framing

On Shame As A Tactic, Or, Betsie Gallardo: She Won...And So Can You!

fake consultant — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:31:52 -0500

We have been following the story of Betsie Gallardo lately, she being the woman that, due to a medical decision, was being starved to death in a Florida prison.

She has inoperable cancer, her death is imminent, and her mother was working hard to make it possible for Betsie to die at home with some dignity.

As we reported just a couple days ago, half the battle was already won, as the Florida Department of Corrections had agreed to place her in a hospital so that she could again go back on nutritional support.

On January 5th, the Florida Parole Commission voted to allow her to end her life at home—and that means you spoke out, made a difference, and achieved a complete victory for the effort.

But even as we celebrate that victory, I think we should take a moment to realize that there is a bigger lesson here: the lesson that the fights over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), benefits for 9/11 first responders (the Zadroga Bill), and Betsie Gallardo’s imminent release are all actually pointing us to a political strategy that works, over and over, if we are willing to understand the wisdom that’s been laid before us.

Under heaven nothing is more soft and yielding than water.
Yet for attacking the solid and strong, nothing is better;
It has no equal.
The weak can overcome the strong;
The supple can overcome the stiff.
Under heaven everyone knows this,
Yet no one puts it into practice.

-- From chapter 78 of the “Tao Te Ching”, by Lao Tzu

So what do all three of those victories have in common?

Well, how about this: in every case, Those Proud And Courageous Conservatives found themselves too embarrassed to hold their ground, and once the bright light of public shame fell upon them, their high-minded opposition to three good things simply collapsed.

And that’s my underlying thesis for 2011 and the 112th Congress: shame and embarrassment, which don’t really seem like weapons at all, are in fact fantastically powerful when focused upon those who are trying to do wrong—and a small group of people, combining shame with a bit of imagination and effort, can crack apart even the most unyielding opposition when they embarrass the hell out of those on the other side.

Jon Stewart and “The Daily Show” can very honestly point to the “weapon of mass embarrassment” they delivered just before Christmas as the final straw that broke the back of Republican obstructionism around the Zadroga Bill—and how many of you look at DADT and John McCain and see not a principled fighter for military tradition, but a sad old man who didn’t know when to go home to Arizona and take up sitting on the front porch?

For the next two years we are going to have the chance to apply this tactic over and over and over again—and we already have Republicans and Democrats alike lining up to cut your Social Security...even as they make sure their own "defined benefit" retirement is fully funded, at your expense...and that’s a great place from which to start hitting back.

And in this Congress, embarrassment and shame actually pile up, layer upon layer, to create an amazingly target-rich environment.

Here’s a great example: Fred Upton is the new Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees things like the regulation of offshore drilling and healthcare—and that’s because it was just too embarrassing to give the job to Texas’ Joe Barton...especially after he publicly apologized to BP for how tough we’ve been on them after that giant oil spill last summer.

So Fred has the new gig, and he’s all happy about that, and he’s appointed himself a Staff Director, a fella named Gary Andres.

Now there’s been a lot of talk that some of these Members of Congress might be a bit too associated with lobbyists...and the name seemed awfully familiar...so I decided to Google Andres...and sure enough, not only is he a healthcare lobbyist, in 2007 he was named by Politico as the Top Lobbyist In Washington, making him the first “Top Lobbyist” of the post-Abramoff era.

Andres, just to add to the layering, is upset that Obama is deploying an “Army of Lobbyists”, even though he himself wrote the book on lobbying, literally: “Lobbying Reconsidered: Politics Under the Influence” is available in many fine bookstores.

This seems like as good a time as any to bring today’s conversation to a close, so let’s see where we are:

Even as we celebrate Betsie Gallardo’s victory, which was at least partially obtained through the timely and well-directed application of shame and embarrassment, Conservatives are feeling awfully full of themselves, despite the fact that they were embarrassed into caving on so many things so quickly in the past month.

They will set themselves up for lots more shame and scorn...I promise...and if we step up and focus the larger public on how shameful these folks are going to be, day after day after day, we can stop things like the upcoming raping of your Social Security in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, or any of the other 100 similar kinds of changes our opponents hope to enact, by hook or by crook.

So there you go, America: we have fish, and we have barrels, and if we can’t shut these folks down, then we have only ourselves to blame—and if that were to happen, then the only people who should truly be ashamed and embarrassed...will be us.

How Progressives Move From Jargon To Message

Bill Scher — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:09:34 -0400

I led a panel discussion at Netroots Nation in Pittsburgh Aug. 13 on how progressives can gain the offensive in talking about such issues as health care reform and federal spending. The panel—Campaign for America's Future bloggers Digby, Monica Sanchez and Dave Johnson—stressed that careful language and issue-framing is especially important now to counter increasingly vehement right-wing narratives.

We're the Patriots

Bernie Horn — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:47:10 -0400

Liberals, lefties, Democrats, environmentalists, unionists, consumer advocates—all progressive types—suffer from negative stereotypes. Some of these stereotypes were invented by the right-wing messaging machine, and others are self-inflicted. The stereotype that we progressives are unpatriotic is a product of both.

It is true that the right wing has been engaged in a concerted campaign to persuade voters that progressives “hate America.” As far back as the 1984 Republican National Convention, Americans were told that progressives are the “blame America first” crowd.

Here’s the right wing apostle of hate, Ann Coulter, on the show Hardball:

MIKE BARNICLE: But do you believe that—do you believe that liberals hate America and the flag? Do you believe that?
ANN COULTER: Yes. In fact, I have documented it and written columns about it. They hate it much more than I had imagined.
BARNICLE: What about Bob Kerrey? What about Bob Kerrey? He’s a liberal. Does he hate the flag? Does he hate the flag?
COULTER: The anecdotal evidence is just, is just preposterous in this regard. I have footnotes. I do back this up. I have quotes in the book.

More recently, conservatives tried to smear Barack Obama on the grounds that he attended a “hate America sermon” preached by Reverend Jeremiah Wright. You can bet that the right wing will wave their “Democrats are unpatriotic” banner this fall—because they’ve got little else to say.

It should be easy to rebut this attack. The problem is, we progressives often lean into the punch.

We do hate injustice in America. We are eager to make our country better, and fast. Sometimes undecided voters hear our frustration and take it to mean that we don’t love America. And it is awfully hard to persuade those Americans to join us if they don’t think that we’re on their side.

So let’s all understand: By wanting to fix our nation’s problems, we show that we love America. There’s nothing more patriotic than standing up for our democracy. There’s nothing more patriotic than defending our Constitution.

When we oppose warrantless wiretapping and domestic spying because they violate our Constitution, that’s patriotic.
When we support unions because they strengthen the American economy, that’s patriotic.
When we work to provide health care for all, because that makes Americans more secure, that’s patriotic.
When we seek to save the lives of our soldiers by bringing them home from a reckless, unnecessary war, that’s patriotic.
When we fight to turn our nation into a true land of opportunity and struggle to make the American Dream a reality for millions of Americans, that’s patriotic

So this Fourth of July, hold your head up. It’s a celebration of revolutionaries who loved America but hated the injustices in their society and government. It’s a celebration of political ideals—“that all men are created equal” and that we have “unalienable rights” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Those are progressive ideals.

Let’s make it clear to all Americans that we progressives are the partisans for equality and justice; we are the ones trying to lead our country closer to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. We’re the patriots.

(For more about how to communicate the patriotism of progressives, see the author’s recent book Framing the Future.)

Happy Tax Day, From a Progressive Perspective

Corinne Ramey — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:08:53 -0400

Taxes are one of those things that everybody loves to hate. Tax collectors are the perennial bad guys, a picture of a 1040 form is squeezed between a picture of Hitler and an MRE on the blog StuffNobodyLikes, and the certainty of death and taxes is widely agreed upon. The Beatles, angered by the high tax rate in England, even wrote a song about taxes (which, allegedly, some post offices actually play on April 15). "If you drive a car, I'll tax the street; If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat," sings George Harrison. Of course, this doesn't acknowledge the fact that taxes made the road possible.

But taxes, when viewed from a progressive perspective, just ain't so bad. Taxes have funded our highways, our roads, and our infrastructure. They've funded scientific development, the courts, communication systems, firefighters and and water supplies. They fund the FDA to keep our food and drugs safe, public education, and public health and emergency services. Simply put, taxes are what has enabled this country to grow, function, and succeed.

In fact, taxes have in many ways made the United States what it is today and (gasp) even made it possible for the rich to succeed and get richer. As George Lakoff and Bruce Budner wrote on TomPaine.com, it's not just the poor and middle class, but the rich who have benefited from taxes as well.

"Consider Bill Gates. He started Microsoft as a college dropout and has become the world's richest person. Though he has undoubtedly benefited from his unusual intelligence and business acumen, he could not have created or sustained his personal wealth without the common wealth. The legal system protected Microsoft's intellectual property and contracts. The tax-supported financial infrastructure enabled him to access capital markets and trade his stock in a market in which investors have confidence. He built his company with many employees educated in public schools and universities. Tax-funded research helped develop computer science and the internet. Trade laws negotiated and enforced by the government protect his ability to sell his products abroad. These are but a few of the ways in which Mr. Gates' accumulation of wealth was empowered by the common wealth and by taxation."

Although taxes didn't create Gates' wealth, they certainly allowed him, and millions of others, to succeed. "We think of taxes as investments that give us dividends," writes the Rockridge Institute.

Part of changing the public perspective on taxes, though, isn't just realizing all the good that taxes have brought about. We need to reframe the debate, using positive, progressive language to talk about taxes. We need to drop the phrase "tax relief" and replace it with "tax equity." We need to talk about taxes as what has driven, and not destroyed, our economy.

Granted, the current tax system -- and the way that taxpayer money is being spent -- is far from perfect. An article in yesterday's Times notes that a conservative estimate of the amount of money spent on the Iraq War would cover the cost of Hillary Clinton's universal health care plan or Barack Obama's health plan and proposal to help people facing foreclosure. And even the super-rich Warren Buffet -- who says that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary -- admits that the tax code needs some help. "The taxation system has tilted towards the rich and away from the middle class," he says in this video.

Robert Borosage and Celinda Lake write about a more progressive tax code in The American Prospect:

"Simplify the tax code and make it more progressive. Tax income on wealth at the same rate as income on work. Give low-wage and middle-income earners a break while raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Invest in areas vital to our economy. That would help generate demand and produce jobs here at home rather than chasing them overseas."

And it's not just the federal tax system that needs some help. As Amy Traub has written, New York state's tax system needs a serious overhaul. She writes,

"The fact is, New York is the most unequal state in the country, and our regressive tax system only makes things worse. We’ve been cutting taxes for high-income households for years and now we’ve got a gaping budget shortfall. Raising taxes on the less-than-half-a-percent of New Yorkers who benefited most from the state’s economic good times is the least we can do."

So, when you write out your check to the IRS this year or stand in a mile-long post office line, remember that although filling out forms and waiting in lines isn't any fun, that taxes themselves are, in fact, a good thing. If only George Harrison was still around to rewrite "Taxman" from a more progressive perspective...

Sandra Hinson

Sandra Hinson — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 18:14:27 -0400

Sandra has been active in labor solidarity, reproductive rights, peace and justice work, economic and environmental justice networks and campaigns for universal health care. She received a Masters in Sociology from SUNY at Stony Brook. With GPP since 1994, Sandra has developed strategic planning and training materials as well as strategic analysis of healthcare, taxes and budget policies and other policy issues.

Susan C. Strong

Susan Strong — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:25:48 -0500

SUSAN C. STRONG, Ph.D., is the Executive Director and Founder of The
Metaphor Project . Begun in 1997, the Project helps
activists learn how to mainstream their own messages with language that evokes the
best American values. Susan C. Strong brings both in-depth academic,
research, and activist experience to her work with the Metaphor Project. She taught
communication about contemporary issues at U.C. Berkeley's Rhetoric
Department for more than a decade and also at the Communications Department
of St. Mary's College.

On the activist side, she is a former Senior Research Associate
at the Center for Economic Conversion (Mountain View), a former Peace Action
National Board member, representing California, and served as a National
Peace Action Strategy Co-Chair. She was a co-founder of the original Peace
Action Peace Economy Campaign and a co-founder of The "Who's Counting?"
Project. Her writing has been published on Alternet, Common Dreams,
in The Christian Science Monitor, The Boston Review, The San Francisco
Chronicle, The Sacramento Bee and nationally syndicated by Pacific News
Service and The Progressive Media Project, among many other venues.