This post is an add-on to the previous post I wrote entitled Systems Schmistums—The Realties of Systems Theory & Thinking. I would suggest that you read that post before reading this one.
In this post we will briefly look at the stories frames tell us as revealed by George Lakoff’s work. Please refer to his book Moral Politics as well as his 2004 book Don’t Think of an Elephant—Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. Let’s get started.
As I mentioned at the end of my last post, here are the components that make up a good frame story:
- indicate some form of pain or assault
- clearly identify who is causing the pain or assault
- clearly indicate what relief from pain or assault would look like
- clearly identify who has the ability to provide relief
- indicate how the pain or assault will be mitigated
Let’s look at President-elect Trump’s frame of “drill baby drill.”
- pain or insult = high fuel prices
- who is responsible = Democrats who impose environmental protection rules and regulations
- relief = lowered fuel prices
- who provides relief = Republicans who oppose environmental protection rules and regulations
- mitigation = Republicans will reverse or eliminate obstacles to energy production
So, yes, three words—drill, baby, drill—can create a frame that tells an entire story with good guys and bad guys and relief from pain and suffering. Let’s try “death tax.”
- pain or insult = taxes on inherited wealth
- who is responsible = Democrats who impose such taxes
- relief = reduce or eliminate inheritance taxes
- who provides relief = Republicans who favor lowering or eliminating taxes
- mitigation = Republicans will repeal inheritance taxes
Framing is nothing new. Here are a few that quickly come to mind:
- “Economic royalists” — Roosevelt
- “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” — Kennedy
- “I have a dream.” — Dr. King
- “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” — Reagan
- “Drain the swamp.” — Trump
Chris Christie recently suggested that President-elect Trump’s campaign delivered a very effective frame when they put out an ad that said, “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.”[1] Whether you agree with the message of this ad, the framing was very well done.
Lakoff often tells us that people think using frames and not facts. Lakoff also tells us that Democrats in general are terrible at framing issues, if they try at all. Again, I cannot recall one frame delivered by Democrats during the election that just recently concluded. Back in 1997, Lakoff founded The Rockridge Institute in large part to help Democrats effectively frame issues. Our Foundation supported efforts at Rockridge. Sadly, Rockridge closed in 2008 because attempts to help Democrats frame issues did not produce significant results (or so I was told by our contact at Rockridge).[2]
This is speculation on my part, however, I would suggest that people with college degrees (especially those in the sciences) tend to frown upon the idea of framing issues as being too psychologically manipulative in the same way that advertising and propaganda are manipulative. Framing addresses the needs of the middle brain. It addresses the middle brain’s need for clear and concise stories that help to make sense of the world around it. That’s not to say that once the middle brain has glommed onto a frame, the upper brain cannot look over the middle brain’s shoulder and add commentary and insight: “Hmmm … interesting frame. But did you consider this as well?” I will admit that a cleverly crafted frame tells a story in such a way that it tends to close the door on further reflection by the upper brain. Regardless, persuasion starts with addressing the needs of the middle brain. And apparently Democrats in the election that just went by failed to address the needs of the middle brain.
In a thought provoking opinion piece for The Hill entitled Democrats Lost Because We Don’t Know How to Speak Everyday American,[3] Elizabeth Grace Matthew writes, “I submit that a lot of the gulf between … college-educated Democrats and everyone else has to do with a widening gap in how we use language.” Matthew suggests that educated Democrats use words, and then just assume others know what those words mean and what their implications are (implication being the purview of the upper brain). In essence, they talk directly to the upper brain. “Harris’s language was too hollow, too impersonal, too simultaneously prim and punchy, and too devoid of warmth to connect with normal people,” alerts Matthew, “who garner as much from how something is said as from what is said.” She continues, “Trump, in contrast, talks like the sports radio guys. He deftly uses gesticulations, tone, epithets and facial expressions to convey meaning.” Trump is a good preacher who knows how to frame, and to deliver that frame. President Clinton was a good framer. When he said “I feel your pain,” you really felt as if he was talking right to you, that he knew your pain. President Obama had a similar effect on his listeners as well. Is preaching manipulative? Is talking directly to the middle brain manipulative? Hard to say. But without an ability to frame, and deliver that frame, it will be very hard to persuade. Trump, talking to all kinds of people who felt disenfranchised, addressed them as regular people. And they responded by giving him their vote. That’s how you win elections. Democrats simply got out framed. As Matthew suggests, Democrats might be well served by listening to a bit of sports radio, maybe even a bit of Joe Rogan.[4] [5]
NOTES:
[1] – See this article for more:
[2] – For more on Rockridge, see this Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockridge_Institute
[3] – Here’s the link to this article:
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4983994-language-gap-elite-working-america/
[4] – In the book
[5] – Professor of marketing and entrepreneur Scott Galloway suggests in one of his many YouTube videos (I cannot for the life of me remember which one) that Democrats should use more vulgarity starting with the F-word, a word Scott uses quite regularly mind you. I think both Matthew and Galloway are saying the same thing: Democrats need to loosen up a bit and be, well, just normal folk.
