Communicating our position: Football analogy

[renegade000]

Recently, I've been thinking a bit regarding how Democrats and progressives can be better at communicating their ideas to people who may only be exposed to politics via the rather simplistic framing put forth by years of concerted effort by right-wingers. There have been a few threads recently regarding the issue of framing from:

BrklynLiberal (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7554881)
alberg (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7554582&mesg_id=7554582)

I'll also shamelessly plug my own thread on the matter: (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=147029&mesg_id=147029).

In essence, the right-wing has succeeded in taking over the language of our political discourse. They've drilled it into everyone's head that the choice between a conservative and a liberal is the choice between:

- small vs. big government
- lower vs. higher taxes
- free markets vs. government-regulation

These dichotomies are purposefully constructed to emotionally bias the voter to favor one side over the other. I suspect this is one reason why the Democratic party has been trending rightward for awhile: we've accepted these dichotomies without question! So instead of fighting back with our own favorable framing, such as "lawless markets" vs. "fair markets", our miserable politicians are always going, "uhh...we're for free markets and deregulation too!"

So how does one discuss the seemingly common-sense notion that government regulation is needed to maintain a healthy economy and ethically run marketplace with someone who is inherently skeptical of "big government" and government regulation in general?

I think a good way of starting out such a discussion would be to agree with the idea that the competition of the marketplace fosters innovation and economic-growth. Nothing as all-American as good old fashion competition! Liken the private sector to football (or your sport of choice). Teams (companies) should be able to win or lose based on their own merits and skill. You could point out that saying the economy would be stronger if there was less government regulation is akin to saying the game of football would be improved if we got rid of referees (or they just sat by the sidelines staring at their toes). Sure, referees impinge on the freedom of the defensive team to place a lineman right in front of the quaterback's face, but surely the game would become a complete farce if the boundaries of the line of scrimmage weren't regulated. It could also become dangerous if certain fouls weren't called either. Sometimes referees make bad calls, but we can change bad referees by voting them out of office. There is no such thing as a "free game of football." Without rules, it's not a game...just chaos or open warfare.

Ah, but couldn't the teams police themselves? Well, sure, it works fine if you're just playing some backyard touch-football with your friends, but could you imagine the NFL, with all the money and prestige involved, simply relying on an honor system? The US economy is like the NFL, not some backyard pickup game.

What do you think? I'm sure others might have other ways of simply explaining the (sane) progressive position. It would be great to hear them!

[notesdev]

1. Here's the problem

"Government is good" is a really tough sell when it's plainly obvious that politicians at all levels are breathtakingly corrupt.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[renegade000]

2. You'll probably be sick of my silly analogies after this...but

If someone has brain cancer, the moral of the story isn't "brains are bad" or "the less brain in your skull you have, the better." Why should a cancer of corruption in government be any different?

And aren't we supposed to watch the government? Isn't that the point of a democratic society?

[JDPriestly]

3. K&R