Principled Opposition
Josh is absolutely right to prefer a strategy of opposition over all the whining about frames and narratives we’ve heard since the election. Politics is an existential activity in which we are, not because we think, but because we do -- we take stands in a high-stakes, often zero-sum contests for the future of our country. Josh’s efforts on Social Security have clearly done more to unite the party and protect the country from George Bush’s agenda than any new ideas we’ve had in the last four years.
In fact, some of the proponents of so-called new ideas – especially the triangulators who think a new idea means splitting the difference, no matter where that leaves us substantively – could get the country in serious trouble.
But, with all due respect to the guy who’s buying the coffee, Democrats can't reduce themselves to defenders of all laws written between 1938 and 1968. They can’t become opponents of change. At a time when a lot of folks don’t feel the status quo is working for them, opposition has to be opposition to mistaken versions of change, based on a healthy debate about where Democrats would prefer to take the country.
After all, Democrats adhere to certain values (like opportunity) and care about helping people who can’t get what they need from the market alone. These principles and people should be their clients, as it were, not specific programs.
Democrats should oppose policies that fail to promote these principles and help these people -- and they need to be able to describe what approach they would prefer.
Yes, I know, it’s going to be really tough. It’s a lot easier to unite the existing coalition around saving what they have than to bring together a new coalition around what you’re promising them. And if Democrats admit there’s any room for improvement in any program, the Right will use that as ammunition to attempt to dismantle it.
But really, is being the advocate of programs rather than people and principles winning elections -- or even saving programs? The folks who feel that the status quo is working for them – the very people who should feel Democrats are their advocates – are being peeled away by what looks like reform.
Social Security has been a great success -- no question about it. But it’s been a fight on Democratic turf; Americans are not at all convinced Social Security needs changing. It holds few lessons for how to approach tax “reform.” Option One: Wait until the President comes out with his proposal and then find all the ways in which it would hurt regular folks and oppose change. But that doesn’t really answer all the questions that will come up. First, do Democrats really want to defend a code so riddled with exemptions that it’s a wage tax rather than an income tax? If Democrats oppose all the savings incentives then they’re anti-growth. If they fight to make them refundable then they've conceded the bigger argument. Do they oppose a consumption tax even if it’s progressive? Do they insist on revenue neutrality?
Option Two: What if instead of waiting for their proposal, and hoping that Democrats will be united enough in opposition to find the right tack and win, Democrats started discussing now what winning and losing would really look like.
I’m NOT saying they should put forward a detailed version of the “right” tax code. Or come up with a bunch of abstract wonk principles like progressivity, incentivizing saving, refundability, sufficiency or efficiency that mean nothing to most Americans and certainly aren’t as appealing as “tax cut.”
Instead, Democrats could have a conversation about whether the goal of tax reform should be, say, to grow the economy and to ensure that working families benefit from it. That might lead to a strategy of supporting incentives for skill investments and easing the burden on families and of opposing proposals that do the opposite – like creating new savings incentives for Bill Gates.
Your answer might be different. We should have that conversation.
The Democrats have to grow up and demand that we citizens grow up as well. On issues like free trade, attacks on Walmart and the "nanny" society Democrats are too silly to be taken seriously and not demanding enough of Americans.
It is time for Democrats to press for progressive principles. A nation in which real opportunities are available for everyone. Healthcare actually makes more people healthier and is available. A recognition that environment is important but not enough to take away liberty for citizens.
We must oppose Bush's use of government to enrich the already wealthy. We must recognize that economic choice is a freedom to be protected. We must recognize that the world is dangerous but that military might, though necessary, is not the only tool we must deploy.
May 31, 2005 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I don't understand is this; back before the great "comprimise" on the filibuster, Dick Durbin said that if the Frist and the GOP went nuclear, then the Dems would agressively pursue their agenda. Why aren't we agressivly pursuing our agenda regardless?!! The Gopers under Gingrich did, when they were a minority, remember? It was called the "Contract For America" and it won them the majority and nearly impeached a president.
What's so hard to understand about the following concepts:
Fully fund Social Security.
No cuts to Social Security.
I heart Social Security.
If we can afford the Bush Tax Cut, and Bush's Private War, we can afford to fully fund Social Security.
I want to hear a democrat come out and say these things.
Love the new site, Mudkitty
May 31, 2005 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many learning theorists propose that meaningful learning arises from critically thinking through some sort of dilemma. This is why oppositional learning is so powerful -- when the Bush administration tells me "this is good for you" but I don't feel very good, there is a good opportunity to critically think through what is going on here: whose interests are being served at whose expense? This is different from simple opposition, though. Simply being oppositional is not learning. Rather, the learning process entails critically analyzing why what is being presented as good, right or true is not so good, right or true for you or for your community or for your nation.
It is important to engage in this collectively and collaboratively, as such efforts like TPM cafe are intended to do. In such spaces, productive learning also occurs. For instance, at Daily Kos, the notion that "Democrats stand for working people," I think is a useful knowledge product that arose in that space of oppositional learning.
I would urge that such spaces be intentionally filled with a variety of perspectives, not just insiders, not just white people, not just policy analysts. Real working people from all walks of life ought to be included in this conversation. This diversity would bring yet more dilemmas to be encountered critically, and would result in the most useful productive knowledge, I think: knowledge that is both personally powerful and socially transforming.
Anyway, blah blah blah. Congratulations to the long-awaited TPMCafe!
May 31, 2005 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad there isn't a Question and Answers period every week like they have in England.
May 31, 2005 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I attended a book signing for Krugman's "The Great Unraveling". He talked about Dubya's economic and fiscal policies, then ended it by saying, "I never thought I would say this, but they are making me miss Ronald Reagan."
Reagan and the Democratic congress put together tax reform closing many loopholes, even will reducing the top marginal rate. Marginal rate, schmarginal rate. The magnitude of the marginal rate doesn't mean anything when you are talking about the non-taxable part of your income.
Karen said it best, "do Democrats really want to defend a code so riddled with exemptions that it’s a wage tax rather than an income tax?" These credits and exemptions have been added to the tax code every year after the Reagan era-reform of '86(?).
Here is a two-pronged plan: 1) Start closing down loopholes, save the Earned Income Credit; and 2) Propose a 1% cut to SSI taxes to be split between employees and employers as long as we can remove the payroll cap.
Will any of this pass? Of course not, but it would give the electorate a taste of what we stand for.
May 31, 2005 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about fully funding the darn thing?
May 31, 2005 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to disagree with the premise in the lead paragraph which seems to suggest that oppostion is an alternative to framing/narrative. The framing issue is far more fundamental, and opposition without framing will fail.
May 31, 2005 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Respectfully, I think you are misunderstanding the importance of framing, and concluding incorrectly that it is somehow contradictory to an "oppositional" stance. Framing is not new, and neither is it fluffy or shallow...it is based on decades of scientific research. It is something the Goopers do, and do well, and we continue to ignore it at our peril. As long as we do, a very large portion of Americans will see progressives as a fly-by-night, policy-driven movement with no fundamental vision or moral compass.
This indrodution to framing is recommended:http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects/strategic/framing
May 31, 2005 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
SSI is fully funded through 2041 at the current benefit formula. What's the problem?
May 31, 2005 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think a basic problem with the SS debate is that there is a great advantage in being first. The one who first makes a statement on an issue gets to set the "frame" or whatever you want to call it. The one who is second then either gets to make the debate on these pre-arranged terms, try to change the frame (v. difficult), or ignore it all together.
I personally think option 3 would have been better here - simply say SS is the best funded govt. program we have currently and that there are other problems we need to deal with first. Then keep harping on those other issues.
May 31, 2005 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Discussing and clarifying what liberal Democrats stand for is great; so is distilling those ideas into principles or themes. Talking about "framing" is terrible. It smacks of focus groups, polling, and calculated political positions - everything that is wrong with beltway Democrats. In fact, it sounds like the absolute opposite of belief and principle.
Someone above said that lefties don't like emotional appeals, because our ideas are strong enough to stand without such stuff. That's absolute bunk. We liberal Democrats (Who came up with progressives? I wear my label proudly!) out here in the hinterlands want belief, principle, emotions, and a strong opposition all at once. We have had none of that since we lost power, in '94 in Congress, and in 2000 in the White House.
We believe our biggest obstacles are beltway Democrats and the MSM, not Republicans. MSM journalists all want to pontificate for FOX or MSNBC and do not criticize the administration. The NY Times and Washington Post carry water for the administration, except among half of the editorialists. I went door to door canvassing in 2004 and heard it over and over and over from working class Democrats who voted for Bush. Democrats stand for nothing. They have their finger in the wind.
Thank God for social security, John Bolton and Harry Reid. Daschle would have killed us. I want a boxer, a fighter, and a strategist on my side, even if I disagree with Reid on some issues. Finally. We need more smart politicians, who pick good fights and do not capitulate. Politics and belief are primal.
May 31, 2005 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Folks-
Framing is a term of art. If you are using it to mean "spin" or "framing an issue", then you are misusing the term. "Frames," at their deepest, are biological (i.e., conditioned reflex) level metaphors that lead the person holding a frame to interpret incoming data in terms of the frame.
"Framing," as I understand it, means to develop and present a frame in a way that the perceiver starts taking in data through that frame (or at least that's the goal; all that can really be done is to develop the frame and present it).
We all have various frames that represent varying values we hold; the trick is to vitiate the opponent's frame and activate your frames in the listener/reader. Negating an opponent's frame merely reinforces it; it is necessary to bring in a new, different frame.
"Death tax," to pick a Lunz-ite neoconservative use of framing, activates frames around religion, property rights, privacy, mortality, and governmental oppression, to name a few. A receptive listener is then moved further to the political right, and is more inclined to accept those views when they arrive in the future.
This is deep, subtle stuff, although it is often misconstued. It is not PR fluff or new-age woo-woo.
It behooves any commenter (or blogger, Karen) who wants to be taken seriously to understand this stuff before loosely tossing off comments. Otherwise, the speaker/writer sounds, and is, shallow.
May 31, 2005 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your comment about the R's playing on our side of the field is correct. Carl Rove is not going to chip at the edges, he is going to go after your strength on your territory. That is what he is doing with Social Security. It's been great for us because we can highlight our support for this program and their duplicity on the issue. The longer we can keep them slowed down, the better we can begin to develop our opposition muscles.
I have been seeing the beginning of an effective opposition. Although we have a great obstacle to overcome in the dominance of the Right in the mainstream media especially television, The work that is being done by blogs like Josh's and Steve Clemmens to name just two is just amazing. The work they have done in marshalling an opposion to Social Security and John Bolton has made a significant contribution in slowing the Republican machine to a crawl. The DailyKos has become like a national political newspaper. The successes they have had coupled with a democratic leadership that is more willing to engage serious political battle bodes well. The ability of the blogs to deliver cash was clearly demonstrated during the last cycle and will continue. Independent organizations like MoveOn and ACT are growing and getting more sophisticated. Think tanks like The Center for American Progress are growing and helping to develop language.
We have significant disadvantages to overcome, but we also have some very valuable assets at our disposal. And that's a good thing.
May 31, 2005 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
In general I agree that Democrats have to be for something. And I do think that it is valid to say that we are for the real reforms made in the 20th Century - all conceived, adopted, and implemented by Democrats.
Although he was relentlessly mocked for saying it, Al Gore was right - we're for the people, they are for the powerful. And that, to me, is what Democrats have to remember. It is utterly shameful that ANY Democrat voted for Bankruptcy "Reform." This reform, which prohibits an employee of WorldCom or Enron from wiping the slate clean after a divorce or medical emergency (because, let's face it, they no longer have savings or health insurance) while allowing WoldCom or Enron to reorganize stands common sense on its head. The people who need protecting the least - like the credit card companies that charge 24% interest on unsecured debts, precisely because people may default on them - get whatever they want from the Republicans while ordinary people get the shaft. Why aren't Democrats shouting this from the housetops? If they are more concerned with getting campaign contributions from banks than they are with protecting the interests of their constituents, then shame on them.
So, what we are for is the people. What we are against is the radical right wing agenda. I doubt there is a single element of the Bush agenda that is not inimical to the interests of 90% of the American public. That's a pretty broad slice of the electorate that we ought to be representing. You should even be able to win a rigged election with that kind of support.
And by the way, I think a "progressive consumption tax" is an oxymoron. Unless the rate increases the smaller the percentage of your income you consume, in which case it's really an income tax.
May 31, 2005 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post 12 has it exactly right. I would add that calling discussion of framing a form of "whining" is itself framing -- a frame often used by Rush Limbaugh, who labels anything he disagrees with a form of whining. The first paragraph of Karen's blog has exactly the sort of qualities that make so much right-wing punditry so annoying and harmful: a dismissive tone and misrepresentation of the views one is commenting upon. For an action to be understood as "taking a stand," it must first be succesfully framed as such -- otherwise the same action becomes "obstruction." Furthermore, framing has nothing to do with the issue of "splitting the difference" between two arbitrary positions. Please read Lakoff before making any comments on framing, or any accusations of "whining."
May 31, 2005 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read Lakoff before criticizing the framing idea. It's why the Republicans are winning when their policies are so destructive.
Bill Clinton was a master at framing. That is why he won. Instead of saying "we're going to raise taxes on the wealthy" he said "we're going to ask the rich to pay their fair share." Its a subtle difference, but I'll bet large majorities would support the latter concept while a much smaller number would support the former. It really does matter how you say it.
As Kos was saying the other day, frame the abortion debate as a personal freedom and keeping the government out of our personal decisions argument and you've got a winner. Give in to the 'pro-life' frame and we lose.
I'd like to see a blog devoted to coming up with good framing ideas.
Personally, I would like to see the Bush's tax cuts framed as "immoral" whenever they are mentioned by any democrat. Frame Bolton as a "loose cannon." I would like to stop using the words religious and Christian when talking about the Dobson brigade and only use the terms fundamentalist or extremist. When we say"religious right" or "christian right" in a negative way, many Christians who are not in that group get offended.
If we frame framing as whining we lose. We must learn how to talk about issues in an appealing way.
May 31, 2005 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats may have missed the boat entirely on this one. There really is no problem with Social Security, although there may be one far down the road. But, there is a major problem fast approaching and that is the Bush deficits. These deficits make redeeming the Social Security trust fund bonds difficult - by adding greatly to the deficit. The SS trust fund bonds will jack up the budget deficit so high and for so long that the budget deficit may cause serious problems in just a few years. I wish we had shifted the framing of this debate in this direction from the beginning. And, from now on I wish we would constantly refer to the problem as being the Bush deficits.
May 31, 2005 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
All this discussion about frames is old hat. Lakoff precursor,Metaphors We Live, synthesizes a variety of works by De Saussure, Levi-Strauss, Nietzche and others. More recently, Hayden White improved on our understanding of narrative and frames. Lakoff's latest work, while quite good, is basically a reworking of the ideas in Metaphors. There is, to my mind, nothing completely original, heuristic or urgent in his latest work.
Certainly, we all agree that Democrats need to do a better job of crafting policies and language that articulate progressive ideas rooted in the best tradition of American politics. More than a frame, we need a politics and policy that call upon all of us to be better informed, more compassionate and mindful of our nation's progressive past and future. We should argue that what conservatives want to conserve is their own power and greed. Liberals, on the other hand, see this nation's security and greatness as an expansive excercise in which democracy and the meaning and rights of citizenship is constantly evolving and growing to encompass a more humane and progressive future. At its heart, liberal politics implicitly embraces grass roots organizing and involvement. If we fail to do this, if we put the cart before the donkey as it were, we are left talking about frames and arguing about the importance of messages. Let us leave aside for now our differences and all this talk about emplotment and frames. If you don't have anyone to listen, what matter does it make how well crafted your frame is.
May 31, 2005 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
That framing matters seems non-controversial: so much research supports that framing influences thinking and behavior, this would place the burden on those who don't believe it works.
On the other hand, I see a post which objects to framing on prescriptive grounds. This raises the question, do you want to be more effective at philosophy, or politics? Do you want to turn voters into progressive thinkers, or do you want to find enough common ground with moderates such that you can turn them against the wing-nuts? Do you want to fight moderate Democrats, or do you want to fight Republicans?
We should use framing to take principles we believe and share with other people in order to make those people want to act on those principles. This is where we have failed. The Republicans have tricked people into betraying their own principles. If framing forces me to use distasteful metaphors in order to bring people to act on the most important principles, I'll just hold my nose.
May 31, 2005 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
All this discussion about frames is old hat. Lakoff precursor,Metaphors We Live, synthesizes a variety of works by De Saussure, Levi-Strauss, Nietzche and others. More recently, Hayden White improved on our understanding of narrative and frames. Lakoff's latest work, while quite good, is basically a reworking of the ideas in Metaphors. There is, to my mind, nothing completely original, heuristic or urgent in his latest work.
Certainly, we all agree that Democrats need to do a better job of crafting policies and language that articulate progressive ideas rooted in the best tradition of American politics. More than a frame, we need a politics and policy that call upon all of us to be better informed, more compassionate and mindful of our nation's progressive past and future. We should argue that what conservatives want to conserve is their own power and greed. Liberals, on the other hand, see this nation's security and greatness as an expansive excercise in which democracy and the meaning and rights of citizenship is constantly evolving and growing to encompass a more humane and progressive future. At its heart, liberal politics implicitly embraces grass roots organizing and involvement. If we fail to do this, if we put the cart before the donkey as it were, we are left talking about frames and arguing about the importance of messages. Let us leave aside for now our differences and all this talk about emplotment and frames. If you don't have anyone to listen, what matter does it make how well crafted your frame is.
June 1, 2005 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
We agree on the ends we want to reach, I believe, but these comments re Lakoff are simply inaccurate.
Read "Philosophy Made Flesh," "Moral Politics," and "Women, Fire and Dangerous Things" if you want to offer a meaningful comment. Lakoff's contribution is not mere synthesis, and it's based on a great deal more than De Saussure, Levi-Strauss, Nietzche.
"crafting policies and language that articulate progressive ideas rooted in the best tradition of American politics" is not framing, as pointed out in an earlier post.
I wish Lakoff would write an introduction to progressive framing. Moral Politics comes close, but it's at least 300 pages too long.
June 1, 2005 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
In fact I have read all of Lakoff's work and stand firm in my position. It is one thing for you to simply recite a lists of his work: heck, anyone with access to a bookstore could do the same. Exactly, since you are so convinced, does Lakoff contribute that is so seeminly brilliant that you cannot bring yourself to actually divulge here?
June 4, 2005 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would like Karen to explain why it is that the ideas other committed progressives have had are "whining?" I don't know who she's referring to, but George Lakoff has presented some interesting and valuable ideas about progressive framing and Robert Reich wrote a great article about American narratives in The New Republic. Why is it necessary to denigrate these ideas in order to make a point? If it was intentional it is misguided and gratuitously nasty. If it was unintentional and done out of habit, it's a habit worth kicking.
June 4, 2005 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink