In Thursday’s New York Times, “God’s Politics” author Jim Wallis has a great editorial for Democrats on “framing”.
Framing, for both of you who haven’t heard, is the post-November fad for Democrats that holds that, as a party, we don’t do a good enough job of describing our beliefs, and that better use of language would result in better performance at the ballot box. Central to that is not buying into Republicans’ frames. Don’t say “pro-life,” say “anti-choice.” Don’t say “death tax,” say “estate tax.” And so on.
Now, framing is important. Absolutely. But it is certainly not the holy grail that some Democrats seem to think that it is. I’ve seen otherwise-intelligent people claim that if Democrats could have made up 20% deficits if only they’d engaged in better framing. No way, no how.
And here, I turn things over to Mr. Wallace:
Language is clearly important in politics, but the message remains more important than the messaging. In the interests of full disclosure, let me note that I have been talking to the Democrats about both. But I believe that first, you must get your message straight. What are your best ideas, and what are you for-as opposed to what you’re against in the other party’s message? Only when you answer those questions can you figure out how to present your message to the American people.
Because the Republicans, with the help of the religious right, have captured the language of values and religion (narrowly conceived as only abortion and gay marriage), the Democrats have also been asking how to “take back the faith.” But that means far more than throwing a few Bible verses into policy discussions, offering candidates some good lines from famous hymns, or teaching them how to clap at the right times in black churches. Democrats need to focus on the content of religious convictions and the values that underlie them.
Wallace goes on to argue that framing is necessary, but only after the right issues are chosen in the first place. If a story has a sad ending, it can’t be turned into a happy story through liberal use of a thesaurus — you’ve got to start from scratch. He offers some good suggestions for how to move beyond catchphrases, concluding that we have to “find the vision first, and the language will follow.”
Quite right.
Forgot to close an anchor tag?
D’oh. That’s what I get for writing entries scheduled to appear later — I don’t get to check ’em in context.
ISSUES FLOW FROM VALUES
POLICY FROM ISSUES
Thus, it’s critical to start with Values. It’s important to stand for something.
Here’s GOP elevator speech, you’ve heard it a million times:
We believe in freedom and liberty, low taxes, less government, traditional values, and a strong defense.” (as reported in the American Prospect)
Now compare that with the Progressive elevator speech:
We believe in Democracy and widespread prosperity. We believe in smart government, investing in the future, strong communities and leading by example.
If the Dems would take it up and frame everything in this context, they’d never again be accused of not standing for anything.
More on the elevator speech here:
http://jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com/frameshop/2005/02/frameshop_eleva.html
When Howard Dean said his favorite book in the New Testament was Job, it should have been a heads-up that the Democratic strategy was in trouble.
Still, as long as Democratic politicians and candidates choose issues and rationale based on polls rather than principles, creating a coherent story will be difficult.
Remind me to thank Mr. Wallace for two “sound bites” I intend to use as an email message signature:
“The message remains more important than the messaging… find the vision first, and the language will follow.”
Much better than the one I’ve been using: “The winner is the one that makes the next to the last mistake.”