I've been Framed!

Geroge Lakoff is one of the best political writers the progressives have right now. Many people haven't read him and don't know what all this frame stuff is all about. Many people have read him and still seem to have missed the point.

Do not forget that the title of his primary book on the subject of politics is Moral Politics.

He has made an attempt to explain what the conservatives have been doing and how it is they have been successful in defining the political landscape in America. Framing is a tool they have used to do this.
 

But remember, there is more to it than that. The most important part he suggests, is that we need to remember what it is we actually believe. This is where all of this value talk comes from.

What do we believe and how do these beliefs differentiate ourselves from the conservative leadership?

Issues matter in the sense that they are an extension of what we believe. But they are only the natural extension of our moral framework. This framework does not necessarily stem from a religious position or a secular position, although I would say that our morals are inclusive of people who come from both camps.

What do we believe that keeps us from agreeing with the freepers? What do we believe that keeps us not really disliking, but disagreeing with, Chuck Hagel? (mind you, I live in Nebraska and will never be able to vote for Chuck Hagel)

If we think about this and find ways of articulating our beliefs we won't have to worry about this "moving left" or "moving right" claptrap. We may just find that a large number of people will agree with us who didn't know they already agreed with us. It may not be that hard.

I could quote examples that Lakoff talks about, but I won't. Get the book.

My point is that the point has been missed. And it has been missed for a long time. Democrats have held power in the past. But there really hasn't been a fully realized progressive agenda in a long time.

Our leadership has failed in many ways. They chased the money. (DLC) They got bogged down in picking up or dropping "issues" to get elected. (Clinton) They have worried about looking "too liberal" (Dukakis, Gore, Kerry)

All of this sort-of beating around the bush (pun not intended) is seen by many people as being disengenuous.

People may have thought Dean was a little out of his nut. I think he could have overcome that, because he's not. But nobody can say he doesn't have the courage of his convictions.

I don't know if Dean could have beaten Bush. Hell, Kerry only lost by a little bit. But Dean would have lost with fewer questions asked.

(I voted for Braun, by the way, and she had already dropped out)

phat

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

2 Comments

Framing
In your opinion, do any of the potential DNC chairman candidates other than Dean share Lakoff's take? I've got nothing against Dean taking the job, but he may not be asked or take the opportunity. Karen
by ksh 2004-11-12 11:08PM | 0 recs
Lakoff and the DNC
I don't know. I doubt it.

phat

by phatass 2004-11-12 11:14PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads