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.
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),
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":
- Values - the heart and core of a person;
- Authenticity - does what they say really reflect their values?
- Communication and connection - a leader touches a heart before they ask for a hand;
- Trust - can I trust you??; and
- 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"
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:
- Values - Are they similar to mine?;
- Authenticity - does he walk the talk?
- Communication and connection - is he reaching out to me?;
- Trust - can I really trust you??; and
- Identity - How close is your identity to mine? Nurturant parent, or disciplining father?"
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment