The Democrats Continued Quest for Electoral Success
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:16 pm
Sorry I missed this when it first came out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 19, 2005
Matt Bai
The contributing writer for The Times Magazine answered readers' questions on how the Democratic Party can use language to take better control of the political debate.
Q. 1. What makes you, or anyone for that matter, think that the Democrats are losing because of a lack of communication? The Democrats were the party in power for decades; is it possible that the American people might be too familiar with their politics and are rejecting them in the 21st century?
— Freda Neuwirth, Miami Beach, Fla.
A. Well, Freda, I don't think Democrats are losing because of a lack of communication. My article was a long piece, I know, but if you read the whole thing, you'll see that that's not my point of view at all. I think good communication helps, but ultimately you have to have a strong sense of what kind of argument you want to communicate, and they don't.
Q. 2. Do you see framing as a tool the Democrats can use to bring out a dialogue about the tremendous separation of wealth this country has experienced in the past 20 or so years? If so, do you believe they will?
— Tom Goodell, Minneapolis, Minn.
A. That's an interesting question, Tom. I guess I would say no: I don't think framing is necessarily the right tool to help Democrats address that problem. In my view, the problem you identify is a very serious one for the country, but it represents, on some level, the failure of the entire political process — and by that I mean both political parties — to be sufficiently candid and creative about the decline of our industrial economy and the increasingly precarious structure of the middle class. Before anyone can "frame" an answer to the growing inequity of our society, I think one actually has to have an answer for it, and an answer that acknowledges the complexity of the problem. I haven't heard that from Democrats, though there are certainly plenty of Democrats who would disagree with me about that.
Q. 3. Loved the article — thanks. I was surprised by your last sentence though. It seems that the entire point that's been proven by the success stories you outlined is that you can effectively sell based on the words/delivery if the metaphor is right — regardless of some subjective merit of the actual argument. Right?
— Sean Sullivan, Tampa, Fla.
A. No, I don't think so, Sean. I think what the successes I outlined prove is that if you're trying to oppose someone else's agenda, and if you can tell people a story about that agenda that they already believe to be true (i.e., Republicans wants to dismantle social programs, or that they're abusing their power in the judicial process), then the right images can make a lot of difference. My point at the end of the piece is that putting forward an agenda of your own is much harder, and it requires a greater clarity of thought and purpose. That's not to say that communicating it effectively isn't essential. But you have to know what you intend to do with the country, beyond platitudes, before you can frame it.
Q. 4. Two questions: Do you think the inability of Democratic leaders to define their first principles might have something to do with the very focused and pervasive right-wing framing of the past 30 years? Has Republican framing effectively limited the cognitive range of our political imaginations?
Also, to my dismay, over the past few years I've watched The Times use language like "values" and "activist judges" with neither quotation marks nor irony, and pay undue tribute in column inches to such formerly disreputable groups as the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America. If Democratic leaders and Lakoff himself are vulnerable to right-wing framing, are journalists as well?
— Edward Cahill, Brooklyn, N.Y.
A. I'll try to nail both of these questions in one shot. Yes, of course, journalists have been vulnerable to linguistic traps (I think we're more aware of that than we used to be), and yes, I suspect that the very effective communication tactics on the right have made it harder for Democrats to define themselves. Just look at the frame of "tax-and-spend." Republicans managed to take what was a very credible governing philosophy for most of the 20th century and skillfully turn it into an epithet. Once Democrats decided they could no longer champion government programs and the taxes that pay for them, it became awfully hard for them to articulate their worldview. And yet, I wouldn't subscribe to the idea that Democrats are simply victims. It seems to me that in American politics, if you have a worldview and an agenda, you have to stand up and make the argument for it, even if that means you lose a few elections, and you have to be adaptable enough to admit when parts of your agenda may not be as relevant as they once were. With some exceptions, Democrats haven't done that.
Q. 5. Can the word "liberal" be effectively redefined to represent what it once did? If yes, how?
— George Hirthler, Atlanta, Ga.
A. Great question. I doubt it, but I don't know. There are a lot of "branding" exercises being done in the party right now, and most of them are focused on getting people to use the word "progressive" rather than "liberal." I still tend to use "liberal" in my writing because I don't like to use somebody else's made-up word. (See Edward's question, above, about journalists getting duped by language.)
Q. 6. What do you think about the Republicans' using the word "faith" instead of "religion"? It seems to me that faith makes people think of a small girl kneeling by her bedside, while religion makes people think of the Catholic Church that Luther wanted to reform. Sort of like Lakoff's nurturing mother vs. strong father argument. The First Amendment says no establishment of religion, not no establishment of faith. So religion is already unconstitutional but faith is as American as apple pie.
— Peter Persoff, Piedmont, Calif.
A. I've never thought of that before. I wonder what Dr. Lakoff would say. Seems to me that "faith" is more universal and accessible than "religion," since anyone can have their own personal faith, while religion feels more institutional.
Q. 7. Do you think this retreat into to binary thinking is a response to global information overload? And to what extent does framing complex issues in an oversimplified way enable world leaders to avoid addressing/educating their public about the actual issues involved?
— Janice, Pennsylvania
A. Yeah, I think you pretty much hit that one on the head, Janice. Some understanding of framing is necessary to communicate your ideas, and this is why Dr. Lakoff's work has real value for Democrats. But in my view, at least, you can't frame your way around complex questions that may have painful answers. Seems to me, taking the long view, that this obsession on both sides with language and imagery is partly a reaction to a lack of substantive explanations for what's been happening in the country and the world. As Orwell once brilliantly put it: "Insincerity is the enemy of clear language."
Q. 8. I believe globalization is the "next big thing" in America's economic future. It has only begun to enter the political landscape, mainly in terms of outsourcing. Yet, I think it's the elephant in the room that nobody is talking about, and eventually it must be confronted. What do you think the framing language around globalization will look like?
— Dave Friedman, New York
A. Yup, I agree, Dave, and I go back to what I wrote in that last answer. Globalization is the central challenge of our time — it is a word, really, that encapsulates industrial decline and demographic upheaval at home, along with rapid technological and economic growth in the rest of the world. Nobody can frame it, in my view, until we are honest about its consequences. My fear is that the emphasis on finding the right words in politics obscures the larger debate we ought to be having about how we are going to adapt as a country.
Q. 9. What do you think about revising the pro-choice rhetoric that Democrats have clung to so tightly? The phrase pro-choice doesn't really convey much meaning and it can't compete with the obvious appeal of pro-life. Why not come up with a catch phrase that makes the point that women must have control over their own reproduction, something along the lines of "A woman is not a slave" or "No coerced pregnancies" or "The Republicans want to force women to have babies."
— Amy Hackney Blackwell, S.C.
A. I don't think I want to wade into that debate. Call me a coward. But I'll bet you'd get a lot of agreement from Dr. Lakoff and others about the need to revisit the language around abortion.
Q. 10. At the end of your article you say Democrats are still unwilling to put their more concrete convictions about the country into words, either because they don't know what those convictions are or because they lack confidence in the notion that voters can be persuaded to embrace them. Did you find that Democratic politicians are afraid of their constituents? On a local and state level, Democratic legislators deal with the mundane issues of our daily lives and become champions of clean air, fresh water, better commuter traffic access, protection against H.M.O. abuses, etc. Many local legislators also champion consumer protection, equal rights for same sex couples, reproductive rights, equal access to quality education. Why won't federal legislators identify with constituents about these concerns?
— Emily Gold, Sacramento, Calif.
A. Well, I think a lot of them do, Emily. I wasn't really talking about specific policy ideas. I was more referring to the broad vision of what kind of government we ought to have. In other words, the House Democrats have come out in favor of "effective government," a "better future," and "broad prosperity." Won't get much argument there. But what kind of government would they create? Would it include more or less federal involvement in our lives? How would it integrate foreign trade without hastening the demise of American industry? Should an American military ever use unilateral force, and if so, when? I think Democrats could probably build a broad consensus within the party around specific positions on these larger issues. But I also don't sense that they're ready to engage in a sustained argument for a worldview that might not be immediately popular.
Q. 11. Do you think any of the Democratic presidential candidates will link effective framing with a policy agenda to break out of the pack? Which one?
— Robin A. Johnson, Monmouth, Ill.
A. I'd bet that the next group of candidates will be more focused on language than previous Democrats have been. I wouldn't begin to guess at which candidate will break out of the pack. All I know for sure is that we never know this in advance, even if we think we do.
Q. 12. Framing is only half of it, getting the word out is the other half. What structure do the Democrats have that even begins to compare with fundamental Christians, who have evangelical churches with congregations numbering in the tens of thousands — per church! — that are used to disseminate through the spoken word, the Internet, newsletters and other mailings?
— Jerrianne Hayslett, Milwaukee, Wis.
A. One word: the Web. (Okay, that was two words, but you get the point.) I went to a Moveon.org house party last weekend and was impressed at the way they can organize people at the grassroots. Having said that, I think we tend to caricature the fundamentalist fervor of Republican voters. First, a lot of big churches today are community hubs whose members reflect a broad range of societal concerns, as my colleague Jonathan Mahler pointed out in a fantastic piece in The Times Magazine a few months ago. And many evangelical Christians are thoughtful voters who are not simply allowing themselves to be used, any more then black voters allow themselves to be used when they go door-to-door for Democratic candidates. I suspect that the premise of your question is part of the problem Democrats have, presuming, as it does, that conservative voters don't think for themselves.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 19, 2005
Matt Bai
The contributing writer for The Times Magazine answered readers' questions on how the Democratic Party can use language to take better control of the political debate.
Q. 1. What makes you, or anyone for that matter, think that the Democrats are losing because of a lack of communication? The Democrats were the party in power for decades; is it possible that the American people might be too familiar with their politics and are rejecting them in the 21st century?
— Freda Neuwirth, Miami Beach, Fla.
A. Well, Freda, I don't think Democrats are losing because of a lack of communication. My article was a long piece, I know, but if you read the whole thing, you'll see that that's not my point of view at all. I think good communication helps, but ultimately you have to have a strong sense of what kind of argument you want to communicate, and they don't.
Q. 2. Do you see framing as a tool the Democrats can use to bring out a dialogue about the tremendous separation of wealth this country has experienced in the past 20 or so years? If so, do you believe they will?
— Tom Goodell, Minneapolis, Minn.
A. That's an interesting question, Tom. I guess I would say no: I don't think framing is necessarily the right tool to help Democrats address that problem. In my view, the problem you identify is a very serious one for the country, but it represents, on some level, the failure of the entire political process — and by that I mean both political parties — to be sufficiently candid and creative about the decline of our industrial economy and the increasingly precarious structure of the middle class. Before anyone can "frame" an answer to the growing inequity of our society, I think one actually has to have an answer for it, and an answer that acknowledges the complexity of the problem. I haven't heard that from Democrats, though there are certainly plenty of Democrats who would disagree with me about that.
Q. 3. Loved the article — thanks. I was surprised by your last sentence though. It seems that the entire point that's been proven by the success stories you outlined is that you can effectively sell based on the words/delivery if the metaphor is right — regardless of some subjective merit of the actual argument. Right?
— Sean Sullivan, Tampa, Fla.
A. No, I don't think so, Sean. I think what the successes I outlined prove is that if you're trying to oppose someone else's agenda, and if you can tell people a story about that agenda that they already believe to be true (i.e., Republicans wants to dismantle social programs, or that they're abusing their power in the judicial process), then the right images can make a lot of difference. My point at the end of the piece is that putting forward an agenda of your own is much harder, and it requires a greater clarity of thought and purpose. That's not to say that communicating it effectively isn't essential. But you have to know what you intend to do with the country, beyond platitudes, before you can frame it.
Q. 4. Two questions: Do you think the inability of Democratic leaders to define their first principles might have something to do with the very focused and pervasive right-wing framing of the past 30 years? Has Republican framing effectively limited the cognitive range of our political imaginations?
Also, to my dismay, over the past few years I've watched The Times use language like "values" and "activist judges" with neither quotation marks nor irony, and pay undue tribute in column inches to such formerly disreputable groups as the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America. If Democratic leaders and Lakoff himself are vulnerable to right-wing framing, are journalists as well?
— Edward Cahill, Brooklyn, N.Y.
A. I'll try to nail both of these questions in one shot. Yes, of course, journalists have been vulnerable to linguistic traps (I think we're more aware of that than we used to be), and yes, I suspect that the very effective communication tactics on the right have made it harder for Democrats to define themselves. Just look at the frame of "tax-and-spend." Republicans managed to take what was a very credible governing philosophy for most of the 20th century and skillfully turn it into an epithet. Once Democrats decided they could no longer champion government programs and the taxes that pay for them, it became awfully hard for them to articulate their worldview. And yet, I wouldn't subscribe to the idea that Democrats are simply victims. It seems to me that in American politics, if you have a worldview and an agenda, you have to stand up and make the argument for it, even if that means you lose a few elections, and you have to be adaptable enough to admit when parts of your agenda may not be as relevant as they once were. With some exceptions, Democrats haven't done that.
Q. 5. Can the word "liberal" be effectively redefined to represent what it once did? If yes, how?
— George Hirthler, Atlanta, Ga.
A. Great question. I doubt it, but I don't know. There are a lot of "branding" exercises being done in the party right now, and most of them are focused on getting people to use the word "progressive" rather than "liberal." I still tend to use "liberal" in my writing because I don't like to use somebody else's made-up word. (See Edward's question, above, about journalists getting duped by language.)
Q. 6. What do you think about the Republicans' using the word "faith" instead of "religion"? It seems to me that faith makes people think of a small girl kneeling by her bedside, while religion makes people think of the Catholic Church that Luther wanted to reform. Sort of like Lakoff's nurturing mother vs. strong father argument. The First Amendment says no establishment of religion, not no establishment of faith. So religion is already unconstitutional but faith is as American as apple pie.
— Peter Persoff, Piedmont, Calif.
A. I've never thought of that before. I wonder what Dr. Lakoff would say. Seems to me that "faith" is more universal and accessible than "religion," since anyone can have their own personal faith, while religion feels more institutional.
Q. 7. Do you think this retreat into to binary thinking is a response to global information overload? And to what extent does framing complex issues in an oversimplified way enable world leaders to avoid addressing/educating their public about the actual issues involved?
— Janice, Pennsylvania
A. Yeah, I think you pretty much hit that one on the head, Janice. Some understanding of framing is necessary to communicate your ideas, and this is why Dr. Lakoff's work has real value for Democrats. But in my view, at least, you can't frame your way around complex questions that may have painful answers. Seems to me, taking the long view, that this obsession on both sides with language and imagery is partly a reaction to a lack of substantive explanations for what's been happening in the country and the world. As Orwell once brilliantly put it: "Insincerity is the enemy of clear language."
Q. 8. I believe globalization is the "next big thing" in America's economic future. It has only begun to enter the political landscape, mainly in terms of outsourcing. Yet, I think it's the elephant in the room that nobody is talking about, and eventually it must be confronted. What do you think the framing language around globalization will look like?
— Dave Friedman, New York
A. Yup, I agree, Dave, and I go back to what I wrote in that last answer. Globalization is the central challenge of our time — it is a word, really, that encapsulates industrial decline and demographic upheaval at home, along with rapid technological and economic growth in the rest of the world. Nobody can frame it, in my view, until we are honest about its consequences. My fear is that the emphasis on finding the right words in politics obscures the larger debate we ought to be having about how we are going to adapt as a country.
Q. 9. What do you think about revising the pro-choice rhetoric that Democrats have clung to so tightly? The phrase pro-choice doesn't really convey much meaning and it can't compete with the obvious appeal of pro-life. Why not come up with a catch phrase that makes the point that women must have control over their own reproduction, something along the lines of "A woman is not a slave" or "No coerced pregnancies" or "The Republicans want to force women to have babies."
— Amy Hackney Blackwell, S.C.
A. I don't think I want to wade into that debate. Call me a coward. But I'll bet you'd get a lot of agreement from Dr. Lakoff and others about the need to revisit the language around abortion.
Q. 10. At the end of your article you say Democrats are still unwilling to put their more concrete convictions about the country into words, either because they don't know what those convictions are or because they lack confidence in the notion that voters can be persuaded to embrace them. Did you find that Democratic politicians are afraid of their constituents? On a local and state level, Democratic legislators deal with the mundane issues of our daily lives and become champions of clean air, fresh water, better commuter traffic access, protection against H.M.O. abuses, etc. Many local legislators also champion consumer protection, equal rights for same sex couples, reproductive rights, equal access to quality education. Why won't federal legislators identify with constituents about these concerns?
— Emily Gold, Sacramento, Calif.
A. Well, I think a lot of them do, Emily. I wasn't really talking about specific policy ideas. I was more referring to the broad vision of what kind of government we ought to have. In other words, the House Democrats have come out in favor of "effective government," a "better future," and "broad prosperity." Won't get much argument there. But what kind of government would they create? Would it include more or less federal involvement in our lives? How would it integrate foreign trade without hastening the demise of American industry? Should an American military ever use unilateral force, and if so, when? I think Democrats could probably build a broad consensus within the party around specific positions on these larger issues. But I also don't sense that they're ready to engage in a sustained argument for a worldview that might not be immediately popular.
Q. 11. Do you think any of the Democratic presidential candidates will link effective framing with a policy agenda to break out of the pack? Which one?
— Robin A. Johnson, Monmouth, Ill.
A. I'd bet that the next group of candidates will be more focused on language than previous Democrats have been. I wouldn't begin to guess at which candidate will break out of the pack. All I know for sure is that we never know this in advance, even if we think we do.
Q. 12. Framing is only half of it, getting the word out is the other half. What structure do the Democrats have that even begins to compare with fundamental Christians, who have evangelical churches with congregations numbering in the tens of thousands — per church! — that are used to disseminate through the spoken word, the Internet, newsletters and other mailings?
— Jerrianne Hayslett, Milwaukee, Wis.
A. One word: the Web. (Okay, that was two words, but you get the point.) I went to a Moveon.org house party last weekend and was impressed at the way they can organize people at the grassroots. Having said that, I think we tend to caricature the fundamentalist fervor of Republican voters. First, a lot of big churches today are community hubs whose members reflect a broad range of societal concerns, as my colleague Jonathan Mahler pointed out in a fantastic piece in The Times Magazine a few months ago. And many evangelical Christians are thoughtful voters who are not simply allowing themselves to be used, any more then black voters allow themselves to be used when they go door-to-door for Democratic candidates. I suspect that the premise of your question is part of the problem Democrats have, presuming, as it does, that conservative voters don't think for themselves.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top