Framing the Debate with "Progressive" Values

Organizing people and campaigns is one thing, but any organized campaign must have a clear message to reach the people. After all, the goal of these campaigns isn't so much to "convince" those in positions of authority (often they simply don't care, because the system works for them), but to convince the people as a whole that change can happen. When the people are united and organized, they have the power to enact change. Convincing people that they do in fact have the power is the hard part, and part of that relies on spreading a vision people believe in -- a vision for how our social systems can be changed into ones that work for all people and not just wealth oligarchs.

George Lakoff, a linguistics and cognitive science expert, argues in his short book "Don't Think of An Elephant!" that communicating that vision is one of the major failures of the left over the last few decades. In particular, right-wing ideas have permeated our culture and government because those on the right had the right idea -- they started setting out a conservative vision and how to use language and media to change the cultural mindset. Their strategy has ultimately worked and paid off because even some activists on "the left" are caught using the same language and framing as the right -- in other words, "the left" has been stuck playing defense against that framing, when to win the left must be pushing it's own vision and framing. And as a linguistic expert, he points to recent scientific understanding of the brain to back up his assertions on why framing is so important.

The book is a fairly short and engaging read, but I will outline some of the biggest lessons below with my own commentary. I must note that I read the 2014 "All New" edition, and not the original, so some material could have been updated or changed if you read it in the past.

1. Lakoff's key assertion is that: frames are culture change. Frames are how you make sense of the world, and are sort of filters that ideas, sensations, and facts pass through as your brain attempts to understand the world. These frames are literally "baked into" your neural circuits. Ideas that come up often have stronger neural circuits, and so your brain will naturally use those circuits more often to process new information (our brains like patterns and so rely on frames we've seen before to make sense of new information). Much of this framing is actually at the subconscious level, so we're often not even aware of it or how it is influencing our thought processes.
2. Lakoff argues that language is what activates these neural frames, and so using the correct language to communicate your ideas is critical if you want to change culture. Language must be used to activate frames in the right way so that people understand what you are telling them; otherwise, what you are saying might not make sense to other people, even if it makes total sense to you. Many of the political "shouting matches" are because two people, who might have per
3. These frames are essentially our moral guidelines. So using effective language often comes down to making appeals to morals and good ideas. Good, detailed policy actually matters much less than you think in political debate, and the emphasis on detailed policy rather than a sweeping moral vision has been part of the reason progressives have struggled the last few decades.
4. There are two major moral frames that vast majority of people have, loosely called "conservative" and "progressive". Lakoff argues that the better terms for them are "strict father" morality versus a "nurturing parent" morality, because most of the moral framing comes through understanding the world as we understand families from one of those view points.
1. "Conservatives" have a "strict father" morality -- they believe in a moral hierarchy in which the father figure is the top of the hierarchy. The father therefore has all of the say and is the moral authority. It is the father's duty to protect the family; in particular, the world is seen as essential being "bad" or "evil" by default. Strict discipline and punishment must be used to protect the children from that "evil" and make them grow up with individual responsibility. People that do not discipline their children risk having them fall into "evil" -- poverty, drugs, whatever, and therefore those issues are seen as personal moral failings. When extended into religion and government, you can see political and religious leaders as displaying that same moral authority behavior that exerts a "standard" way of living to avoid those evils -- and ostracizes those outside of the "norm"; God is seen as a wrathful, punitive God.
2. "Progressives" have a "nurturing parent" morality -- they are more anti-hierarchical and share in responsibilities. The child and the world are seen as essentially "good" by default, and so the best way to protect the children is seen as helping them develop empathy and cooperation, a responsibility to the community as a whole to help protect everyone and make the world even better. Children learn better from experience and making mistakes with the help and support of the community, rather than strict discipline. When extended into religion and government, you see more of an effort to provide equal opportunity and celebrate diversity; God is seen as a caring, forgiving God.
5. The vast majority of people actually have some of both conservative and progressive framing. Those that are all one side or the other are "extreme" and fairly rare. This means that the majority of "conservatives" you meet do actually have progressive principles hidden within; your job as an activist becomes using the right language and vision to reach those progressive frames and help them change their views on what kind of society they'd like to live in. Of course, this also means a fair number of "progressives" are also out there operating with a lot of conservative framing, and so we need to be careful to not let those folks speak for the progressive moment in conservative language and terminology. We must adapt our language to reach them too. In fact, some people's brains use "conservative" framing circuits for some issues, and "progressive" framing circuits for other issues, giving an appearance of inconsistency -- but this is subconscious and entirely possible that the person is even unaware of the inconsistencies due to it being how their brains are wired. Again, we can reach them with the right message and language; calling them "stupid" doesn't help and doesn't match brain science.
6. These two major frames seem to have existed in the public debate going back thousands of years to the beginning of human civilization; this isn't a recent change under Trump or anything like that.
7. The real big change has been that conservatives have massively improved their communications strategy and now largely control the public debate. (Many progressives view Trump as an "idiot", but he is actually a communications master and knows exactly how to frame issues to get his conservative base excited and energized for action.) So how did this come about?
1. The more a brain circuit is activated, the stronger it becomes. It is activated with language appealing to moral issues.
2. As brain circuits become stronger, any opposing circuits become weaker. Conservative circuits overpower the progressive circuits, meaning decisions and ideas become influenced more by one than the other.
3. The stronger circuits become, the more likely they will be activated for more issues (your brain considers those strong circuits and ideas very important!), putting more of a conservative framing on more and more issues.
4. More frequent language and imagery creates stronger circuits, so keep repeating the same "talking points" that activate conservative brain circuits.
5. Journalists are trained to use the most frequent, common language in their stories. As conservative points become more frequent and common, journalism tends to mirror the same language and help it spread further.
6. As journalists use that framing more often in their reporting and questions for politicians, progressives have begun adopting some of that same frequently-used language, despite the conservative tilt. Even when only using the same language to deny it, using the framing at all (whether for or against) still activates brain circuits and strengthens pathways. Once the brain circuits are strong enough, listeners develop "armor" to facts -- facts that contradict the framing can't even be understood properly, aren't even processed by the brain circuits, and are basically just ignored, if not strengthening the circuits by reinforcing the moral connections of the topic.
7. As politicians adopt the conservative language and framing more and more to keep up with journalism and news, they reinforce conservative neural circuits in their own brains, and begin to adopt conservative positions into their own platforms. Once "progressive" people begin looking at "compromise" with conservative framing rather than turning it back around into progressive framing.
8. How do we counter this? By forming progressive framing and language instead! Lakoff offers some general tips on how to grow progressive thought in the public debate:
1. Stop using conservative language and framing, not even just to denounce and oppose. Turn every statement in a progressive framing instead!
2. Facts alone cannot set up a framing. Stop sounding like a "policy wonk". Don't just quote facts -- connect to your own progressive morality.
3. Voters vote for IDENTITY and VALUES, which does not necessarily coincide with self-interest. This was perhaps the most surprising thing to me in the book, and Lakoff insists that this is a common mistake most progressives make.
4. Understand the conservative viewpoint (without using the language), so you know what you are arguing against. Try to anticipate their reactions based on the "strict father" morality.
5. Think strategically, large moral goals and vision. Think of progressive "slippery slope" arguments and "wedge issues" that can divide conservatives over moral questions. Similarly, pick large moral goals that progressives agree on, so that progressives can unite.
6. Always play offense, not defense. Think proactively. Never move your argument toward the right; always keep pushing further left.
9. Differences between vision, values, principles, etc:
1. A vision is what kind of society we want to have. The progressive vision is some variation on the theme of community -- community like a caring family that supports each other.
2. Values are the key concepts that describe how the vision works. For progressives, it includes ideas like freedom, opportunity, trust.
3. Principles are the political realization of our values. For progressives, important principles include equity, equality, democracy, future focus.
4. Policy sets the direction that specific proposals should take to be in line with principles and values. This is things like: making an economy that works for everyone, ensuring equal access to healthcare, education, and more. Progressives might disagree on policy implementation specifics, but agree on these broad directions.
10. Some examples from Lakoff on how to use progressive framing:
1. The Private Depends on the Public -- most conservative "success stories" of private profit and wealth would not have been possible without public resources. Instead, public cooperation is what makes us all have better lives.
2. Healthcare is a Freedom Issue -- if you're not healthy, you're not free; disease enslaves you. If your employer controls your healthcare, you're not free. If you can't eat healthy food because it is all controlled by corporations, you're not free. If government takes away Medicaid/Medicare, it leaves people unhealthy and allows disease to spread, taking away freedom of all.
3. Education is a Freedom Issue -- if you're not educated, you don't even know what opportunities exist in the world and are not free to pursue them. If you're not educated, difficult to be a well-informed citizen of a free democracy. Student loans and debt mean you are not free to pursue interests or career you might want. Education must be public to increase freedom of the community. Private schools mean private interests control the curriculum, taking away freedom of community to decide what is important.
4. Poverty is a Freedom Issue -- if you are homeless with nowhere to stay especially under threat of laws, you are not free. If you do not have the money to move somewhere new when needed, you are not free. If you do not have transit for work and simply to meet with other people and be social, you are not free. If you cannot find a job to take care of your family or to use the skills you have, you are not free.
5. Gay Rights are a Freedom Issue -- if you cannot marry the person you love, you are not free. Being free means being respected as a human.
6. Women's Rights are a Freedom Issue -- if you cannot control your own body, you are not free. If you cannot be paid the same for the same work, or are restricted in jobs and activities solely for gender, you are not being treated as a human with equal rights and are not free. Being free means being respected as a human.
7. Immigration is a Freedom Issue -- immigrants are already living in our communities and are our neighbors; they are not free while worrying about policing and deportation just for being our neighbors. Immigrants deserve respect as humans immediately; even the common liberal refrain of "pathway to citizenship" implies that immigrants don't deserve respect until they go through a long process and "prove" themselves.
8. Unions and Pensions are a Freedom Issue -- Workers create wealth. If workers cannot use the wealth they generated to stay out of poverty, they are not free. Workers must be able to unionize and join together to preserve the freedoms against corporations that have much more power than individuals. Pensions are delayed pay for retirement, not "benefits". If an employer stops paying pensions, it is stealing your delayed pay.
9. Accelerating Wealth Gap -- Wealth increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, who can use that wealth for their own benefit and enjoyment. The poor cannot. Loss of ability to have more than the basic needs, to have enjoyment and a fulfilling life, is also a loss of freedom.
10. Corporations Govern Our Lives -- we're not free while corporations govern for private profits. Private "innovations" can all be connected to public resources, and yet corporations use monopolies to increase costs and gain more control, offload costs to the public to maintain private profits (such as letting public deal with pollution, climate change, etc.), restrict availability of items and services to only those that generate the most profit, and more.
11. Some final tips on how to debate with conservatives:
1. Show respect. Listen to their view, don't call names, avoid cheap shots. Don't resort to anger or shouting or you feed conservative stereotypes of progressives.
2. Respond by reframing. Don't use their language; listen, and respond with progressive framing of the issue. Progressive "slippery slopes" and "wedge" examples can be very effective. Stay calm -- ok to be passionate but controlled.
3. Think and talk at the level of values. Being a "policy wonk" is not effective, talk about values and morals when describing your vision.
4. Say what you believe. Be honest and sincere.

Overall, I enjoyed the book and it has encouraged me to think more in terms of framing and moral arguments.

If I had one complaint, it is that Lakoff attempts to describe progressives in a sort of "big tent" way that I think can hide some crucial differences between pro-capitalist progressives and more socialist tendencies. To be fair, Lakoff does mention that this book is meant to be a short introduction and he has other books on cognitive science that dive deeper into the conservative vs progressive mindset. So without having read those books, I can't truly complain as he is likely quite aware of this. However, I do wish he gave a little more time to socialist ideas and how to push the conversation even further left (which is funny enough one of his key principles of progressive framing). But I think many of these principles work just as well when applied to socialist thought. We must reframe debate for an eco-socialist view!