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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Of course no one is against 'tax relief' or 'relief' of any kind for that matter, but what kind of relief are the republicans really offering? According to the tax policy center, McCain will give $269,364 in refunds for people earning over $2.9 million annually, and a mere $19 to those earning less than $19,000. Obama, on the other hand, will raise taxes $701,885 for those in the top bracket, and give $567 back to those in the lowest bracket.
ReplyDeleteAs McCain himself said, “The issue of economics is something that I’ve really never understood as well as I should.” So why haven’t more people figured out that his tax policies don’t make sense for the majority of Americans and stop letting him give his friends his so called ‘tax relief’ while the working class can hardly afford to pay for gas anymore?
Lets go to their acceptance speeches. McCain says, “I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them.” if we add “for the richest percentage in America who can afford to pay higher taxes,” then yes this statement is seemingly correct. If we look at Obama’s speech, the words ‘tax relief’ are used only once. Maybe the democrats are learning. Instead, he gives the truth about where tax breaks will be allotted and connects with the middle class.
I think Lakoff would be happy with Obama’s acceptance speech. He speaks about his issues on taxation from the values of the working class and the importance of keeping jobs and money in America. I guess we’ll see if this worked on Nov 4th.
Senator Obama says that he will lower taxes for most Americans and Senator McCain says Obama will raise them. It will be interesting to see whether Obama can co-opt the Republican frame, develop a "tax fairness" frame of his own, or if people will ultimately trust the Republicans to be the low tax party.
ReplyDeleteIntrigued by your post, I did some Google-ing of my own and found some interesting things regarding Obama’s discourse on taxes. While I certainly agree that the Democrats must strive to create their own value-based frames, I’m not sure Obama has necessarily shot himself in the foot simply by using the term “tax relief.” I think this is one of the areas that Lakoff has portrayed as too cut-and-dry in his book Don’t Think of an Elephant, to which you refer.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, just because a potential voter may support taxes philosophically does not mean that they enjoy giving the government their money. “Tax relief” can sound pretty good to voters of all political affiliations. However, it is quite important how a candidate uses such a frame. In this task I believe Obama has been somewhat successful.
When Obama mentions “tax relief” for the middle-class, he is merely building upon an overall theme of his campaign—“tax fairness.” As he stated at the 2008 Democratic debate: “We have to restore a sense of fairness and balance to our economy.” When used in the right context, “tax relief” can simply refer to easing the tax burden of the correct demographic. Therefore, Obama only advocates “tax relief” in contexts in which the relief is fair.
When referring to tax policies of President Bush which benefited corporations and America’s wealthiest, Obama speaks in terms of tax “cuts” and “breaks” He mentions “…the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations…” and “We've got to stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas.” “Cut” evokes the sensation of slicing federal funding with a knife—an unfair stab at social programs. And certainly an undeserved “break” from cost is not fair.
Therefore, Obama has had some success in employing his own frame when discussing taxes. His frame of “tax fairness” evokes progressive values and has wide appeal. In the same way that “relief” implies suffering, “fairness” implies that the status quo is unfair and therefore must be changed.