Colorado Capital Update: Stopping a Trainwreck.

Framing: Political thinkers are beginning to feel that in recent years the Republicans have done a better job with their framing language than the Democrats, and that it is not just an amusing sideline to their success but is actually integral.

We have criticized the cynical attitude encapsulated in the Bush administration's 'No Child Left Behind' program, because its under-funded mandate actually leaves most children behind, how the "Healthy Forest Initiative" allows clear-cutting of forests, how the "Help America Vote Act" makes it harder to vote, and the "Clear Skies Initiative" allows for more air pollution. Yet I am not sure we realize the importance of the approach.

George Lakoff, a California professor, has written a number of books cautioning us to take our language more seriously, and I am starting to think about how language affects the largest issue currently facing Colorado. This is TABOR (purportedly a "Tax Payers Bill of Rights") and it is my ambition to make this the last sentence in which I use that acronym. When we call it TABOR we are buying Doug Bruce's frame, and that frame tells us that TABOR is a list of "Rights" like the first ten Amendments to the United States Constitution.

These Amendments have an overwhelmingly positive place in American history and political philosophy. Those of us who think TABOR is a disaster for Colorado need to root it out of our language. Lakoff argues that even if you are criticizing something, if you use the language of the opposition's frame, you are actually supporting the concept.

I have started calling the offending provision the Budget Amendment, or sometimes "The Revenue Neutral Restrictive Constitutional Knot." This forms the acronym "TRNRCK", or "TRAIN WRECK."

I am not joking. In recent polling we found that the best argument for changing "Train Wreck" is "investing some money now in education or youth programs will save significant resources later."

If you try, you will find that many times when you use the word "taxes" you can use the word "investment" instead. For instance, "We need to increase our investment in health care and education if we want Colorado to prosper and achieve excellence in the future."

Cary Kennedy has cautioned those of us at the Capitol about using the word "surplus" to describe the money that goes back to taxpayers (investors?) because of "Train Wreck." The term "surplus" implies that this is money that is left over after we have covered our needs. But in Colorado, because of the "Train Wreck" ratchet, the money that we refund is money that we actually need to just keep up with the same level of services that government (lets change that to "our community") provides.

The frustrating thing about being a Democrat in recent years is that we feel that most people share our values but somehow still vote Republican. Much of the Republican framing appears to be little short of fraud, and yet it seems to work.

I am not proposing that we do the same thing. I am actually proposing that we do the opposite: honest framing. Harry Truman said, "If the Republicans lie about me, I'll tell the truth about them" and "The Republicans think I am giving them Hell, but I just tell the truth and they think it is Hell." (I am reciting quotes from memory. I know some of my readers, Bob Ewegen for instance, will correct me if I am wrong.)

In order to make our use of language more effective, we have to pay attention to our word choice and then be disciplined in our consistent use of the language.

The biggest part of our agenda at the Capitol now is to change "Train Wreck." There are many Republicans who agree that it is an irrational budget restriction and we are hoping that the proposed change will be bi-partisan. The proposal that I favor is one that was suggested by Andrew Romanoff. If we pass this proposal Colorado will still be one of the lowest taxed states with one of the strictest spending limitations. No one is considering removing the provision that allows "investors-taxpayers" to vote on tax (investment) increases. "Train Wreck" refers to the effect of the ratchet and spending limitations.

I am in favor of changing "Train Wreck," but a change to that Constitutional provision does not equate to reckless spending. It equates to a prudent investment policy.

Even if you are a businessman with no social conscience (Most of our business community does have a social conscience; I am just trying to make a point), you would want the state to provide excellent education, transportation and health care to its citizens. It improves the business environment and it only makes common sense.

In order to head off some of the comments I expect, let me say that almost all of the Republicans I work with in the Colorado Legislature are honest and also concerned with solving Colorado's problems. The framing distortions that I mentioned above are not coming from Colorado.

I will write again when a proposal is actually written into a bill. We are discussing proposals with the Governor (Andrew and Peter Groff had a long conversation with him on Friday) and hope that we can reach an agreement, but I have to say we start from very different places, so it may not be possible.

We are also planning to have George Lakoff come to Colorado in February or March to talk to us about framing. If it is possible we will arrange a speech at a large venue that you will be able to attend. Details will follow.

I hope you are well. As always do not hesitate to reply to this email with comments and feel free to forward it to people who you think may be interested in what we do at the Capitol. If you do reply with comments, try to make them brief. I have gotten more popular lately and the number of people who write has increased.



Sincerely,

Ken Gordon

Colorado Senate Majority Leader

:yourock:

Senator,

Great post. I wish we had more like you in Michigan. I would like to copy your post and post it in a yahoo group that has been discussing Lakoff. Is that OK? I will give you full credit.

Doug