I hope everyone was as excited as I was to see the first Presidential Debate this past Friday between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain—I mean, between “Senator Obama” and “John.” Glad to be watching and not under the pressure of being on stage, I tried to pay close attention to the framing used by both candidates. (See previous blog entry for a definition of “framing.”) Although the debate never seemed to have a defining moment, in which one candidate clearly won or lost, there were a few things that stood out to me.
John McCain kept using the phrase “Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand.” I lost count of the number of times John McCain said it, and, to me, it seemed like overuse. I assume the goal in using such a phrase is to paint Barack Obama as “inexperienced,” which has been a major argument against Barack Obama for many months. Although, I do believe that the focus on Barack Obama’s “lack of experience” may be trumped by that of Vice-Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin. (I’m sure Saturday Night Live is grateful to her for such rich material.) But despite the fact that I found John McCain’s words rehearsed and repetitive, I believe John McCain’s framing reassured his base and perhaps further drilled into the brain of the public, this idea of Barack Obama’s “lack of experience.”
I’ve been reading the book The Political Brain by Drew Westen, who is a clinical, personality and political psychologist and Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University. Dr. Westen argues that “reason is slave to emotion” (pg. 15), especially when it comes to politics. He writes that when it comes to an election, voters tend to develop an emotional connection to their preferred choice and don’t really use critical thought or reasoning to decide which candidate to support. He’s not talking about Youtube’s Obama Girl who gleefully sings how she’s “got a crush on Obama.” Westen means that this emotion is based on what our values are and how a candidate appeals to those values, and once we develop an emotional connection to a particular candidate, we shape our reasoning to support our emotional connection.
Supporters of Barack Obama hear John McCain’s repetitive rhetoric and probably find it an obviously rehearsed and weak attempt at trying to undermine Barack Obama’s credentials. Supporters of John McCain feel reassured that they’ve chosen the better-qualified candidate with real experience in Washington. Where this sort of framing might truly matter is with the swing voters. How do they interpret John McCain’s words? Do they buy into his framing? We won’t know until Election Day.
Barack Obama had his signature phrase, as well: “John is right…”. This seemed a wise move to me, although criticized by some as foolish for validating his opponent’s viewpoint. I felt that the use of the less formal “John” (rather than the more formal references made by John McCain, who always said “Senator Obama”) combined with an acknowledgement of John McCain having said something of worth suggested a familiarity that did three things: 1) it presented Barack Obama as a colleague and equal of John McCain and NOT somebody who “doesn’t seem to understand”; 2) it presented Barack Obama as someone who is willing to “reach across the isle” and work for the common good; and 3) it made Barack Obama seem more approachable to the average American citizen, who likely feels more comfortable when on a first-name basis.
It is possible that some stark supporters of John McCain may view saying “John” as too informal and even disrespectful of the veteran senator. But then again… our current President Bush, during his campaigns, seemed like “the guy you’d sit down and have a beer with.”
Monday, September 29, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
Tax Relief
I am very curious to see the upcoming presidential debates and how both the Republicans and the Democrats will frame their arguments. But until the debates, there is plenty of rhetoric that provides foreshadowing. Considering the powerful and ever-increasing role of the Internet in the election and presidential politics, I looked at both John McCain and Barack Obama’s websites and did some searching on Google in order to analyze how both campaigns frame the debate about taxes.
In his book Don’t Think of an Elephant, George Lakoff explains that “framing” one’s debate is key to convincing others that one has the best viewpoint. What is framing? On page 4 Lakoff describes, “Framing is about getting language that fits your worldview. It is not just language. The ideas are primary—and the language carries those ideas, evokes those ideas.” So it’s not necessarily what one says but how one says it. In addition, Lakoff explains that by using the language of one’s opponent, even if one negates the opponent’s argument, one actually reinforces the opponent’s frame. Lakoff gives the example of the two words “tax relief,” a conservative creation that in one-second’s time does a whole lot:
“When the word tax is added to relief, the result is a metaphor. Taxation is an affliction. And the person who takes it away is a hero, and anyone who tries to stop him is a bad guy. This is a frame. It is made up of ideas, like affliction and hero. The language that evokes the frame comes out of the White House, and it goes into press releases, goes to every radio station, every TV station, every newspaper. And soon the New York Times is using tax relief. And it is not only on Fox; it is on CNN, it is on NBC, it is on every station because it is “the president’s tax relief plan.” And soon the Democrats are using tax relief—and shooting themselves in the foot.” (pg. 4)
As Democrats traditionally support higher taxes in order to fund a plethora of social programs and Republicans traditionally support lower taxes and borrowing lots of foreign money, “tax relief” makes the republican party the “hero” and the democratic party the “bad guy.”
Just out of curiosity, I decided to do a brief search of where the term “relief” is used in reference to taxation in the current election. On John McCain’s website on the page about the economy (http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/) it says that “John McCain has a comprehensive plan that will [ . . . ] bring relief to American consumers [ . . . ].” Listed in the subtopics on the same webpage is also “Relief for Families.” Okay. Republicans using a republican frame. On Barack Obama’s website on the page about the economy (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/) one of the subtopics is “Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief.” Bang. In the foot.
A Google search for “obama says tax relief” turned up about 620,000 results. A second search for “mccain says tax relief” turned up about 593,000 results. Obama has 27,000 more results than McCain.
If the Democrats want to stop reinforcing the Republican frame and strengthen their own debate, they need to drop phrases like “tax relief,” decide what their values and beliefs are, and come up with their own definitions and framing.
In his book Don’t Think of an Elephant, George Lakoff explains that “framing” one’s debate is key to convincing others that one has the best viewpoint. What is framing? On page 4 Lakoff describes, “Framing is about getting language that fits your worldview. It is not just language. The ideas are primary—and the language carries those ideas, evokes those ideas.” So it’s not necessarily what one says but how one says it. In addition, Lakoff explains that by using the language of one’s opponent, even if one negates the opponent’s argument, one actually reinforces the opponent’s frame. Lakoff gives the example of the two words “tax relief,” a conservative creation that in one-second’s time does a whole lot:
“When the word tax is added to relief, the result is a metaphor. Taxation is an affliction. And the person who takes it away is a hero, and anyone who tries to stop him is a bad guy. This is a frame. It is made up of ideas, like affliction and hero. The language that evokes the frame comes out of the White House, and it goes into press releases, goes to every radio station, every TV station, every newspaper. And soon the New York Times is using tax relief. And it is not only on Fox; it is on CNN, it is on NBC, it is on every station because it is “the president’s tax relief plan.” And soon the Democrats are using tax relief—and shooting themselves in the foot.” (pg. 4)
As Democrats traditionally support higher taxes in order to fund a plethora of social programs and Republicans traditionally support lower taxes and borrowing lots of foreign money, “tax relief” makes the republican party the “hero” and the democratic party the “bad guy.”
Just out of curiosity, I decided to do a brief search of where the term “relief” is used in reference to taxation in the current election. On John McCain’s website on the page about the economy (http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/) it says that “John McCain has a comprehensive plan that will [ . . . ] bring relief to American consumers [ . . . ].” Listed in the subtopics on the same webpage is also “Relief for Families.” Okay. Republicans using a republican frame. On Barack Obama’s website on the page about the economy (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/) one of the subtopics is “Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief.” Bang. In the foot.
A Google search for “obama says tax relief” turned up about 620,000 results. A second search for “mccain says tax relief” turned up about 593,000 results. Obama has 27,000 more results than McCain.
If the Democrats want to stop reinforcing the Republican frame and strengthen their own debate, they need to drop phrases like “tax relief,” decide what their values and beliefs are, and come up with their own definitions and framing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
