As a loyal Democrat, I have to say that I disagree with Ben Cady's recent, and rather cynical, assessment of framing ("The good work ahead," April 27). Though I agree with the author that we need to focus less on Fox News and more on the substance of policy-making, I think Democrats can use framing towards that end.
For anyone that thinks that we can all see through the "B.S." of political language, take the example of the "death tax," coined by GOP consultant Frank Luntz and used by Republicans in all branches of government when discussing the estate tax. Research suggests much of the public support is attributable to the language used, rather than a majority actually believing that taxing estates valued in the millions is unfair. While a Luntz poll noted that 69 percent of those interviewed favored repealing the "death tax," a United for a Fair Economy survey found that, upon hearing brief, balanced arguments on the issue, only 27 percent favored a repeal of the "estate tax." That's powerful, since the estate tax's repeal is costing the government $290 billion in revenue over ten years. That's money that could've been diverted to AIDS funding, poverty relief or myriad other global concerns.
Again, we can find an example of the power of framing when looking at how poverty is discussed. Republican think tanks and consultants have worked hard to undo the reforms of the New Deal and Great Society by using framing to associate poverty with laziness and promiscuity. That was one of the aims of Contract with America and the successful "welfare reform" movement in the 1990s. In using frames like "welfare queen" and "personal responsibility," Republicans (and complicit Democrats) painted the poor as a leeching underclass trying to "abuse the system." In reality, cases of welfare fraud are rare and a majority of poor Americans are children, elderly or work full-time.
Finally, it is important to note that framing can take on two forms: an unethical use, characterized by the Orwellian language that the Right so often employs (think the Clear Skies Initiative) and a more straightforward form, which simply articulates your worldview. Democrats need to invoke the second strategy and refuse to engage Republicans' language. New York's own Eliot Spitzer is a key example of how framing can work in conjunction with substantive policy. Faced with criticisms that he's "anti-business" for coming down hard on corporate criminals, he insists that fighting corporate crime is simply "protecting the integrity of the market."
Cady suggests that framing is a distraction from the creation of substantive, meaningful and novel policy solutions for the world's most grave social and economic concerns. Again, I disagree and think that framing is an inexpensive and effective tool that the Democrats have to thoughtfully and deliberately employ. It is a complement to the creation of innovative policy ideas, like the one suggested by Jeffrey Sachs, because it creates a paradigm that is open to idea that poverty is a structural problem, rather than a personal affliction. Democrats should take framing seriously, if only because Republicans already do.
Photo: Breadchastick / Wikimedia Commons
