Digby has the right idea about FRAMING, and why Lackoff's frames suck

I pieced this together from two different posts of his. But I think he has the right idea. Note: Lackoff has the right idea, but his ideas for re-frames are DOA.

"Along with Mark Schmitt, I'm not a big fan of Lakoff's new book. As I've written many times, I think his analysis of the art and science of framing is right on the money, but I think his actual frames are just terrible. He's an idea man, not a political strategist. I'll repeat what I've said before. The mere fact that he frames the Democrats as "nurturant parents (mommies)" disqualifies him from political action. That frame is exactly what's killing us. It may be sexism or it may just be the times in which we live, but we should drop it like a hot potato."

snip

"In response to my post on framing below, reader Sara pointed me to Eliot Spitzer's speech at the National Press Club yesterday for a great example of re-framing the Democratic argument, and it is a really good one.

I urge you to listen to the whole thing because Spitzer is such a great example of the "fighting liberal" we need more of. He points out that the rules of integrity that we all agree and understand must be enforced to keep the system running efficiently can only be done by government. Business cannot be relied upon to self-regulate because those who reject the practices of their competitors is almost always at a disadvantage. It's a race to the bottom in which each enterprise excuses its behavior by saying it is not quite as bad as the other guy.

(I was struck at how this frames the issue of "the market" in terms that recognize Democrats as the "enforcers of the rules" while casting the Republican business elite as the out of control party boys who can't be relied upon to police their own behavior. As I was listening I had a picture of a kid saying that they'd love to join in the binge drinking and drag racing fun, but their father is a tough cop and they'd better not. Strict father gives the kids a way to avoid peer pressure.) "

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

I think it's also important to realize that sometimes we need to reframe and sometimes we have to take back the words. For example, Lackoff says to reframe tort reform by calling trial lawyers 'public interest lawyers.' I think that is a crappy nanny-state type of frame. Instead we just need to take back the word trial - which is a great process that was set up by our founders whereby ordinary citizens make important decisions of fact in legal cases. The trial is FUNDAMENTALLY AMERICAN AND DEMOCRATIC. See that's how it's done.