Framing the Debate . . .

George Lakoff has been writing for several years about the importance of framing and metaphors in political discourse (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml). Conservatives have generally been better at framing debates – for example renaming the inheritance tax the “death tax” or arguing that we must “support the troops” after the war began to dismantle debate – and have thus had the ability to win elections and largely control debate in the public sphere. That was until Barak Obama came along. He ran a brilliant rhetorical campaign based on framing himself as essentially three things: “hope,” “change” and “not Bush.” This strategy helped him handily win the election and pull in larger majorities in the House and Senate.

Since then, the remnants of the old conservative order have been challenging him at every turn. While many have complained about the love affair between the media and Obama (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/20/_media_cover_obama_like_hes_ultimate_a-list_celebrity__96072.html), I believe a closer look in fact shows the power of conservatives to steer the debate to their favor. Obama is receiving the same coverage most new presidents do, and often receiving a more critical eye than most. I remember one article that came out a few weeks after his presidency began that argued that the honeymoon period was already over.

On two issues, I believe we are seeing the effectiveness of the conservative rhetorical machine: 1) the economy and 2) healthcare. While some positive signs are developing on the economy, the fundamental issues remain and unemployment is still rising. But conservatives effectively altered the nature of the debate from the economy to soaring debt and thus undermined any attempts to build a second recovery bill that could push the country forward. In the process, they have put a serious dent in Obama’s approval ratings right from the outset, way before the bill could have any positive effects (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071902176_pf.html). More importantly, they have moved us away from the idea that government could actually help us more equitably balance the needs of the many and the desires and greed of the few – thus returning us the key issue that led to their rise under Reagan.

On healthcare, the fear campaign of the healthcare industry together with a misinformation campaign about what’s happening in countries with socialized medicine (http://www.prwatch.org/node/8422) has dominated the debate, undermining a necessary change in how we structure our healthcare system in America. One wonders why so few talk about the pandemic-like obesity problem, huge rise in diabetes and autism, low life expectancy and high infant mortality rates and the incredibly high rates of unnecessary procedures that plague America today. On top of this is a pharmaceutical industry that claims to need to charge astronomical prices for drugs that are much cheaper everywhere else, because of innovation – even as they spend huge sums on advertising, often to get us to buy drugs we don’t really need for diseases they sometimes create for this purpose like “General Anxiety Disorder.” Who the hell doesn’t have general anxiety in today’s world?

In any case, the power of framing appears to again be serving the cause of conservatives and Democrats and progressives need to be vigilant if they are to counteract current efforts to undermine real change. To miss this opportunity for real change could cost the party its majority in short order and the country its future in the long run.