The "Framing" of Democrats & Liberals, Republicans & Conservatives

Forgive me if I keep referring back to George Lakoff and framing but I can't help it.  I see so much of it in our everyday world.  In this post, I'd like to delve deeper into Lakoff's theories of "framing" and bring it from an American context into a Canadian context with some concrete examples.

Lakoff asserts that a series of words creates a frame.  We don't see words.  We see a mental "frame" as in mental "picture frame".  For example, we don't see the sentence " ...the cow jumped over the moon..." as a series of words.  We don't see "...... the .....cow ......... jumped ......... over ........the ...... moon".  

Instead, we see it as a mental  "frame" that resides deep in our subconscious. Certain words or events will trigger that frame and bring it from the subconscious into the conscious

Now, I've used a very simple and simplistic example to illustrate the concept of framing.  Framing goes much deeper than that.  As Lakoff himself says: 

"Framing is not primarily about politics or political messaging or communication.  It is far more fundamental than that.  Frames are mental structures that allow human beings to understand reality - and sometimes to create what we take to be reality.  But frames do have an enormous bearing on politics.  They structure our ideas and concepts.  They shape the way we reason....... For the most part, our use of frames is unconscious and automatic."

Wow!

For the most part, framing is unconscious and automatic - something we don't think about but we do it.  This concept is so important that I've bolded and underlined it.  

We're going to use some simple examples to illustrate the various aspects of "framing" in the political environment - both in the American and Canadian context.   

Continuing with his theories on framing and political parties, Lakoff provides a "frame" of what a Democrat "looks like" and what a Republican "looks like".  To which I add Liberals (or any other "progressive") and Conservatives.  Lakoff uses the frame of "the nurturing parent" and the "disciplining father" to make his point. 

The "Progressive", The Democrat, and The Liberal
For Lakoff, the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family.  Briefly, it assumes that 

• the ideals are empathy, interdependence, co-operation, communication
• the world is basically good and can be made better.  
• one must work towards improving that good.  
• children are born good
• it's the role of parents to make them better in a nurturing environment.  
• nurturing involves empathy. 
• we have a responsibility to take care of ourselves and others for whom we are responsible.  

The "Conservative", The Republican and The Conservative
The conservative worldview, ....the strict father model,...  assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father

• is the ultimate moral authority
• he's the one who knows right from wrong
• he supports and defends the family,
• tells his wife what to do,
• kids are born bad and thus he has to teach his kids right from wrong and
• the only way to teach right from wrong is through painful discipline - physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline.
• the good people are the disciplined people
• because he knows right from wrong, his authority is deserved. 

Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.

If we project these two models - the nurturing parent and the strict father - onto a nation, we can see the differences between conservative "right-wing" and progressive "left-wing" political beliefs. And we can create a "frame" for each political belief.  

The Strict Father (The "Conservative") In National Identity
On the conservative right wing, the good citizens are:

• the disciplined ones who have become wealthy, or at least self-reliant, and those who are on the way.  
• wealth is a measure of discipline.  
• social programs "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and which keep them dependent.  
• government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business.   
• in this way, disciplined people become self-reliant.  
• taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government takes the hard-earned money from the people who have earned it and gives it to those who have not earned it.
  

Think about Stephen Harper's "Tough On Crime" legislation and you see exactly what I mean.  Think about Harper's $5 billion "investment" in prisons (in spite of  declining crime rates) and you see what I mean.  Think about Harper's EI premium cuts for small business and you see what I mean.

Now you know where it all comes from. 

The Nurturing Parent (The "Progessive") In National Identity 
Conversely left-wing progressives feel that they have a moral responsibility to enact policies which provide protection in the form of:

• our democracy is based upon empathy - citizens caring for other citizens.  
• working through our governments to provide public resources for all so that we all can lead decent and productive lives.  
• we provide social safety nets and regulation so as to protect the weak and provide level playing fields, 
• universal education ensures that we have competence, fairness, and equality, 
• civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), 
• accountability (derived from trust), 
• public service (from responsibility), 
• open government (from open communication), and 
• the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values (equality), 

...... which are traditional progressive values in American and Canadian politics.

Given these basic premises, how is it that the conservatives (Republicans in the US and Conservatives in Canada) have been able to romp all over the progressives (Democrats in the US and Liberals in Canada)?  

Negating The Frame Activates The Frame
Lakoff again provides the answers in his book "Don't Think of an Elephant!"  The title tried to make the point that negating a frame activates that frame.  As an example, Lakoff uses Richard Nixon's "Chequers Speech" to illustrate this phenomenon.  

Back in 1952 when Nixon was running as Dwight D. Eisenhower's Vice-Presidential running mate, Nixon was being accused of being a thief with respect to campaign funding.  The media began to repeat this accusation to the extent that the frame of "Nixon's a thief" was being reinforced.  So what did Nixon do to try and get rid of that frame of "thief"?  On September 23rd, 1952, he went on US national television and and said that he wasn't a thief.  The impact?  While Nixon's speech was a success and he became Vice President, it came back to haunt him when he ran for President against Jack Kennedy in 1960.  Nixon's original 1952 denial only served to reinforce the 1960 frame of "Nixon's a thief".  The framing went like this ....  "If Nixon went on television to deny that he was a thief ...........  then he MUST be a thief. .....  otherwise why would he have gone on television to say that he wasn't a thief, eh!?" 

And it didn't help that, in the first televised debate in American history, when make-up improved a person's appearance on the television screen, Nixon refused makeup so that his one-day-old beard growth showed through and only helped to reinforce the frame.

The moral of the story is ...... if you activate the other side's frame, you just help the other side, as Nixon found out when he said, "I am not a thief," which made people think of him AS a thief."

It's Not The Platform, Dummy!!  It's The "5 Character Factors"!
In 1980, Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan's chief strategist, made a fateful discovery.  In his first poll he discovered that most people didn't like Reagan's position on the issues, but nevertheless wanted to vote for Reagan.  The reason, he figured out, is that voters vote for president not primarily on the issues, but on five other very important factors - the  "character factors": 

1. Values - the heart and core of a person; 
2. Authenticity - does what they say really reflect their values?
3. Communication and connection - a leader touches a heart before they ask for a hand; 
4. Trust - can I trust you??; and 
5. Identity - all of the above that results in an identity where the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts.  Difficult to describe in words but you know if its there or if its not there. More along the lines of a "picture" or a "frame"

The 5 Character Factors - An American Example
In the Reagan-Carter and Reagan-Mondale debates, Mondale and Carter were ahead on the issues but they lost the debates.  Simply because, as Wirthlin discovered, the debates were not about the issues, but about the above five character factors.  

The logic goes like this ...... "Since we don't know what the situation will be like in a couple of years, ....... policies and platforms can change overnight ..........  it's rational to ask if a candidate shares your values, ..... after all, it's highly unlikely that his values will change .......  if he's saying what he believes in (his values), ..... if he connects with you, ...... if you trust him, and ....... if you identify with him ....... (the above 5 character factors) ..........  it's not just a matter of personality ............  it's the rational  and logical thing to do ........"   
 
So, the bottom line is this.  People don't vote on the issues.  They vote on the five factors of the leader that are closest to theirs: 

1. Values - Are they similar to mine?; 
2. Authenticity - does he walk the talk?
3. Communication and connection - is he reaching out to me?; 
4. Trust - can I really trust you??; and 
5. Identity - How close is your identity to mine?  Nurturant parent, or disciplining father?"

The "Framing" of Stephane Dion
The minute that Stephane Dion became the Leader of the Liberal Party in 2008, the Conservatives started creating a "frame" of him.  A kinder, gentler, more sympathetic person you would never meet. A true gentleman.  Thoughtful.  Logical.  Inclusive.  Well educated.  

However, Dion didn't think to create his own "frame" in the minds of Canadians.  He didn't even get the chance.  Instead, Harper's Conservatives created his "frame" for him.  

• The Conservatives labelled Dion as a weak leader (negative framing).  
• Dion denied it and fell into the trap of reinforcing the Conservative frame that Dion was a weak leader.  
• Dion ran on issues (the "Green Shift") instead of values. 
• People thought the "Green Shift" policy was a trick that they didn't understand.  
• And the Conservative ads reinforced this impression 
• which created an identity ..... whether a true one or a false one .... that stuck in the minds of Canadians.  

Stephen Harper's "Frame" - The Success That Backfired
Harper ran on a "steady as she goes, strong hand on the tiller, don't rock the boat" - the 5 factors.  Dion accused Harper of having no policy (issues).   

But who cared?  People don't vote on issues.  They vote on values.  And the polls reflected this.  

Harper's campaign strategy was working right up until the markets tanked in September of 2008 - only weeks before the election!.  "Everything's fine.  Nothing to worry about.  The economic fundamentals are good."  "Economic recession? - what recession?"

Dion was able to portray Harper as a person who didn't have a plan (value = poor leader), who had frittered away the billions of surpluses left by the Liberals (value = spendthrift).  The economy is heading over the cliff!!! (But everything's fine.) (VALUE = RECKLESS!!)  This started to reverse the trend towards a Conservative majority.  

The 30-second Mike Duffy "Son-et-Lumiere" Sound Bite
Right up until the last week of the campaign, it looked as if we were heading for a Liberal majority ...... right up until Mike Duffy repeated-and-repeated-and-repeated-and-repeated that clip of Dion's Halifax interview.  

In case you forget, Dion was in an interview in Halifax with CTV Halifax's Steve Murphy.  Dion was asked a question with mixed verb tenses which Dion didn't understand.  Dion asked Murphy to repeat the question because he didn't understand the question (you have to understand that, unlike in English, in French a different verb tense signifies a different meaning to a sentence.)  This happened not once, not twice, but three times.  Duffy got hold of that clip, spliced it together so that it repeated, and repeated, ........ which didn't make Dion look good.  

Stephen Harper immediately called a press conference that night from his campaign stop in Winnipeg.  Reinforcement!  Reinforcement!  Reinforcement! 

Kapow!!!  ("VALUE = DEFINITELY A POOR LEADER!!")

Duffy was later censured by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council for what he did ...... but what the heck ..... by then the election was over and Harper had won his minority government.  Duffy was appointed to the Senate by Harper two months later.  

It was a very, very dirty play.  I felt very, very sorry for Stephane.  A very decent person.  But them's the breaks, eh!?  That's politics.  

And that's how we ended up with a Conservative minority instead of a Liberal majority in the 2008 election. Instead of Stephane creating his own "frame", ...... instead of creating his own "character set" of those "5 character values", ...... Harper created them for him.  Stephane ran on a platform instead of first establishing his own "character set" of "character values" and then building the platform around them.  

Like I said, people don't vote on the platform.  They vote on the values.  You can't establish a platform if you haven't established the values.  And if you haven't established the values (which establishes the "frame"), somebody else will do it for you. 

Next up?  Campaign Websites - My How Things Have Changed!!  See you on the next post.

Nuclear Negative Ads - Lyndon Johnson's A-Bomb That Obliterated Senator Barry Goldwater

First, let me state that I don't like attack ads.  I hate them.  However, if we can understand how attack ads work and how they have an impact on people, we just might be able to develop some strategies to minimize them or to turn them to our advantage.  

In a previous post, we talked about "word association" or what George Lakoff calls "framing".  When we look at words in a sentence like " ....the cow jumped over the moon.  ...", we don't see the words "the .......cow ........jumped ........ over ..... the .....moon".  We mentally visualize a moon on the dark horizon with a cow halfway over the moon. 

We also talked about how trying to negate the frame only serves to reinforce that frame.  And we used the example of Richard Nixon who was being accused of being a thief.  The media began to repeat this accusation to the extent that the frame of "Nixon's a thief" was being reinforced.  So what did Nixon do to try and get rid of that frame of "thief"?  He went on US national television and and said that he wasn't a thief.  The impact?  Nixon's denial only served to reinforce the frame of "Nixon is a thief".  The framing went like this ....  "If Nixon went on television to deny that he was a thief ...........  then he MUST be a thief. .....  otherwise why would he have gone on television and deny that he was a thief?, eh!?" 

Don't believe me!?  Read on.  

The Mother Of All Attack Ads - Without Attacking!
Tomorrow (September 7th, 2014) marks the 50th anniversary of what is considered the birth of today's political attack ad.  This one was unlike any other one since.  In one blow, it blew Senator Barry Goldwater, President Lyndon Johnson's opponent, out of the presidential election race.  

Goldwater's name wasn't even mentioned once.  The ad only ran once.  On only one television network.  The direct message, the "call to action", was very simple - "Vote For President Johnson On November 3".  And yet it was the topic of discussion for weeks to come on every television and radio station, in major newspaper editorials, and by every political commentator.  Back then, this reinforcement of an ad by other media was called "earned media".  Today, we would call it "going viral" ...... and then some.   

It was the "indirect message", however, that was all powerful - nuclear powerful!  Words alone couldn't describe that message.  It branded Goldwater with a brand that took him more than a decade to shake off his persona.  It may have been dirty.  But it worked.  And Goldwater couldn't do a thing about it.  Johnson won by a landslide. 

Barry Goldwater's "Self-Framing" As a Nuclear Hawk
To give you some background, in a May 1964 speech (4 months before the airing of the "Daisy" ad) Goldwater put nuclear weapons in the same category as conventional weapons by suggesting that they should have been used at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 to defeat the North Vietnamese.  To recall, French forces had been defeated at Dien Bien Phu by North Vietnamese forces.  This led to the establishment of North Vietnam and the "demilitarized zone" that separated South Vietnam from North Vietnam.  This defeat was being reinforced in the minds of the American people at a time when the American war in Vietnam was starting to escalate in early 1964.  It also didn't help that Goldwater was making snide remarks about the use of nuclear weapons as if they were in the same category as hand grenades or that field commanders should have the authority to use "small" nuclear weapons on the battlefield.  

This attitude would come back to haunt him in ways that he couldn't have imagined.  

At the expense of being accused of plagiarism, I'm going to take some political licence here and copy Drew Babb's article in the September 5th 2014 issue of the Washington Post on the anniversary of that event.  Simply because I couldn't have said it better.  
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This image made from video made available by the Democratic National Committee via the LBJ Library shows a mushroom cloud from a nuclear explosion in a 1964 presidential campaign television commercial titled "Peace, Little Girl" and known as the "Daisy Spot" made by the DNC for Lyndon B. Johnson in his race against former Sen. Barry Goldwater. (AP Photo/Democratic National Committee) (AP/AP)

LBJ’s 1964 attack ad ‘Daisy’ leaves a legacy for modern campaigns

By Drew Babb September 5 at 5:57 PM

Drew Babb teaches political advertising at American University and is president of the firm Drew Babb & Associates.

Fifty years ago, on Sept. 7, 1964, a political ad called “Daisy” aired on behalf of President Lyndon Johnson. The commercial opened with a little girl in a meadow, then a horrific nuclear blast filled the screen.  We’ve been feeling the fallout ever since.  

It was only a minute long.  The paid ad ran on national television only once, and only on one network, NBC. 

But that’s all it took.

The Message

Here’s what you would have heard that early fall evening during “Monday Night at the Movies”:

LITTLE GIRL (plucking daisy petals): One, two, three, four, five, seven, six, six, eight, nine . . .

“MISSION CONTROL”: Ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one, zero . . .

SOUND EFFECTS: Huge atomic bomb blast.

PRESIDENT JOHNSON: These are the stakes: to make a world in which all of God’s children can live, or to go into the dark. We must either love each other. Or we must die.

ANNOUNCER: Vote for President Johnson on Nov. 3. The stakes are too high for you to stay home.

The takeaway? Johnson’s Republican opponent, Barry Goldwater, was a crazed, trigger-happy cowboy. If his finger were ever on the nuclear button, the world would blow up. We’d all die.

The Fallout

You can love “Daisy” for its power or hate it for its excess — I both love it and hate it — but it changed political advertising forever. Here’s how:

It gave politicians a license to kill. Earlier political commercials were overwhelmingly upbeat. In 1960, Frank Sinatra sang a rewrite of “High Hopes” for John F. Kennedy, with this jolly lyric: “Everyone is voting for Jack, ’cause he’s got what all the rest lack.”

But “Daisy” was a full-throated, gloves-off, take-no-prisoners negative message. Arguably, and for better or worse, it’s the Mother of All Attack Ads.  

To execute the spot, the creative types didn’t just run still photos with a crawl of type. They used every weapon in their arsenal. They grabbed for viewers’ hearts with an adorable little girl (commercial actress Monique Corzilius).  They tapped into viewers’ greatest nightmare with footage of a huge mushroom-shaped cloud.  (Remember, this was less than two years after the Cuban missile crisis.)  They reinforced the visuals with intrusive sound effects (provided by the genius sound engineer Tony Schwartz).  They had Johnson read a snippet of spiritual poetry (by W.H. Auden).  And they hired a voice-of-God baritone (sports announcer Chris Schenkel) to wrap things up. 

By all means, trash the tropes.  Nowhere in “Daisy” does an image appear of either candidate.  Barry Goldwater is not mentioned.  There are no American flags, bunting, stirring music or other cliches of the genre.  Johnson’s ad agency, Doyle Dane Bernbach, deployed every bit of the imagery and verbal power typically used with nonpolitical clients such as Volkswagen, Avis Car Rental and Levy’s Rye Bread.  DDB wasn’t going to pussyfoot around for the LBJ brand just because this was politics.  The agency had its share of gentlemen and ladies, but when it came to gaining market share for its clients, they were New York street brawlers.

Overreacting can boomerang.  Before there was something called “earned media,”  “Daisy” did just that.  The Republican campaign erupted in outrage.  The Johnson campaign, which anticipated the heat, quietly and quickly pulled the ad, and it never ran again.  But the networks (only three of ’em, remember?) duly registered the GOP ire and — to show people what all the fuss was about — ran “Daisy” ad nauseam.  Result: The one-time-only spot was shown over and over.  And under the aegis of newscasts, it undoubtedly picked up credibility along the way

The Credits

So who crafted and produced this message?  Who’s responsible for it?

Tony Schwartz is often given sole credit. But commercials are like little movies.  They’re collaborative.  The collaborators include Bill Bernbach, DDB’s creative director; Sid Myers and Stanley Lee, art director and copywriter, respectively; and producer Aaron Ehrlich.  On the account management side, Jim Graham was the point person.  

But a creative agency always needs a creative client, so you have to give a nod to the White House, too.  Steve Smith was the “matchmaker” who had recommended the upstart agency to his brother-in-law John F. Kennedy.  Bill Moyers, Jack Valenti and Richard Goodwin seem to have been on the receiving end of the pitch.  Lyndon Johnson, ultimately, approved the ad.

The Reverberations

We’re on the cusp of another expensive, nasty election.  Gird up your loins, everyone.

Many of 2014’s candidates and their brilliant operatives weren’t alive when “Daisy” aired.  But what they do and what they’ll produce will be influenced by those 60 seconds that ran 50 years ago.

Happy birthday, “Daisy.”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
To really see the impact of the ad, you HAVE to watch it.  
  - 

Kapow!!!

You may not like attack ads, but they're a reality of election campaigns.  The issue is how can you develop a strategy to deal with them - either to minimize their impact, or ...... to use a stratagem in the martial arts ......  to use the other person's momentum to your advantage.  

Up Next:  The "Framing" of Democrats & Liberals, Republicans & Conservatives

See you on the next post.