The issue of language framing is the subject of discussion at Crooked Timber, led by (guest writer from the Bloviator) Ross Silverman. Smart stuff regarding one aspect of the familiar conservative "marching orders" apparatus, which is nothing more devious than aerodynamic language. Rossman quotes George Lakoff from a piece in the American Prospect, which nicely illustrates the principle, so I'll repeat it here:
On the day that George W. Bush took office, the words “tax relief” started appearing in White House communiqués. Think for a minute about the word relief. In order for there to be relief, there has to be a blameless, afflicted person with whom we identify and whose affliction has been imposed by some external cause. Relief is the taking away of the pain or harm, thanks to some reliever.I think this is an angle liberals or progressives would be wise to emulate, and Silverman's preferred example—Health Freedom—is a solid enough start. He's certainly right that "health care," with all its associations to HMOs, PPOs, and not getting good health care, would benefit from a dignified euphemism. I'm not sure that "Health Freedom" specifically is the perfect package for progressive universal health care, but a solid start for sure.This is an example of what cognitive linguists call a “frame.” It is a mental structure that we use in thinking. All words are defined relative to frames. The relief frame is an instance of a more general rescue scenario in which there is a hero (the reliever), a victim (the afflicted), a crime (the affliction), a villain (the cause of affliction) and a rescue (the relief). The hero is inherently good, the villain is evil and the victim after the rescue owes gratitude to the hero.
It's sorry that we need to attend so thoroughly to language in order to get things done—I, too, would rather talk about progressive taxation than attack tax relief. I'm also sorry that chili dogs don't grown on trees—I, too, would rather pluck myself a half-smoke than buy one. But there you have it. Anyone who's holding out for that mythical honest-talkin' leader who says what we all really feel and says so the way that we all really feel it should replay Dean's Iowa tapes. Politics, unfortunately, makes for politicians.
So long as that's true, we should play the game the right way, and a certain understanding of message discipline is sorely lacking in the progressive debate. There are limits, however, to the pages we should crib from the conservative playbook. "Liberal" has of course been subject to a powerful campaign in order to transform it into a term of real derision. I don't think that contemporary asshole conservatism is going to last, but I don't think we progressives want to demonize "Christian" or whatever in getting it out the door.
Posted by Kriston at July 27, 2004 11:30 AMAlthough I agree that this would help in the immediate future, I wonder whether it's a good strategy for the long term. Using this sort of framing language in the political sphere -- at least to the extent that the right does currently -- is really just a form of marketing, and eventually marketing stops working.
There's a good piece in the current Wired discussing how Madison Avenue is changing its pitch to appeal to the M 18-25 demographic -- we've been so heavily targeted that we're relatively inured to most conventional marketing attacks. 60 Minutes also ran a (admittedly, years-late) piece on stealth marketing last Sunday. I'd like to think that the same thing will happen across demographics, and that eventually a given swing voter will realize how charged and manipulative a term like "death tax" is, and come to resent it -- regardless of his or her personal feelings about the merits of taxing estates.
If that does happen, there will be a backlash, and whoever has been less insulting to the intelligence of the electorate stands to gain, maybe permanently.
On the other hand, this is probably wildly optimistic. Maybe politicians' opaque motivations (relative to marketers) mean that these linguistic tricks won't ever stop working. See also: PT Barnum.
Posted by: tom at July 27, 2004 12:00 PMThere's something of an intermediary body that affects this process: the media. I'm not sure now that politicians aren't marketing as much toward the media as they are toward voters, if not more. So while I might agree that the Daily Show generation might feel cynical about Health Freedom (and would certainly mock it regardless), it would be worth the negative feedback if it's a capsule that newspapers will swallow. Hence if the Somewhere Times picks up the message ("Kerry's 'Health Freedom' package, which he touts as a way to accomplish a by doing b . . ."), you've just successfully put the word on the street. Cunning linguists are going to be able to get more attention with brand name policy than, say, each of 9 Democratic hopefuls touting his store brand version of generic universal health care.
Posted by: Kriston at July 27, 2004 12:09 PMBut in appealing to the Daily Show demographic, aren't you trying to win over a group that is -- as Tom points out -- ALREADY immured to this kind of trickery, to the point of derision?
In other words, I think this kind of manipulation has worked great for conservatives because such language appeals to people who are, in large part, conservative. You're talking about two demographics that express themselves (and so conceptualize themselves) in vastly different ways -- the difference between "Things were better back in the good ol' days" and "Their old stuff was better." Both statements express exactly the same human sentiment, the difference being that my parents genuinely and ardently buy into the former whereas the latter is a cliche punchline to us.
This isn't to say that I disagree with the language analysis going on here. I just happen to think that we should be aware of these linguistic tricks and go out of our way to counteract them. But to go on the offensive with a term like "Health Freedom" is still trying to use the opposition's language to express our ideas.
Personally, I liked the tagline on a CNN piece about an interview with Kerry and his wife (albeit in a different manner than the network intended): "No simple answers." That's the kind of campaign slogan I would endorse, which is why I don't work in politics.
Posted by: matty at July 27, 2004 4:19 PMDigby had a really good post about that Lakoff article way back when.
"Meanwhile, many on our side seem to believe that there is something distasteful about framing issues and using symbolism and metaphor to win elections as if being unable to govern honestly is the natural consequence of using these communication techniques. This is wrong."
After reading your piece I just had to go and relieve myself.
Posted by: Bob at July 28, 2004 10:54 AMI, um . . . thanks?
Posted by: Kriston at July 28, 2004 11:23 AMNice writing. You are on my RSS reader now so I can read more from you down the road.
Posted by: Alan at August 24, 2008 3:19 AM