How to frame a debate, from BuzzFlash.

[playahata1]

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/01/int04003.html

VERY interesting.

[DK666]

1. That Was

Outstanding. A must read.

I have a "friend" whos a reThug he has attended workshops put on by his local party on how to get the message out.

[kentuck]

2. This is a must read for every DU'er !

Because we are as naive as every other Democrat about how the Repubs have been permitted to "frame" the debate. This interview clearly defines our problem as a Party. We dismiss it at our own peril.

[EstimatedProphet]

3. Dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=29878&mesg_id=29878

[ShimokitaJer]

7. I think it warrants raising it here as well

The Editorials forum doesn't get as much attention as this one.

[papau]

4. reject words like "roll back tax relief -insist on"pay for infrastructure"

and note that the rich use more of the infrstructure of Courts and police than the middle-class uses. For example, nine-tenths of the use of the court system is for corporate law. Not paying your fair share means yoy are turning your back on your country - and we must not let the rich do that. Taxes must be fair.

I like it!

GOP's positive-sounding must be met by Dem positive sounding - we are for reform - but reform that is fair.

And that reactive speech that just says "stop this, attack that, overturn this," shoots our guy in the foot - Using let's "not" do what Bush wants - is not a good use of words - not good "twisting" - not good propaganda.

The GOP word twisting that he notes - using words like "healthy, clean and safe" for things like nuclear power plants or coal plants - or playing for the "female vote" with words like "love" and "from the heart" and "for the children" ( and "Family values" as if liberal family values do not exist, or pushing "rallies" called "Support our Troops," as if liberals do not support the troops) is one of the most irritating to me of the many ways Bush and Fox News lies. - But it does seem to get votes/polls.

Seems he believes "Support our troops; bring them home," does not work that well because we have not had the media explaining the concept for 30 years - compared to GOP the media's pushing "rallies" called "Support our Troops," as a good thing that is necessary.

so we must compete with the 30 year GOP media sale of the "Strict Father" family where the world is a dangerous place with competition and winners and losers - where children are born bad and have to be made good and only punishment and shows of strength work.

So how do we compete - do we sell the hope and promise of America, the joy of living in this country - or do we sell Bush as the abusive father who betray the trust placed in them by the family?

I like the positive - the Clinton version selling the world can be a better place, that it’s our job to make it a better place, that children are born good and need to be made better, and that the job of a parent is empathy - to nurture his or her children, but also to turn those children into nurturers. And to protect kids from evil - like terrorists - is job one of the liberal nuturer.

His thought that " The first way to break through that is to talk about the promise of America, the hope of America -- what is powerful and loving about the country -- to be positive, to break through the fear, because the fear is what evokes it. You have to project an image of love and warmth, and happiness and hope. That’s the first thing. You don’t feed the fear. Safety is a part of that, and you can point out that the Bush administration has betrayed its trust in not attending to making us safe. The PATRIOT Act doesn’t make us safer. They’re cutting money for firefighters and police officers. They’re not making our harbors safe. They’re not making chemical plants safe. Safety and protection are important. Protection is part of a "Nurturant model," and you have to be a strong, protective parent if you’re a nurturer, and you have to come across as a strong protector...You say, "You know, they’ve betrayed our trust. They’re not really protecting us. Have we been protected in Iraq? There were no weapons of mass destruction there in the first place. They weren’t protecting us from that, and they lied to us. They betrayed our trust there. And here’s why."...Then you say why they really went into Iraq, which is largely on the basis of their self-interest, and why they got into this mess. Have they really made us safer? The answer is no. We’re not safer than we were before."......is an excellent response - now I hope at least one of the 9 pick up on it!

A very long article - Thanks for posting the link!

We will see which of the 9 can put forth an identity so that voters know who he is and trust to be like them, or to be like people they admire.

[EstimatedProphet]

5. Strong father vs. Nurture-Agreement with an example (long)

"So how do we compete - do we sell the hope and promise of America, the joy of living in this country - or do we sell Bush as the abusive father who betray the trust placed in them by the family?"

Why not both?
After reading this interview (had I thought of it earlier, I would have tried to submit it to MoveOn), I thought of this as a possible ad for our nominee (whoever it turns out to be):

SCENE: Long, wide aerial shot of a dimly-lit large factory floor. A multitude of workers on the floor are shown as small in perspective to the room, and large banners with slogans such as "Be Vigilant", "Terror Must be Stopped", "Fear is Everywhere", etc. dominate the walls and hang as banners from the ceilings. Center screen is a huge portrait of Our Great Leader in a heroic pose. Below and to the right is a screen that is flashing, that says "ORANGE".

SCENE: Cut to the face of one of the workers, who is involved in welding/hammering metal/pounding on a bench-something along these lines; hard, physically demanding work. He is clearly tired. Sweat runs down his face, making him wipe his face occasionally.

SCENE: Closeup on the worker's face, as a sliver of light crosses his brow, and spreads to cover his face and upper body. He looks away from his work toward the light.

SCENE: Cut to a shot of our candidate (whoever it ends up being) standing in an open doorway, gesturing for the worker to follow him.

SCENE: Cut to the other side of the doorway, which is in a parklike glade, with a blue sky, and trees, and birds, with snow-capped mountains in the near background. The worker walks out into the open and drops his tools, and our candidate begins to go back into the doorway (assumedly to gesture to bring someone else out.

FINIS

I will be the first to say that I don't know anything about commercials and campaigns. Never have done anything like this stuff, short of running for student council s a kid. note also that I didn't include dialog here, because that is secondary to the point I am working on.
What I am trying to bring up with this is that in many cases the image can do so much more to sell a product than intellectual discussion of issues. We have been trying to fight using issues, and we keep getting our butts handed to us by emotional appeals (anyone remember Reagan's "Bear in the Woods" commercial?), so it's time to start trying to find ways of using emotional appeals for our side. We can do this; we know we can because we do really own the issues. The imagery associated with my commercial example shouldn't leave a negative impression (since it ends on a positive note); it could be used as a pro-environmental note without seeming too "tree-huggerish"; it's overall warm and nurturing, etc. Environmentalism is our issue, so is getting people out of the fear mindset. All of these things, and many more, can be incorporated into one set of easily-assimilated images. If we don't, we'll fall victim to the Republicans, because this is exactly the kind of stuff they do, and have been doing since Reagan.

Apologies for the length

[ShimokitaJer]

6. Fantastic read! -- long, but well worth it!

And an important lesson for all the candidates. But this CAN NOT be something that divides the candidates for individual gain in the primary. Unlike specific issues, any dissent will dilute the message. We need a vision that all are willing to embrace as Democrats, and that has the power to compete with the GOP vision. We need Dean's inspiration of the grassroots, Kucinich's vision of government's potential to do good, Mosley-Braun's willingness to fight for seemingly losing causes... this has to be a group effort.

But somehow, I really don't think we should leave it up to Al From to decide. God knows what kind of "vision" he'd come up with.

[spindoctor]

8. Kick!

And thanks for posting.

[blindpig]

9. looks like we've got a long row to hoe

is it too late for 04?

[EstimatedProphet]

13. No, it isn't too late, and I think I see a window of opportunity

Now that we recognize what is going on, we can do things about it.

The Mighty Wurlitzer of the Republican juggernaut drones on and on. For several years it's been the same few notes over and over (Democrats are anti-defense, Anti-gun, pro-abortion, environmental extremists, want to force the superiority of a few minorities over everyone else, elitist intellectuals, etc.). It's gotten to the point that it's almost a form of hypnosis anymore-it's become so ingrained in many people's minds that they don't even stop to think about it anymore.

Now we see how the Republicans are doing what they are doing, courtesy this article (although I'm sure many people saw it before today!) from this morning. We have a chance to re-frame the debates in our favor. Will this work? Yes! Here's why:

For the last 2 decades, we have been arguing on their turf (I do still count Clinton; he was very good politically at leading the debate, but not at turning attacks around. He was just good at avoiding the fallout). The Republican brainwash machine has become very fine-tuned to what they want to paint as Democratic party weaknesses, and broadcast this continually. We haven't stood up to them on this. they expect us not to anymore.

Why is this a good thing? Because, if we are successful in rephrasing the issues in our favor, we can change the debate, and in the last 20 years, they have gotten exactly no experience in how to deal with that kind of situation. Once we start rephrasing things, I have a feeling that we will catch them off-guard in entirety. They won't know how to respond. Right now they don't think they need to respond. Their arguments have gotten lazy, as indicated by the fall-back to the same talking points again and again. We've never refuted these talking points, so they don't think we can. But if we rephrase them in our way, we'll catch them without points of their own.

I think it looks hopeful, anyway...

[kentuck]

10. Basically, it's an honest, positive message vs a dishonest, positive ..

message. The Repubs are putting out a positive message but they are not truthful. First of all, we have to call them on their dishonesty. When they lie, we have to call them on it. But we have to offer a positive message also. It is not enough just to call Bush on his lies. So it must be a two-pronged strategy. Tell the truth about the Repubs and be more positive about our own vision.

The most difficult task for the Democrats, as the interview noted, is that we are divided into many diverse special interest groups. This makes it very difficult to define one uniting vision.

[rman]

18. well...

You're right about honest vs dishonest, but the main problem seems to be that the Left lacks an effective way to get the message out.
In essence, the Right has invested a Whole Lot of time and money into political PR research to find effective ways to get their message out, while the Left didn't. We're 30 years and billions of dollars behind the curve. Though it doesn't have to take that long and that much to catch up.

[info being]

11. Kucinich is the closest we have to what he's talking about

So why doesn't his high-level vision resonate with people? Probably because it doesn't get echoed enough.

[kentuck]

12. It's something we have to agree on as a Party....

We have a lot of work to do.

[Cocoa]

14. that's what I thought too

when I read this, I thought about him talking about the Dept. of Peace.

But at this point, it does sound pretty radical. I think Dennis is visionary, but like this article says, it takes research to figure out exactly how to get it across.

I also thought about the way the dems have been talking about gay marriage, they seem to be coordinated, and they seem to be all reframing the issue as being about equal protection.

[kentuck]

15. It's difficult to get our entire Party behind a vision....

with so many diverse groups within our Party. We could not get our entire Party to unite behind a Department of Peace or equal protection for gays. We have to find a way to frame such issues in a larger vision than has been done up to this point.

[cryofan]

16. Dems leaders do not want to reframe debate because they agree with GOP....

....in many respects. So much of the traditional Democratic platform revolved around progressive taxation and high tax rates for the wealthy. If you want a progressive agenda like the interviewer is talking about, you really need to go back to the progressive taxation rates that we have over 20 years ago, when the tax rates for rich people were 70% or more.

But the Democratic leadership are also rich and they would rather represent themselves and their buddies, rather than the people.
So instead the Democratic platform revolves around minor issues like race and abortion. Not that they are not important to some people (they are), but they are minor compared to progressive taxation. But the Dems have gone along with the GOP on this issue, and so in some sense, the Democrats are really just a husk of what they used to be.

THey do not WANT to reframe the debate.

Good article, though.....

[worldgonekrazy]

17. This is why the MoveOn.org rep walked out on O'Reilly

He/She could tell that Fox News was getting read for full "smear" mode (a lead in segment slamming the orginzation was a good clue) and would not take part in it. I for one applaud the decision. When you've got fanatics like Fox News, you can't reason with them when they won't listen.

[Printer70]

19. Spin is overrated, Issues do matter

I think sometimes we do ourselves a disservice by underestimating the intelligence of the American voter. Maybe they are turning away from us because we don't give them enough credit. Yes, we need to communicated our ideas effectively. But what is our positive agenda that stands opposite what BushCo offers? We need a liberal equivalent to the Contract with America.