while we may think it's wrong, it's not stupid. (there is a difference between being wrong and stupid, you know)

Finally, I see in your "end game" analysis that you have already given up!!! You say if we adopt framing, we'll just end up at war with the right. But if we don't adopt it, we'll continue to get steamrolled, right?? In other words, heads they win, tails we lose. That's wrong.

We HAVE to fight back with the same tools they are using. Period.

This can be used for good or evil.

We must be smarter about using 'persuasion technology' to educate people and undo the propaganda for evil purposes that has 'framed' so many brains to accept atrocity as virtue.