Framing the debate--Vocabulary

[cmayer]

We all know that R's have had great success by changing the choice of words in the public mind on a number of issues. It is one of their main and most successful tactics.

In order to be successful, it requires discipline. The words must be repeated again, and again, and again. Some examples:
tax cuts=tax relief
estate tax=death tax
Democratic Party=Democrat Party

Unsuspecting mainstream Democrats play along and start using those terms in order to discuss policy.

I've seen several compilations of R phrases. How about a list of our own?

It is clear that * is going to tell every day working Americans that "John Kerry wants to raise your taxes." In talking with average voters I suggest that we NEVER discuss taxes with out including the phrase "... for those earning over $200,00."

And while we're at it, unless we're talking about raising taxes beyond pre-2000 levels,let's not refer to them as raising taxes.
I propose the term "tax roll-backs" (for those earning over$200,000).

There are many more terms that we can coin for other policy terms. What would you suggest.

[zanana]

1. Glad you brought that up.

I'd love to meet the people who come up with these word games. We DO adopt these terms ourselves. My pet peeve is the term "PC". We all use it, and it was dreamed up to ridicule the use of words like "Ms", African-American, mailperson, etc. Perfectly good words, but now considered too PC to be uttered. Another term that changes the framework of an debate is "pro-life" instead of "pro-choice". I hear the term "pro-life" a lot more often than the other now.
I would be in favor of calling the war in Iraq "The Other War", to distinguish it from "The War Against Terror". I would also call "tax cuts" "tax breaks".

[klook]

28. Switcheroo

I have heard that before it became a bludgeon for the right, the term "politically correct" was used by some progressives to refer to someone who was "talking the talk but not walking the walk"--for example, a person who said "I have plenty of black friends" but really didn't. Right-wingers twisted the meaning of the term so that instead of meaning "pseudo-progressive," it came to indicate "self-righteous, condescending liberal." So by now, insisting on being treated fairly, or on others being treated with civility, can be quickly and conveniently vilified with the PC label.

Anybody know if there's any truth to that history?

As for framing the debate, how about:

• Bush tax cuts = Robin Hood in reverse


• Bush foreign policy = pillaging the planet; making the world safe for Halliburton


• Bush environmental policies = trashing our children's future; squandering our natural resources


• Bush economic policies = stealing our children's future; war on working families


• PATRIOT Act = Big Brother


• Marriage amendment = promoting intolerance

We could also talk about how ludicrous the idea of a "jobless recovery" is. If you like the jobless "recovery," maybe you'd like a foodless meal.

Fascinating topic. Thanks to Cmayer and Orwell for bringing it up.

[zanana]

2. Welcome to DU!

I just noticed you're a newbie. I'm looking forward to reading more of your posts.

[cmayer]

3. Thanks. I am new.

I'll definitely be around. What I've found here gives a lot more thorough (even if sometimes paranoid)look at what is really going on in the news.

I'll probably have a chance in this upcoming campaign to speak to groups of high school students. Wait until I tell them about the draft.

[orwell]

4. A Few

You must be aware that invoking a frame, even in the negative is to reinforce the frame. So we must be careful even using the words "raise your taxes". It would be better to say John Kerry wants to stop the Billionaire Tax Giveaway. That being said, here are just a few suggestions.

Same Sex Marriage = Freedom to Marry
Bush Tax 'Scheme' = Billionaire Tax Cuts
No Child Left Behind = Unfunded Mandate
Iraq War = Iraq Occupation
Conservatives = Cons
Fair Corporate Taxation = Tax Patriotism

This is a critical topic that I have been hammering on for weeks with little response. I'm glad to see you are thinking about it.

Are you familiar with George Lakoff's work?

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org

O

[cmayer]

8. Great terms

Those terms are terrific. I will start using them from here on out.

I haven't been here long, and hadn't noticed your posts. I'll do what I can to help. Thanks for pointing me to that Web site. I'll take a close look as soon as I can.

Was George Lakoff on NPR a week or two ago? I'd thought about it before, but I'd never heard it expressed that clearly.

[AP]

12. Same sex "marriage" = separation of church and state

and let opposite sex couples have civil unions. Don't make the government look for a nod from the church when it's handing out rights that make two people better able to save money and become more efficient social and economic actors.

Render onto god what is god's and onto Ceasars what is Ceasar's. The 1,000 federal rights married people receive from the government are Ceasar's and not God's rights.

[lapislzi]

20. These are all great; keep up the good work

(adding them to my personal vocabulary)

[lapislzi]

5. Sadly, we must jettison the use of the word "liberal"

it's become an obscenity in the mouths of the RW.

Also:

pro-life = anti-choice
anti-war = pro-peace
taxation = paying your fair share (courtesy Laskoff, bless him)
handout = hand up

[outinforce]

6. Why?

Why do you insist upon calliong pro-life folks anti-choice?

[Rockholm]

9. Because It Is Anti-Choice.

It is not about a life. If it were, then these folks would be concerned about the life of the mother. And they are not. Sadly, I think your comment should get flamed.

[outinforce]

11. And Who Are "These Folks"

Just who do you mean when you say "these folks"?

Are you truly suggesting that anyone who is pro-life is totally unconcerned about the life of the mother?

Let me ask you -- just how pro-choice are you?

[Rockholm]

13. 100% Pro-Choice

[outinforce]

14. "100% Pro-Choice"?

I'm not quite sure what "100% pro-choice" actually means.

Let me ask you if it means that you support an unfettered right to an abortion for at any time during pregnancy -- up until the umbilical cord is cut?

If that is not what you mean, would you mind terribly being a bit more specific?

And do I understand you correctly to say, by your silence, that anyone who is not "100% pro-choice" is part of "these folks" that you mentioned in your earlier post (the ones who do not care about the lives of mothers)?

[Rockholm]

16. OK, Here we go....

First off, this has NOTHING to do with the original thread.

Let me ask you if it means that you support an unfettered right to an abortion for at any time during pregnancy -- up until the umbilical cord is cut?

Yes, if the life of the mother was in jeopardy.

It seems to me that many of "these folks" (which I am defining as the anti-choice zealots that want no abortion under any circumstance)could care less about the mother and more about the fetus.

Look, I am not here to argue or even discuss abortion rights with you. It is apparent that you are anti-choice and I am pro-choice.

And I feel NO FURTHER NEED TO CLARIFY MYSELF TO YOU.

[outinforce]

17. By My Definition, You Are Not 100%

This thread is about vocabulary.

SO I'm not sure why you would think that some posts dealing with vocabulary is so terribly out of place here.

I have no real desire to discuss abortion rights with you, either.

I had thought that we were having a discussion about being "100% pro-choice".

Now, I may be mistaken, but I would think that being "100% pro-choice" would be the sort of person who trusts women to decide for themselves when and how and for what reasons to have an abortion.

You say that you support an unfettered right to an abortion at any time during pregnancy -- up until the umbilical cord is cut, but only if the life of the mother was in jeopardy.

In my estimation, that makes you somehwat less than 100% pro-choice.

In fact, I might almost suggest that, in at least some cases, you wuold care more about some fetus than about the wishes of the mother.

And wouldn't that then make you one of "these people"?

[Touchdown]

41. I wouldn't go with anti-choice.

What I have said for years, is that someone who calls themselves Pro-Life, is actually Pro-Illegal/Back alley/Coat hanger abortions. Pick any one, or use them all.

Because in the end, abortion will never be stopped, no wishful thinking or law reversal will make it different.

[lapislzi]

18. What's the opposite of "pro-life?"

does that make people who support a woman's right to choose "pro-death?" or "anti-life?"

See how it works?

As a supporter of Roe V Wade, I will NOT be tarred with that brush, thank you very much.

[outinforce]

21. Try This

The opposite of Pro-life?

Here's one possibility: "In favoor of abortion as a possibile means of dealing with unplanned or problem pregnancies".

But you know, it's funny. Whenever I suggest that, some people object.

[lapislzi]

22. While valid, your meme is unwieldy

and catchphrases are the debate here. You don't get the word or words without their logical or presumed contexts. That's the whole point of Laskoff's argument. You can't think of "pro" and "life" without thinking of their opposites, and that's what makes the RW byte machine so deadly.

Tim Wise makes an excellent argument in his series of lectures on racism. You can't talk about the "underprivileged" or the "disadvantaged" without presuming their logical opposites, and this must be pointed out. That's how language works.

If you want to discuss Roe v Wade, we can do that privately or in another thread.

[outinforce]

23. Too Long?

and unwiedly, you say?

Then how's this: Pro abortion-aapmodwuopp?

Perhaps some way could be found to modify or shorten "aapmodwuopp" as well.

[lapislzi]

26. a-wop bam boom

I think "pro-abortion" suffers from the same image problem as the memes we're trying to eliminate. I don't think the word "abortion" should be part of that equation at all. The word "abortion" is part of the frame we're trying to dispense with.

The point is not to be in favor of abortions. I'm not in favor of abortions! I wish they didn't have to happen. What I'm in favor of is people making decisions privately in consultation with their physicians. If such decision should result in the abortion of a fetus, that is not my business.

You use "abortion" in your catchphrase and you're inviting trouble, imo.

[orwell]

31. The Dangerous Road

Unfortunately both the terms pro-life and pro-choice are rather poor attempts at framing. What do they mean?

For example, if I am pro-life does that mean I won't kill anything? Do I eat animals? Is war immoral? Do I automatically oppose the death penalty?

If I am pro-choice do I support a mother who drinks herself to sleep every night while she is pregnant? Do I support the bad choice the mother and father made to conceive a baby that they would later reject?

Now, before this turns into a flame fest, let me say that I am just posing logical questions here. I apologize if they are incendiary. That is not my purpose. I am trying to point out how language can de-contextualize (is that even a word?) the discussion. This is very dangerous and plays into the us/them mindset.

In other words, by accepting these rudimentary frames, we have in essence destroyed the dialectic. This in and of itself is very destructive to democracy.

This is a very dangerous road we are traveling. We do not have to look back that far in history to see where it can lead.

O

[lapislzi]

35. Yes

But we are in the arena, and the weapons are just lying there. The Republicans picked them up, and are using them to quite good effect. We have no choice as to whether or not to be in the arena. I, for one, choose not to allow the Rebublicans to slaughter us with words. I choose to pick up a few of my own and lob them back at the enemy.

(Yes the use of the war metaphor is deliberate. Again, I did not--and would not, given the choice--cast it as such, but to paraphrase Joe Strummer, "Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi went to the park to check on the game/They was murdered by the other team/who went on to win 50-nil.")

The sad fact of the matter is that most people DON'T deconstruct the language. They just suck in the memes, connotations and all. That's exactly the problem. People don't think about abortion, and choice, and the whole ball of wax the way we do on DU. They hear a phrase, and it sticks with them, and that's what they repeat. You can argue all day long about what it "means" to be pro-choice, but as a phrase, I see it as a valuable antidote to the RW "pro-life."

The Republicans own the field. I refuse to hand over my only bat and ball.

[outinforce]

38. I Think

that if you were to talk to not just Republicans, but to life-long Democrats who have serious concerns about the laws on abortion, you might find that they -- or, in the case of life-long Democrats, we -- think that the pro-choice folks "own the field".

I find it curious (in the same way that you probably find my comments above to be curious) that you think that the "pro-life" side owns the field.

[lapislzi]

40. I think the Republicans own the field

...not necessarily the "pro-lifers." The conservatives have been hard at work in their grim little think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, making sure they frame the debate every single time. Doing minute research to discover what words "resonate" with people. It's a science. They're really, really good at it.

The "pro-lifers" reap the benefits of their science, and their strategy. The progressive community has been struggling to catch up.

Again, I won't be drawn into a discussion of Roe v Wade on this thread, but we can discuss it privately if you like. See? See how they can get us off topic without the slightest effort on their part? It's all part of their devious divide and rule strategy. They know what issues are loaded, and they don't need to go after them with a sledge hammer.

[outinforce]

44. And I Might Suggest That We, Too,

fall into the "divide and rule" trap when we "divide" ourselves into "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" camps, and refuse to listen -- really, truly listen - to what each other has to say.

I was told just the other day -- here on DU -- that because I was not what someone thought to be "pro-choice enough", that I should leave.

How's that for divide and rule?

[lapislzi]

49. Shucks, that's nothin'

Someone called me a Catholic basher the other day.

You are correct, of course, that the debate about Roe v Wade and abortion is much, much bigger than can be contained by a catchphrase. The task is to paint the RW as the side with the moral and ideological shortcomings. Maybe "pro-choice" isn't the right phrase.

Fact is, I think Roe v Wade is a good decision, sound constitutionally. There are those, my husband included, who believe it's a states-rights issue. If we can keep the discussion at that level, it raises us above the level of the mudslinging "baby killer" crowd. I'm all for raising the bar on the discussion.

I'm not here to discuss the morality of abortion; I believe that is a private matter. BTW, have you and I had this discussion once before?

[outinforce]

54. Perhaps

Perhaps we have had this discussion before. I'm really not too sure. There are only one or two posters whose discussions with me I recall well, and that is because each of them is so terribly unpleasant and down-right nasty.

In any event, I wish to honor the person whose thread this is, and therefore not hi-jack it into a discussion involving Roe v. Wade.

I would observe, though, that your approach and my approach differ slightly. I would much prefer to build consensus on this an other issues. So I'm not too sure that I would agree that "the task is to paint the RW as the side with the moral and ideological shortcomings."

It seems to me that as long as that is the approach, on abortion or any other issue, it invites division rather than unity. It means that we, as a society, paint each other into different camps, rather than looking for those areas on controversial issues where we do, in fact agree, and crafting solutions that we all can live with.

[lapislzi]

61. Depends...I would like to agree with you in the main

As a society, I believe we have more in common than not, but one of the topics under discussion affected by the ideas presented in this thread is winning an election. We know the Republicans use dirty tricks of all stripes. Now, deconstructing the language in order to paint your opponent as socially retarded I think is something we would all rather not do. It is divisive, no question. But it is being done by the RW to the progressive community, and it doesn't violate my personal code of ethics to engage in that type of deconstruction, so I'm not above doing it back.

We won't be able to put any kind of solution *out there* until we can control the arena.

You are also quite right in that one of the shining virtues that has distinguished American society historically is our ability to compromise. I see a lot of hardening and little willingness to compromise from either side right now, and it worries me. Also another topic for another thread.

After deconstruction, then comes reconstruction.

Peace, outinforce. We really, truly, ARE on the same team. Some of us will get dirtier than others during play.

[outinforce]

63. You Catch the Nature of the Problem

Or, rather, one of the natures of part of the problem.

We are a society that is complex and diverse. There is a real danger, as I see it, in continuing to divide ourselves, based upon "sound bite" definitions that lack nuance. "Sound bites" descriptors tend to pigeon-hole people. The danger is doing this as part of an election, in my view, is that after the election, someone is going to be left with the task of ruling.

And if the populace is so divided, then the task of ruling -- and ruling by consensus -- becomes increasingly difficult.

"after deconstruction comes reconstruction" works only if there is enough good-will and commonality of values, committment to a common purpose, so that reconstruction really can take place.

In my worst nightmares, I fear that we as a nation are already past the point at which reconstrucion could ever take place.

It is that inability to be able to unite in consensue on controversial issues that has driven other nations -- indeed, our very own nation - to civil war.

That is precisely why I hope that we as a nation can have discussions on controversial topics without dividing ourselves. I fear that the media -- the 24-hour cable news networks, especially, with their need to get people to watch -- reduce issues to "bite-size" portions, with no nuance, and reduce political debate and dialogue to people shouting at each other. Good, perhaps, for TV, but a terrible way to govern.

[orwell]

64. Right Here, Right Now

In some sense, the 24 hour cable "news" networks are quickly relegating themselves to obscurity. The market share numbers of even the most highly watched are abysmal. I believe that the onset of media on demand and the growing relevance of the internet will be the death knell for the force-fed, autocratic "news" paradigm.

Your other points are important. For someone to actually unite this country in deed instead of promise, they must completely rewrite the structure of the debate. The Dems showed some signs of this in the primary. It is great, even desirable to have wildly divergent viewpoints. What should not be condoned is intolerance of dissent. This is inherently a structural tear that will eventually destroy the social fabric. In essence, it is the antithesis of our Constitutional pact.

Authoritarianism, division, assaults on creative thinking, are the terrain of the ruling elite. The more we participate in hate speech, the more we enable this mindset to flourish. It is almost as if we water these hate gardens everyday in our fractured public discourse.

The media is us. Right here. Right now. We are creating the alternative in this very place. Just believe in it and don't buy into the projected pessimism of the overlords.

O

[lapislzi]

66. ah, you've done your history homework, I see

I want to believe that we are *not* beyond reaching compromise. The Union *did* endure, and those divides were pretty big. We are still grappling with them today (states' rights, for instance).

When dealing with the real, however, we're looking at a hyperstimulated, hypersaturated population. It's been engineered that way. That is a lot to overcome. Is the only way to reach the hyperstimulated through resonant, divisive sound bytes? I would submit that for some, it will be the only way. It's terribly, terribly flawed, but I think it's something we can use to turn the tide. Machiavellian, maybe, but we have to be pragmatic at this juncture.

I can only speak for myself in these ethically treacherous times.

[orwell]

43. War of Worlds

I think you miss my point entirely. I am claiming that framing is the most critical failing for those who oppose the regime. I am encouraging everyone to fight, but to fight smart.

People do not deconstruct the language consciously. What they do is attach frames of meaning to words that are already defined in their neural networks. If the data doesn't fit the frame, it will be discarded.

So using this information, how can it help us present our worldview. The first thing that must be done is that we must educate the public with a new conceptual framework. The words will not resonate if they have no meaning. If I tell you that "rthyskfjh" is "good" you will look at me with a blank stare. But if I have already associated "rthyskfjh" with a feeling of "joy" and "contentment", you will agree that yes "rthyskfjh" is "good". The people now in control have spent over 2 billion dollars over the past 30+ years in this indoctrination effort if you will.

My larger point, to borrow your apt war analogy, is that we are using the weapons that our opponent's have designed for us. If I tell you to fight me and I give you a slingshot while I keep a handgun, you will lose. We must dictate the weaponry. We must define the battlefield—in our terms. This is true empowerment. This can only be achieved when we know what our weapons are and where our battlefield lies.

In Ghandi's case, he defined the rules of engagement and the "strategery" of engagement. This is something we have failed to do. This is the point of my posts.

We both want the same things lapislzi. I am just trying to "frame" this discussion in the terms that I think are most important to our cause.

Thanks

O

[lapislzi]

45. Gotcha

trouble is, they have a 30-year head start, and a much bigger budget. Where to begin?

Thank you, btw, for your thoughtful explanation.

[orwell]

65. Willing to Dream

Your welcome.

We are finally now addressing the problem. The existence/direction of this thread is evidence of this.

I estimate it will take a concerted decade long effort for the re-education process. We will be helped by the disastrous results of continuing down the patriarchal, authoritarian path we are now on.

Money is important, but far more important is the work of personal and public introspection. This is the core of grass roots creativity and action. If you can change your mind, the way you interact with others, the ripple effects will be dynamic.

If everyone here, all 40,000 could begin to make these changes, the results would be even more impressive. But it involves a certain amount of personal responsibility, a willingness to dream if you will.

Frankly, we will either understand this, or be faced with the rather bleak consequence.

O

[outinforce]

37. Exactly

By usuing such terms as "pro-choice" and "pro-life" as "sound bites", the whole process of democracy becomes poisoned.

It allows, for instance, someone to think, "Hey, I'm in favor of life. Who could possible ever be against life? Anyone who is against life must be evil and terrible."

Or it allows someone to think "Hey, I'm in favor of choice. Who could possible be against choice? Anyone who is against choice must be evil and terrible and have some ulterior motive.'

what gets lost is the nuance, the thoughts that tend to bring people together to consensus, rather than driving people apart.

The exchange I had earlier with another poster in this thread is instructive, I think. Another poster described her/himself as being "100% pro-choice". Well, to me that means that someone supports an unfettered right to an abortion at any time during pregnancy -- up to and including the right to choose to abort a pregnancy before a fetus takes its very first breath.

But that is not what the other poster meant. S/he felt that there should be a right to an abortion, but that at some point, apparently, it should be limited to situations when the mother's life is in danger.

We put ourselves into these artificial "camps", based on where on thinks one stands with regard to these "sound-bite" descriptions.

And what is the result?

31 years after Roe v. Wade, we are still arguing.

[orwell]

50. La Revolucion

I couldn't agree more. The point of the simplistic labeling was to set the frame in simplistic terms. That is the regime's battleground. They own those weapons. Look once again at the terminology that comes out of the Waffle House.

"You're either with us or against us."
"Axis of Evil."
"God is on our side."

The basis of the Bush attack on Kerry is that he "waffles" while Bush is "steadfast."

What does this coding evoke? To be thoughtful, to change your mind, to see nuance is WEAK.

To be steadfast, to see the world in polar opposites, to never change behavior, even if it is self destructive, is STRONG.

WEAK is the opposite of STRONG.

Do you see the frame?

This is what I am trying to say. Why is nuance and adaptability accepted on its face as weak? In the real world, adaptability is critical for survival. We expect our corporations, our citizens, our institutions to adapt, why not our president?

In other words, we are being sold a bag of crap that defies logic, because the neural network has already been set by 2 billion dollars worth of propaganda.

Before we can change the world, we have to change ourselves. That is the critical revolution. The external can only follow.

O

[Rockholm]

58. I Heard A Quote The Other Day..

I think it was in one of the Democtatic debates. I think it was Kerry who said something like "Hope God is on our side" and someone, I think it was Edwards, said that (paraphrasing) "Hope we are on the right side of God." I thought that was beautiful.
Orwell is right. The Repugs are using a war of words against us. One of the worst "words" that they use is "Nine Eleven" Everytime they say Nine Eleven, it envokes terror and unity. Remember how together this nation was in the week after the attacks? That is what they are trying to evoke. America together, against a common enemy.

[Rockholm]

55. Still Arguing

Well, I have appreciated the previous posts. This discussion has been meaningful. There is a tendency to get pigeonholed into absolutism
when real moral situations arise. For some who are anti-choice, there is no gray area to which abortion should ever be legal.
When Outinforce says that 100% pro-choice means an "unfettered right" to an abortion, I need some clarification and some input. Hypothetically try this. Amy (not her real name)is 9 months pregnant and is scheduled to give birth on Monday via c-section to a healthy baby girl. She receives a phone call on Friday morning from a Fortune 25 company that has offered her an extremely powerful job with much money and prestige. The thing is, she needs to leave for London on Sunday in order to be at work on Monday. The baby is going to be a problem, as she will be traveling around the globe for much of her position. Amy decides that the baby is in the way, and decides she wants to abort. (In this story, I am leaving her mate, if she has one, out of the story for argument).
Should abortion be available? Legal? I personally would have an issue with that, but then again it is her choice.
I am trying to add something meaningful, but if I have only added gasoline to the "fire" I apologize now.

[outinforce]

59. An Observation

I think, Rockholm, that you have posed a very interesting question -- one I would certainly like to hear responses to.

But I think it is outside the purpose of this thread.

You may wish to start another thread.

My apologies if this sounds heavy-handed or evasive. I understand how it is possible that I diverted the attention of some on this thread away from the topic-at-hand. I have no desire, really, to turn this thread into a discussion of abortion/abortion rights/Roe v. Wade. That is why I make this suggestion with all due respect to you, Rockholm.

[Rockholm]

60. Thanks Outinforce. eom

[noiretextatique]

68. do you *really* think any woman would abort a viable baby

because of a job?!?!? this is insane.
and of course, there are laws against this.

[Rockholm]

69. Of Course It Is Insane..

And I would hope that no woman would do that over a job. I was just trying to make a point. And I know that there are laws that prevent it. I highly doubt that any doctor would perform an abortion like this anyway.

[noiretextatique]

70. thanks for the clarification

i am so relieved to know that you agree that this scenario is INSANE, that no woman in her right mind would do this, and no doctor would perform such a late-term abortion for such a frivilous reason. as we have tried to convey to some here for years, late-term abortions are done to save the life of the mother, not for the convienence of the mother.

our friend thinks this question is worthy of its own thread :eyes: ...since this is the fantasy scenario of anti-choice fanatics everywhere.
that such an abortion is ILLEGAL under current law does not phase these folks one single bit. hence my label for these folks: anti-woman.

having said that, i am 100% pro-choice, and 100% for common sense laws and guidelines...one that do not put women's lives at risk, as some of the late-term legislation certainly does.

peace.

[noiretextatique]

52. anti-woman is a better description for so-called "pro-lifers"

since their reverence for the unborn surpasses their concern for the lives and choices of actual born women. what could be *more* anti-woman than claiming the right to control women's bodies, reproductive options, and healthcare choices? pro-choice works just fine as the opposite of anti-woman.

[Rockholm]

74. Beautifully Said, Noireblue!

You have summed up this argument thread for me.

[Ksec]

57. Bush = Texas neocon nt

[northernsoul]

7. Republicans are for Regressive Tax Increases

by handing out these huge tax give-aways to the uberwealthy, they are causing property and sales taxes to increase for the rest of us.

Dems want a progressive and fair tax system, Republicans want to raise your regressive taxes.

[Touchdown]

48. Call tax cuts...Service cuts.

When they talk about "tax relief", it really means service cuts. Our services are getting cut every time taxes are cut. Get people to see the connection...

*Someone complains about waiting 2 hours for a cop to show up..."That's what you get for lower taxes...lower services."
*Standing in the DMV line for an hour..."Well, I guess this is what we get with tax cuts."
* Somebody's son's Pell Grant didn't come through..."Yeah that service had to be cut to afford Bush's giveraway for the rich."
*Elementary school can't afford new desks..."I bet that $600 refund was tasty, wasn't it?"
*Pot holes in the street..."With all these $300 tax cuts, they can't afford to repair the roads anymore."
*Social Security needs to be trimmed, per Greenspan..."Well, that's the breaks, but what did you actually think those taxes were paying for?"

The list goes on.

[AP]

10. "allocating the burden"

There are hundreds of taxes americans pay, and many of those taxes are paid at different rates by people in different financial situations -- for example, income tax on earned income is taxed at different rates.

When you say "raise" taxes", do you mean, raising all of the hundreds of taxes? Do you mean raising the same taxes the same amount for differently situated persons?

Of course not. It means raising some, and lowering others, and even with a single type of tax, you might be raising it at some income levels and lowering at others.

The whole point is allocating the burden in a way that promotes positive economic outcomes.

Just before the Great Deperession, Hoover tried really hard to balance the budget. He did it by raising taxes. But he refused to raise taxes on big businesses. He only raised them on people who worked for a living. He ALLOCATED the burden so that it all fell on people who were really trying hard to pull the economy out of depression. That added yolk on people who were already being driven into debt made the whole thing crash down.

[orwell]

30. Burden of Proof

Very good points. It's nice to see someone digging into details.

However, I would never use the word "burden" in reference to taxes. It reinforces the notion of taxes as some form of pain. Taxes need to be linked to terms such as investment, responsibility, and patriotism. Lakoff likens them to "dues".

I think that most people see taxes as a burden rather than the cost of living in a civil society. We all want the benefits of government without the costs. Such notions are clearly irresponsible and must be framed as such.

The debate shouldn't be over the level of taxation, but rather what are the spending priorities and are we getting our money's worth.

Please be aware that I am not accusing you of such misconceptions, only that I am using one word of your worthwhile post to make a larger point about framing.

Thanks for the post AP.

O

[AP]

34. The issue is the level of taxation and that the burdens aren't being ...

...allocated fairly.

Change burden to "duty" or talk about who's burdened and who's benefitting. However, the core issue is that the burden of paying taxes has shifted off the wealthy and big businesses and on to the backs of people who work for living.

If you're going to reframe the issue, it has to be in a way that captures this core point.

We're not trying to lie to people about taxes. We're trying to help them understand the truth of taxes. We tax income earned from work the highest we tax anything. (We actually claim to tax inheritance at higher rates, but not only is that disappearning, the fact is that people were able to avoid doing so anyway through the formation of trusts which eventually vested and paid out at the lower personal rates of the recipients of the trust principle).

And we tax most of the income of the super wealthy (dividends and cap gains) at some of the lowest rates (about 15%).

If you want to encourage the kind of activity that makes America strong (work) and discourage the kind of activity that makes America less competitive (finacial tricks, and the accumulation of huge amounts of wealth and power in the hands of people at the top) you have to talk about levels of taxation.

[orwell]

36. Tax Duty

I completely agree with all your points. I much prefer the word duty to burden. It evokes a positive frame rather than a negative one, especially in the age of faux patriotism.

So now your sentence would read:

"However, the core issue is that the duty of paying taxes has shifted off the wealthy and big businesses and on to the backs of people who work for living."

It is critical for us to use these terminologies every time. Be consistent.

On another point, I am constantly amazed at how income from labor can be taxed at a different rate than income from investment. If money is a "store of labor" as most economists posit, capital investment is equivalent to labor investment. Why are they taxed differently, if they are to be taxed at all?

But getting back to the point of the thread, the notion of "tax duty" is a far more powerful Progressive frame.

O

[AP]

53. I'm not convinced (yet?) that "duty" is the best way to phrase it.

You bear a burden on your back, and you reap benefits. It's the truth that the burden is on the backs of people who earn their wealth in the form of earned income, and that the benefits of the money accumulated is being given to halliburton and to the rich.

Perhaps, "allocation of the benefits and burdens of taxes" is the way to phrase it.

That reminds people that there are tax benefits and tax burdens at the same time, and that they need to be allocated fairly..

[orwell]

62. If it Fits

In my conceptual frame, a burden equals pain. One of the Webster's definitions is something "oppressive or worrisome."

Duty suggests nobility and honor as in the phrase "Duty, Honor, Country"

I like duty much better than burden, but I think there are better words out there.

I do like your benefits terminology however, connecting positive outcomes to taxation.

O

[AP]

67. Then I think "allocating the benefits and burdens of taxation fairly" is

the right frame for the debate, rather than let Republicans say "raising taxes" to describe what Demcrats want to do -- and you always talk about the differences between taxing labor and taxing unearned income, and you talk about progressive taxation too.

[reprobate]

71. Income from labor is taxed higher than income from investment because...

Investment income gets the break because the people whose lifestyle depends on investment income are the people who own the lawmakers. Simple. Follow the money.

[NewHampster]

15. George Lakoff Interview

My additions:
right wing = Wrong Wing
Bush Conservative = Liberal free spender
Democrat = Conservative

here's a link to the great Buzzflash interview with George Lakoff

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

[Viking12]

19. Here's how they manipulate

the environmental debate:

http://www.ewg.org/briefings/luntzmemo/

http://www.ewg.org/briefings/luntzmemo/pdf/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf

[NewJeffCT]

27. Condederate Conservative...

1) Confederate Conservative (not my idea, saw it on here a while back...)

2) RepubliCON

3) Hypocrite Conservatives

[orwell]

24. With Us or Agin Us

There is far too much discussion of left and right, liberal and conservative, and other polarizing labels in these forums. I would suggest using any of these meaningless terms as little as possible, at least when it comes to debate. The mere use of the us/them frame reinforces a particular moral worldview.

For example, earlier in the thread there was a back and forth about the abortion issue. Each poster was trying to reduce the other's position to that of a cartoon. The fact of the matter is, every situation is unique as is everyone's personal worldview. This is no longer operational in polarized America.

The abortion issue is a complex one involving human rights, morality, religious beliefs, and a host of other deeply formed constructs. It has been used as a wedge issue by a group of political opportunists and reduced to a mindless chant instead of a reasoned debate. This is the essence of polarization. The intended result has been achieved.

I think we all have to learn tolerance and respect. These are Progressive values consistent with our worldview. The political discourse has denigrated to the point that only the strong father, right/wrong worldview is utilized. In this respect, one worldview is implicitly reinforced by the structure of the debate itself.

In essence, the battle is over before it has begun.

O

[starroute]

25. We have to stomp out misuse of the word "reform"

"Welfare reform," "tort reform" -- and a whole lot more. Whenever the Republicans want to either destroy something or twist it to screw people over, they call that "reform." And, as you say, the media -- and even the Democrats -- tend to swallow that phrasing uncritically.

The problem is that "reform" generally has two meanings, which are linked in people's minds. One is "improve." The other is "close loopholes and ferret out abuses." The Republicans use a thin facade of ferreting out abuses to cover the fact that they're radically alterating basic premises and generally turning systems on their heads.

I don't have any simple alternative to suggest, though phrases like "drastic curtailment of your rights" and "stake in the heart of the middle class" come to mind. Anybody else with an idea?

[lapislzi]

29. I like "curtailment"

a little long, though...

"Welfare reform" is really "eliminating the social safety net" and "tort reform" is an abrogation of individuals' rights to redress of grievances, but that's just too damn big a mouthful.

Let's spin those language wheels some more.

[klook]

33. Tort reform

= depriving citizens of their day in court

[klook]

32. Revisionism

You're right on about "reform." Similar to "relief." It's really "reversal" or "revisionism." We can also talk about "gutting" or "removing" X. Or how about a "gift" or "welfare" or "free pass" for Republican cronies?

Examples:

• Regulatory reform = Gutting regulatory protections


• Welfare reform = Welfare revisionism (hmmm...maybe not punchy enough)


• Social security reform = Gutting social security


• Tax relief = Welfare for the ultra-rich


• Affirmative Action reform = Eliminating protections for (or "slamming the door on") minorities and women; making the world safe for white males


• Tax relief = War on the poor

Also, when using "gutting," it wouldn't hurt to use "ruthless gutting of...." Although that should be reserved for situations where it's really warranted. No use using an atom bomb to kill a fly.

Not reform-related, but these also come to mind:

• Bringing democracy to Iraq = Throwing Iraq into Chaos


• Common sense environmental policy = A free pass for polluters


• Homeland security = Fortress America

And don't you love it when they characterize sticking up for working and poor people's rights as "class warfare"?? Sheesh. Goebbels is alive and well.

[RememberWellstone]

39. Reform is over-used.

Anytime the jackals want to skirt their responsiblities they use the word reform. Reform job opportunities..wrong. This is just shirking their losing 3 million jobs. They need to be called on these terms.

[Lone_Wolf]

42. Here's some

Privatizing Social Security=Profitizing Social Security
Corporate bailout=Corporate Welfare
Pro-Business=Anti-Labor
Free Trade=Anti-Fair Trade
Corporate Rights=Corporate Irresponsibility
Neoconservatism=Fascism
Conservative=Regressive

[cmayer]

46. We need some subtlety

There have been plenty of ingenious replies that will be useful in any gathering of Democrats but won't help much with unformed (and uninformed) voters.

What I was trying to get at was replacement vocabulary, not overt partisanship. The whole idea is to get the debate framed in words of our choice. If the partisanship shows too much, it will be rejected out of hand.

[PATRICK]

47. The great speech I would like to hear

Democrats or Kerry are liberal with time and service of, liberal in respecting human rights,privacy etc. Conservative with spending your hard earned money, conservative with budgets and deficits, conservative with sending our troops to war, Conservative of the values and laws of our Constitution....

Bush is liberal with other people's lives and money and Conservative with his his own. Liberal with his imposition of strong religious beliefs on others, liberal in his interpretation of government agencies and monies for the benefit of his money supporters, conservative with any money that might be spent to help anyone...

Well, that is the general idea for a great seminal speech or part of one to destroy the whole label con game and as to who is actually DOING what.

Definitely isolate Bush's self-centered hypocrisy from ALL value systems and put the truth as a real beacon of clear facts on the hill. A president is no "superman" but it IS about truth, justice and the American way.

No vocabulary that is not backed up with evidence and action. No populism without actually being with the people in compassion and service. Bush is a prisoner of pumped up photo-ops and contradicting incoherence, not to mention lies and total evasion. Kerry is free and should demonstrate that everywhere and show the People besieging the occupiers.

[fob]

51. Deficit = bush*tax

We went from Clinton Surplus and arguing how best to spend that, to a deficit and arguing how many generations will have to pay for that?

A 2.7 trillion dollar deficit for 290 million people equals $9,310 per PERSON, regardless of age, health or well being, if you're an American, bush* SPENT $9,310 in YOUR NAME and now YOU have to pay it back WITH INTEREST! bush* always said it was "your money", he just didn't tell you HE was going to spend it!

And before you say "what about the tax cut I got?", remember bush*co sold that tax cut as a JOBS PROGRAM and siad the AVERAGE tax cut was over $1,000! Forget the fact that what YOU got was far less than the average, but 2.5 million people are out of work!

Now for what he spent it on, prepare to be enraged. Remember the $87 billion supplemental request for bush* warring around the middle east that caused an uproar even among some conservatives? Well for $87 billion dollars of YOUR money, that bush* spent and YOU are responsible for with interest, that gets you less than 1 year of warring, YOU could have hired 2,458,000 AMERICANS and paid them $35,000 FOR A YEAR! bush* bought 6-9 months of war in Iraq instead of 1 full year of ZERO UNEMPLOYMENT! Imagine the businesses of America trying to keep up with the demand of 2.5 million Americans with decent paying JOBS!!

Think about that. bush* policies result in a net job loss of 2.5 million jobs, he asks for $87 billion which would erase that in 5 seconds, and instead he spends the whole wad on war.

Where
Is
The
Outrage?

[orwell]

56. Another

Deficit = Burden on our Children

O

[reprobate]

72. A couple of suggestions:

Tax burden = Support of Services

Pro choice = Pro individual freedom

Let me add that it's great to see our side finally understanding that it isn't the ideas but the words used to represent the ideas that are important.

[remfan]

73. From the Lakoff interview -- Don't Feed The Fear

Instead of talking about raising taxes, or rolling back the tax cuts, talk about improving the nation through shared responsibility. Talk about the nation as a whole, don't divide us into rich and poor, who gives more and who doesn't give at all. Talk about what it takes to run the country's infrastructure and how we all benefit from it.

Talk about national security in a way that lets the nation know that we have a responsibility to ourselves and the world community to act as a part of the larger community. The world is a dangerous place, and together we will work to make it less so, but we will do so through mutual cooperation and trust.

Talk about the future, a shared vision, a better environment, hope, working together, progress, responsibility to ourselves and to each other.

Don't talk about what bush has done, or hasn't done. Talk about what we can do, where we can take the country, where we want to be in 20 years, what we want for our children's future.

bush is going to talk about war, fear, danger, evil, and angry Democrats.

Don't Feed The Fear.