The ALL NEW Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate by George Lakoff Page A
Authors: George Lakoff
Ads: Link
believe what they believe. Try to predict what they will say.
Sixth, think strategically, across issue areas. Think in terms of large moral goals, not in terms of programs for their own sake.
Seventh, think about the consequences of proposals. Form progressive slippery slope initiatives.
Eighth, remember that voters vote their identity and their values, which need not coincide with their self-interest.
Ninth, unite! And cooperate! Here’s how: Remember the six modes of progressive thought: (1) socioeconomic, (2) identity politics, (3) environmentalist, (4) civil libertarian, (5) spiritual, and (6) antiauthoritarian. Notice which of these modes of thought you use most often—where you fall on the spectrum and where the people you talk to fall on the spectrum. Then rise above your own mode of thought and start thinking and talking from shared progressive values.
Tenth, be proactive, not reactive. Play offense, not defense. Practice reframing, every day, on every issue. Don’t just say what you believe. Use your frames, not their frames. Use them because they fit the values you believe in.
Eleventh, speak to the progressive base in order to activate the nurturant model of biconceptual voters. Don’t move to the right. Rightward movement hurts in two ways. It alienates the progressive base and it helps conservatives by activating their model in biconceptual voters.
★ ★ Part II ★ ★
Framing 102: Framing the Unframed
★ 2 ★
Framing the Unframed
T here are two common mistakes people make when thinking about framing.
The first mistake is believing that framing is a matter of coming up with clever slogans, like “death tax” or “partial-birth abortion,” that resonate with a significant segment of the population. Those slogans only work when there has been a long—often decades-long—campaign of framing issues like taxation and abortion conceptually, so that the brains of many people are prepared to accept those phrases. I was once asked if I could reframe—that is, provide a winning slogan for—a global warming bill “by next Tuesday.” I laughed. Effective reframing is the changing of millions of brains to be prepared to recognize a reality. That preparation hadn’t been done.
The second mistake is believing that, if only we could present the facts about a certain reality in some effective way, then people would “wake up“ to that reality, change their personal opinion, and start acting politically to change society. “Why can’t people wake up?” is the complaint—as if people are “asleep” and just have to be aroused to see and comprehend the world around them. But the reality is that certain ideas have to be ingrained in us—developed over time consistently and precisely enough to create an accurate frame for our understanding.
Here is an example. Pensions, even by those who advocate for them, are often framed as benefits—“extras” granted by an employer to the employed. Yet what is a pension, really? A pension is delayed payment for work already done. As a condition for taking a job, a pension is part of your earned salary, withheld and invested by your employer, to be paid later, after retirement. So if an employer says, “we just don’t have the money to pay for your pension,” that means that he has either embezzled, stolen, or misspent your earnings, which by contract he is responsible for paying you. Your employer is a thief.
I’ve had the repeated experience of talking to union leaders and groups of workers, pointing out to them that a pension is delayed payment for work already done. I get universal agreement. Then I ask, “Have you ever said it?” “No.” “Do you believe it?” “Yes.” “Would you start saying it?” That is where it gets difficult. Even for progressives, it is hard to shake the frame constructed over years by pundits on the right that pensions are pay for not working.
Yet the fact that pensions are delayed payments is an obvious truth that
Sixth, think strategically, across issue areas. Think in terms of large moral goals, not in terms of programs for their own sake.
Seventh, think about the consequences of proposals. Form progressive slippery slope initiatives.
Eighth, remember that voters vote their identity and their values, which need not coincide with their self-interest.
Ninth, unite! And cooperate! Here’s how: Remember the six modes of progressive thought: (1) socioeconomic, (2) identity politics, (3) environmentalist, (4) civil libertarian, (5) spiritual, and (6) antiauthoritarian. Notice which of these modes of thought you use most often—where you fall on the spectrum and where the people you talk to fall on the spectrum. Then rise above your own mode of thought and start thinking and talking from shared progressive values.
Tenth, be proactive, not reactive. Play offense, not defense. Practice reframing, every day, on every issue. Don’t just say what you believe. Use your frames, not their frames. Use them because they fit the values you believe in.
Eleventh, speak to the progressive base in order to activate the nurturant model of biconceptual voters. Don’t move to the right. Rightward movement hurts in two ways. It alienates the progressive base and it helps conservatives by activating their model in biconceptual voters.
★ ★ Part II ★ ★
Framing 102: Framing the Unframed
★ 2 ★
Framing the Unframed
T here are two common mistakes people make when thinking about framing.
The first mistake is believing that framing is a matter of coming up with clever slogans, like “death tax” or “partial-birth abortion,” that resonate with a significant segment of the population. Those slogans only work when there has been a long—often decades-long—campaign of framing issues like taxation and abortion conceptually, so that the brains of many people are prepared to accept those phrases. I was once asked if I could reframe—that is, provide a winning slogan for—a global warming bill “by next Tuesday.” I laughed. Effective reframing is the changing of millions of brains to be prepared to recognize a reality. That preparation hadn’t been done.
The second mistake is believing that, if only we could present the facts about a certain reality in some effective way, then people would “wake up“ to that reality, change their personal opinion, and start acting politically to change society. “Why can’t people wake up?” is the complaint—as if people are “asleep” and just have to be aroused to see and comprehend the world around them. But the reality is that certain ideas have to be ingrained in us—developed over time consistently and precisely enough to create an accurate frame for our understanding.
Here is an example. Pensions, even by those who advocate for them, are often framed as benefits—“extras” granted by an employer to the employed. Yet what is a pension, really? A pension is delayed payment for work already done. As a condition for taking a job, a pension is part of your earned salary, withheld and invested by your employer, to be paid later, after retirement. So if an employer says, “we just don’t have the money to pay for your pension,” that means that he has either embezzled, stolen, or misspent your earnings, which by contract he is responsible for paying you. Your employer is a thief.
I’ve had the repeated experience of talking to union leaders and groups of workers, pointing out to them that a pension is delayed payment for work already done. I get universal agreement. Then I ask, “Have you ever said it?” “No.” “Do you believe it?” “Yes.” “Would you start saying it?” That is where it gets difficult. Even for progressives, it is hard to shake the frame constructed over years by pundits on the right that pensions are pay for not working.
Yet the fact that pensions are delayed payments is an obvious truth that
Similar Books
