All politics is personal

[xthread]

Thanks to yesthattom for leading me to crystallize my thoughts on this subject.

George Lakoff (of Don't Think of an Elephant) posted a discussion about framing discussions about Immigration Policy from the Progressive end of the political spectrum. It's good, but it lacks punch, and his core frame (Nurturing Parent) makes my teeth itch. Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist, has also been doing work (obviously from the other side of the aisle) on Immigration Policy framing, and a memo for candidates was recently leaked, and has been getting a lot of play in the blogosphere.
They're both very interesting, but I think that in general the Luntz effort is orders of magnitude better. Luntz basically tells the candidate 'here are the terms to use that will appeal to what the public already believes they know about the issue.' Lakoff talks about 'here is how to talk about the issue in a way that is much more comprehensive.' Unfortunately, not only is the Lakoff framing reliably more complex, it also has much less punch, because it asks the voter to step outside their own frame, while the Luntz spin basically reaffirms what the voter believes they already know. Even in the case where the Republican candidate is speaking to a Hispanic audience, who he expects will have personal connections to illegal immigrants, he still poses his frame in a way that affirms the self-perception of the listener. The Lakoff framing is mostly about other people, the Luntz framing is about the voter the candidate is speaking to.

And that really sums up what I think is wrong with Progressive communication in general today: Their communication appears to be about other people, even when it isn't. And Conservative communication is all about the person listening to the message, even when it isn't. This means that the Progressive communications are failing on two counts: first, talking to prospective voters about other people's interests is a much less effective way to win votes than talking to prospective voters about them, and secondly because talking to someone about other people in the context of the listener is a much more respectful and engaging way to communicate. Talking to people about other people in the context of the other people is pretty much only going to engage people who have an academic interest in the other people in question, or who are simply academically interested in the world. Trying to win elections by having academic conversations about people other than the prospective voter is a sucky way to try to win elections.

yesthattom's original post, and my comment to it, are here.

EDIT: People have been linking to this, I've unlocked the post.

Comments

[palecur.livejournal.com]

a Hispanic audience, who he expects will have personal connections to illegal immigrants

This is pretty much the core thing that's wrong with the current Administration's weird illegal-immigrant schizophrenia. Sucking up to illegal immigrants does not endear one to the existing, legally immigrated Hispanic population. My Mom and Dad don't have patience for line-jumpers -- they went through the process, and they expect anyone else who wants to come here to go through the process too. Amnesties and such only serve to alienate and annoy them -- and middle-aged Latinos tend to be socially quite conservative as well as entrepreneurial, making them a pretty natural Republican constituency.

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

The Bush Administration is stuck between opposing parts of their supporters. I don't think this is at all a question of sucking up to the illegals by proposing "a path to citizenship"; I'm pretty sure this is in service to the need for low cost labor in a whole lot of service industries. It serves the dual purpose of maintaining that low cost labor pool (though possibly more expensive than before; if the labor pool has rights it can insist on, the abuses will (hopefully) wane and wages will rise somewhat) rather than attempting to deport it, and by both making illegal border crossing harder and providing that "path to citizenship" it more or less puts the blessing of legality/legitimacy on those already here who actually "follow the path" (thus making the republican law & order types happy, or at least less unhappy).

The only ones who won't like this are the ones afraid/upset at all the brown people who can't speak English all over the place. Bush is betting that this segment (once you exclude the others I've already mentioned) is small enough to be ignored for now.

I don't think the illegal immigrants desires figure in the administration's calculations at all. They can't vote.

[xthread.livejournal.com]

Yes, 'Path to Citizenship' is pretty interesting, actually - it gets some backing from the democractic side of the aisle by letting more immigrants in and looks a bit earthy crunchy, it lets the industries whose current levels of profitability depend on the current immigrant population get the labor force that they need, and gives Law & Order folks a fig-leaf with which to not prosecute those industries back into the stone age. And, as you point out, it distresses hard-core Nativists, but it also distresses the rather large population of people who feel a visceral sense of anger at people they feel are line-jumping. I don't get that visceral rage, but enough people report it that it has to be addressed, whether that's by discussing other elements of the problem, passing draconian enforcement legislation, or holding our fingers in our ears saying la-la-la-la, I can't really comment, but it needs to be respected and responded to.

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

I read the post and the links, but didn't respond because yesthattom and I don't agree on politics, and when I try to discuss politics with him, he loses it. I think he's as (if not moreso) horribly frustrated as most Democrats seem to be; that not enough of the country wants to vote for them any more, no matter what they say.

I was also really annoyed by Lakoff's description of the Rockridge Institute as "non-partisan". It may be so in that they'll intellectually back any party that pushes their principles, but the only party which fits with even a ghost of a chance of election is the Democratic Party, which makes that description disingenuous at best. Luntz is very clear about his biases.

What frustrates me most is that neither party wants to accurately measure the results of their legislation, and adjust to suit, because that would (in all probability) expose flaws and faults in their worldviews. Government needs to be a practical enterprise.

[judith-s.livejournal.com]

Government has never been practical. It was deliberately set up to be slow moving and relatively dumb.

But yes, I think accurate measurement of the costs and benefits of legistlation would be nice. But I will settle for making it in some way illegal, or at least politically painful, to suppress the accurate numbers, when they are available. When Medicare Reform was passed, the analyst who had the correct numbers was told that he would get fired if he published them. The Administration deliberately gave numbers that were half the actual cost. Absolutely nothing happened when this came out.

[judith-s.livejournal.com]

There are quite a few liberal bloggers who raise the same issue. http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114943721376357355

Doesn't this just parse to "liberals are eggheads, and conservatives are just average joes who really understand you"?

[xthread.livejournal.com]

Doesn't this just parse to "liberals are eggheads, and conservatives are just average joes who really understand you"?

To the ears of many listeners, yes.
More on that subject later.

[shadowsmark.livejournal.com]

I think your point is deeper than your example, and I think you put it well. I've had an experience recently that I think speaks to the same point.

All the institutionalized atrocities that have been visited upon me and my daughter have been framed in terms of "the best interests of the child." I am as intellectual as they come, but that rationalization is never going to convince me of anything as it relates to my life and my child's. I've recently been going to a divorced parents' class, and was expecting the usual "you must do/say/think/feel these obviously insane and evil things because they are in the best interests of the child." Instead, at the first meeting the facilitator, much to my surprise, said, "I am going to help you have a better relationship with your child." Direct appeal to self-interest works every time.

[ozarque.livejournal.com]

Well said, and well thought out; thanks for posting it.

[xthread.livejournal.com]

Considering the source, high praise indeed. Thanks.

[dpolicar]

It's rare that I find a post that both interests me and I find no point of argument with. This is one of them. I've basically been griping about this for years, but not as cogently.