"The regressive policies of conservatives will harm everybody."

"Progressives are the only group offering real solutions to move America forward."

This is an example of a frame that affects the majority of the electorate in a way that is positive for Progressives in politics.

Discuss.

Who is bringing the policies to the fore?

Where can we find these policies of which you speak?

Why don't I see the policies on the teevee?

If your policies are so good, why did you lose the election?

We did not contiunously frame ourselves as the progressives, thus anybody opposing us are REGRESSIVE.

We never associated regressive thought patterns with an affliction that "harms"

We never associated Progressive thought patterns with moving America Forward.

Basically, the frame I presented in the original post was never presented in the past election. You understand the meaning of the frame because you understand Progressive thought. Joe Sixpack still looks at us as gun grabbing do-gooders who want to giver big government handouts, not as Progressive thinkers fighting regressive policies in order to move us all forward and stop the harm.

Get it now?

Read Don't Think of an Elephant by George Lakoff.

...and I yearn for specifics.

OK. I will get the book. And I do understand the concept that you present, what you call a frame (I got a lot to learn about the process I guess). But, these generalities can be easily batted away by individual Reds that you run across. I do recognize the importance of establishing the concept in a general sense amongst the populace. I understand the importance of getting it into the national discussion.

How?

Franken?

The media will laugh at it. We have seen how effective targeted derision can be when used by hate mongers to counter a truthful observation of how a thing is wrong.

How do we get the attention of the nation and counter the noise machine?




"I remember better days and better leadership"

John Kerry expressed a lto of what I did in my frame, only he did it in way that never connected with the core values of America. Instead he gave an intellectual argument packaged as marketing that assumed once the truth was known, people would get in line.

This is a bullshit approach because any truth that is in direct conflict with the established values of an individual is dismissed out of hand. This is not stupidity, this is directly related to how the human brain is hard wired.

Thus, framing the language of the statements in a way similar to how I did it wins because it strikes at core values held by all.

We get this out with properly worded pithy LTTE. We write to the talking heads to get the appropriate language to be used.

And number one, we bitch at any Democratic talking head that falls into the trap of using the same frames the Republicans have developed when fighting against those principles. The Frames are designed to strike the audience at their core values and thus become "good" To fight against those frames is a losing battle before it is engaged because you are automatically "bad" when you do it.

Look at the thread on werenotsorry.com. There is a picture of the corps of cadets for the texas Aggies saying the good guys won. Yes, the good guys were Bush and Company because they framed the debate aimed directly at core values held by most Americans, thus Kerry was a bad guy right from the beginning because he opposed those good values.

We've got to stop wringng our hands and whining. Get the book, it will be an epiphany for you!

Thanks!

In psychology, to progress means to become more mature emotionally; to regress means to become more emotionally immature.
Progressive implies emotional adulthood; regressive connotes that the person in question is still a small child on an emotional level.

"I think a large part of the public likes the conservatives' theme music. Now they will be tested on whether they like the lyrics." -- Barney Frank

Morford: We are All Dubya's doormat
snip

The truth will soon be hitting much of the conservative nation like a
redneck smacks a dog: Now that the fear-saturated red states have
handed this failed oilman four more unrestrained years to do his
dirtiest deeds and a deeply contaminated, well-greased Congress to do
it with, he no longer needs their support and he couldn't care less
about their "moral values" or their positions on Social Security reform
or the war in Iraq or just what the hell he meant about spending the
"political capital" he claims he's earned by winning the election by
the slimmest margin of any incumbent president in history ....


(click this URL to read the rest)
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2004/11/10/notes111004.DTL&nl=fix
-

conservatism. I believe, like anything this has to run its course. At some point in time, the lies these people fall for will not mirror the realities of their lives. Some will buy into more lies and others will turn off from them.

The bad part is that things have to get much worse before they can get better. What we try to do in the elections is to tell people ahead of time what the consequences of the rights actions will be. But like little kids, they have to touch the hot stove before they understand what getting burned is.

I could be that Bush over reaches very early in these next four years and the hurting won't take too long. It will take us a much longer period of time to fix the messes he is making.

If I were honest with myself I would like to see all of Bush's policies fail and fail soon. That means I hope we lose the war in Iraq. I hope the oil cartel starts to trade in Euros. I hope China and Japan stop loaning us money. I hope the deficit gets so bad that people lose any and all things they rely on the government for. Only then will they get the message.

change to come, but do not share your "hope" that our soldiers suffer and die in defeat, that our financial infrastructure colapses, and that America itself crumbles. Hope for people to open their eyes, hope that people will understand the consequence of their actions, but don't hope that the downfall of America is the only way to get it.

I have a few comments about perceptions and directions.

"I agree and that is the one thing that will turn people off from
conservatism. I believe, like anything this has to run its course."

We don't have time to let "conservatism" or whatever it is run it's course. We have to change the course. We must become the Army Corps of Engineers and contain and direct the course of this dangerous flood. We need tools and intelligence to plan, and numbers to labor.

"The bad part is that things have to get much worse before they can get better." We know that it will. But, what are you willing to sacrifice? Civil rights? Abortion? Alaska? Your child? Time is our enemy here.

"I could be that Bush over reaches very early in these next four years..." Everytime George overreaches, the media holds a scarf over his hands and says "nothing to see here, move along". In lock step, the army of AM radio repeats the meme "move along" with an implied "commie fag" at the end. The media must be dealt with or we will lose no matter how truthful our message.

"If I were honest with myself I would like to see all of Bush's policies fail and fail soon." Consider policies like ballons filled with money. When * policies fail, the baloom bursts and money rains out. Foreign governments are too smart NOT to place themselves in positions to gather that money for themselves. The world shall hapilly feed on the failure of our nation for decades. We are not only fighting *world, we gotta hold off the world. That is why creating strtegic aliances with world leaders is vital in the transformation of the Democratic Party into the Democratic Opposition Party. So, we as individuals must not only organized and focus our energies and visions, but we must tighten our relationships with our party representatives and help them (force them) to develop a stegic long-term view domestically and internationally.

I'm a dumbass. How do we do this?

....and call them what they truly are, "regressives." To be a conservative is means one wishes to conserve the present, not go back wards. These repubs want to go back to the 60's, but sadly not the 1960s but the 1660s.

the late 1800s. This era was brought forth by Norquist.

The 1300s. The time before the renaisance, when all science, learning, law and culture was controlled by the church.

http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com/
sample
What I have learned, after years of believing in the DLC experiment, is
that this problem isn't a matter of compromising on issues. The issues
are weapons and each time we capitulate they pull another one out of
their sleeve. I no longer believe it is really about these issues, it's
about something else.
...........
With the help of Ross Perot, we managed to elect what would have been a
moderate Republican not 15 years earlier. And the Republicans went mad.
They immediately started moving the goalposts. It did not matter how
far to the right Bill Clinton moved they moved farther. There was no
meeting in the middle on common ground. They would not allow there to
be any common ground.

We are beginning to look like Charlie Brown with the football. We need
to recognise what these people really want from us.
>>>>>
The fundamental problem is that the super Christians won't compromise
on principle and the rest of these "values voters" are hypocrites.
Nobody bought the v-chip in red state America or anywhere else. They
don't want to take responsibility for what comes into their TV's, they
want to hector people for "forcing" them to watch these horrible things
while they pass the popcorn

about what I'm as in the dark as you. As you point out, Democrats have become what Republicans used to be and they still call us liberal--and then, only because they are so far on the right they can't see past the middle and stupidly decide its the left. And in a stranger twist, the Domionists make the neo-cons look moderate. The press has already labeled Ashcrofts replacement, Gonzalez, a moderate--for Christ sakes he's the guy who endorsed dumping the Geneva conventions and torturing prisoners.

They're regressive policies. Don't bring conservatism into it because that word already has connotations. Lots of people consider themselves conservatives, but not necessarily regressive.

Out with the old word. In with the new word.

I like "progressive" and "regressive." They totally reframe it, and you're right to propose them.

I merely want to start associating conservative thought with regressionism. Perhaps at a later date.

No! I'm not trying the stop this, I'm trying to learn!

Establishing the "regressive" meme is a good idea. It is a very idea right now. Why? Because the right is trying to say that we Libs are running from the term "Liberal" by using the term "prograssive". You've heard them do it. "Why do you call yourselves progressive blah blah blah". Even (or of course) the media is doing it.

We are progressives because they are REGRESSIVES. Suddenly, the converstion changes, and we are given the opportunity to explain what we mean.

Is this your point?

We have to associate the terms, and this has been the failing of using the term "Progressive".

As an inveterate LTTE writer, I plan on incorporating it into each and every message.

WE must change the conversation by changing the demension upon which the discusion takes place. We are progressives, they are regressives. What the hell is a liberal anyway? One who wishes to take liberty? If that is so then I guess I am a liberal as well as a progressive.

I'm taking that word w/me & using it w/all I meet. Small start, but it fits & it's at least something I can do - repeatedly - all the time & everywhere! It is simple (like their bumper stickers, you know how they love them sound bites!). Yeah, it's small, simple, & it fits. Good one.

We need to label the opposition in a negative fashion at the same time we press our own agenda - something we haven't done at all. You're exactly right on.

:kick:

regressive is exactly the right word & I believe it has exactly the connotation we are looking for to frame the message.

Regressive tax cuts benefit the wealthy & put the burden on our children.

Regressive health care plans benefit pharmaceutical companies and hurt our grandparents and children.

Regressive plans for Social Security benefit Wall Street and jeopardize our parents and grandparents.

:kick:

CONSERVATIVE (adj.)
1. tending to resist or oppose change.
syn. = die-hard, fogyish, old-line, orthodox, reactionary, right, tory, traditionalistic

con. = modern, progressive, radical
ant. = advanced

2. kept or keeping within bounds.
syn. = controlled, discrete, moderate, reasonable, restrained, temperate, unexcessive, unextreme
rel. = cautious, chary, wary, circumspect, polite, proper, prudent

con. = expansive, unconstrained, excessive, freewheeling, uncontrolled, unrestrained

CONSERVATIVE (n.): see Die-Hard
DIE-HARD (n)
1. an irreconcilable opponent of change.
syn. = bitter ender, conservative, fundamentalist, old liner, praetorian, pullback, right, rightist, right wing, right-winger, stand-pat, stand-patter, tory; (compare REACTIONARY)
rel. = mossback, old fogy, stick-in-the-mud, intransigent, true blue, right-center

con. = liberal, progressive, radical

2. syn. see REACTIONARY

*********************
LIBERAL (adj.)
1. marked by generosity and openhandedness
syn. = bounteous, bountiful, free, freehanded, generous, handsome, munificent, openhanded, unsparing
rel. = exuberant, lavish, prodigal, profuse, benevolent, charitable, eleemosynary, philanthropic

con. = closefisted, miserly, niggardly, parsimonious, penurious, stingy, tight, tightfisted, meager, scanty
ant. = close

2. (syn. See PLENTIFUL)

3. not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms.
syn. = advanced, broad, broad-minded, progressive, radical, tolerant, wide
rel. = forbearing, indulgent, lenient

con. = rigid, rigorous, strict, stringent, dictatorial, doctrinaire, dogmatic, oracular, conservative, reactionary
ant. = authoritarian

as i sit here in massive pain just starting period, fuck you, i say to him. right now a tad bitchy listening to some man tell me about my body

They have been successful in selling the "art of illusion" with Orwellian language, we must change this across the spectrum. I think the progressive movement could achieve this goal in time, although I wonder if the DLC will be on the same page.

Let's promote this, get the word out to Democratic leaders, progressives and other websites that can help us. Great job, Walt, for staying on message, I agree with you and hope we can spread this like wildfire.

We could start by contacting the progressive talk radio by encouraging them to promote the book first. Write LTTE once we have reframed our wording. We can easily focus on changing the meaning of values, compassion, etc. There are many focus groups we can target once we have mastered the language.

It is concrete and relatively easy way that goes along with the regressive frame. Please PM me if interested.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We are returning the language back to the roots of basic American values.

The Clean Air bill dirties the air.

The No Child Left Behind act leaves every child behind.

It's YOUR folks who have been the regressives. I suggest YOU look in the mirror because you are just another one ofthe REGRESSIVES!

is being waged by unelected Fascist Terrorist evil-doers.