In framing political issues, one is presenting their perception of reality, facts and logic to persuade hearts and minds. In essence, a frame is just the words, images and biological effects of how one describes one's own version of reality, reason, and, good and bad.
Good frames: Good (effective) frames are ones that are persuasive to the most number of people that can be reached and influenced. Some people aren't persuaded by anything and thus this tactic fails for those people. Good political frames are characterized by simplicity, stickiness (memorability), appeal to emotion and ideology or values, implicit or explicit identification of the good guys (the framer and his argument), the bad guys (the opposition and their policy) and the victim (people abused by the bad guys and their policies).
Practical and psychological impacts of frames: Frames can be very powerful. Some experts argue that politics for smart politicians is a matter of framing and reframing. Not smart politicians make the mistake of ‘steppping into their opponent's frame’, which significantly undermines the not-smart politician's argument and power to persuade. If you make that mistake, this is what usually results:
1. You give free airtime to your opponent’s frame, including his images, emotions, values and terminology
2. You put yourself on the defensive
3. You usually have a heavier burden of proof to dislodge the opponent’s frame because lots of contrary evidence and explanation is needed to overcome a little evidence, including lies, that supports the frame
4. Your response is often complex and vulnerable because complicated responses to rebut simple frames are usually needed
Examples of stepping into an opponent's frame include:
1. Hillary Clinton trying over and over to explain a simple emailgate frame that was held against her. It was a disaster. Despite Clinton's obvious intelligence, she never rebutted the frame on an equal biological footing by staying in that frame. That was not smart politics.
2. Trying to rebut the ‘illegal immigrant’ frame by including the phrase ‘illegal immigrant’ in the rebuttal. That just keeps reinforcing the concept ‘illegal’. Instead, the smart politician never steps into that frame and instead always refers to ‘undocumented workers’, ‘undocumented children’ or something like that.
3. The frame: An allegation by a politician who wants to get rid of a bureaucracy that the bureaucracy has insufficient expertise. Stepping into that frame in rebuttal with multiple true facts: (i) we have lots of expert engineers, (ii) they are constantly getting updated training, (iii) the situation is complicated and we are analyzing means for corrective action, (iv) our track record has been excellent in the past. The framer then demolishes the whole in-frame rebuttal by simply asserting: Right, your engineers are constantly getting updated training because they don't have the necessary expertise. Those four defenses provided the framer with four opportunities to blow his opponent out of the water.
Lesson: Never step into your opponent's frame. If you do, you usually lose the persuasion war.
Consequence: Political rhetoric often sounds like people talking past each other, because they are talking past each other to avoid stepping into each other's frame.
Reframing: To avoid an opponent's frame, you need to reframe.
Examples:
1. Frame: Illegal immigrants
Reframe: Illegal employers and/or undocumented workers
2. Frame: You call women bad names and are thus unfit for office
Reframe (metaframe in this case, i.e., attack the frame itself): Political correctness has run amok and that's what's causing this country to fail, so don't tell me about unfitness for office - I'm not politically correct and am proud of it because that's what this country needs (the actual dance between Megan Kelly and candidate Donald Trump is at footnote 1)
3. Frame: A politician's powerful and critically needed male ally has been found to send sexist text messages and the politician (Australia's prime minister, Julia Gillard, in this case) is accused of condoning sexism
Reframe: The prime minister's metaframe rebuttal accuses her accuser of sexism: “I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man (the opposition leader making the allegation). I will not. And the Government will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. Not now, not ever. The Leader of the Opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists are not appropriate for high office. Well I hope the Leader of the Opposition has got a piece of paper and he is writing out his resignation. Because if he wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, he doesn’t need a motion in the House of Representatives, he needs a mirror. . . . .”
Is framing immoral?: Here are competing visions of morality. - the idealist: framing is dangerous and a form of populism I would never resort to (is that a frame, whether idealist likes it or not?)
- the scientist (political pragmatist, not political ideologue): framing is a moral imperative to influence public opinion, e.g., about climate change, using ‘good frames’
- the conservative: calling illegal immigrants undocumented workers is immoral because it hides the truth of their illegal status
- the liberal: calling undocumented workers illegal immigrants is immoral because it hides the truth of their contributions to society and how they make our lives better
- the campaign manager: the opposition claims it is tough on crime, which implies we aren’t even though we are tougher than they are, e.g., we prosecute white collar criminals and they don’t – the moral implications of framing is irrelevant, we need a better frame and need it right now – the real moral issue is their false frame, not our framing of our true position
- the philosopher: ‘What is – and what is not – a frame? There is no such thing as objective reality. Everyone perceives things differently, so there cannot be a single criterion for determining whether or not a certain message constitutes a frame. One person’s calculated frame is another person’s principled standpoint.
- the politician: ‘Personally speaking, I am against frames, and I would not consider using them under normal circumstances. However, our opponents keep coming up with powerful frames that help them to attract voters and sway public opinion. I believe we have no choice but to participate in the game of framing of reframing.’
- the lecturer: great minds (Marx, Hobbes, etc) have used simple phrases and turns of phrase – that’s not simplicity, superficial, one-dimensional or small-minded; Marx: the rich get rich, the poor get poorer; Hobbes: a man is a wolf to man
- the journalist: a famous quote by the American journalist H.L. Mencken states: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” This is a perfect example of a frame.
- the historian: Ronald Reagan once said “Facts are stupid things,” and was widely dismissed as a trivial, shallow B-movie actor. But, when Nietzsche said “There are no facts, only interpretations,” his words were hailed as a profound philosophical insight.
A current example: “But then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet. On express orders from the previous White House, the FCC scrapped the tried-and-true, light touch regulation of the Internet and replaced it with heavy-handed micromanagement. It decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell.” Ajit Pai, Trump's FCC chairman's written statement from last week in advance of an FCC vote that reversed existing net neutrality rules (discussed here).
Pai's frame, repeated many time in written and public statements, is ‘light touch’ regulation instead of ‘heavy-handed micromanagement’. In this case, the frame was accompanied by lies about the origin of the original FCC net neutrality rules, and the originally bipartisan nature of support for net neutrality. Embedded in this frame are at least two objectively provable lies based on a neutral reading of public records.
Questions: Is framing moral, with or without embedded lies? Do lies convert an otherwise honest frame to something immoral?
Are frames with no lies immoral because they are (i) one-dimensional, oversimplifications of reality, and/or (ii) blatant attempts to unfairly or unreasonably persuade people?
Does a rational assessment of morality change when one considers that framing, with or without lies, (i) is constitutionally protected free speech, and (ii) absolutely will be employed by partisans on all sides, with and without lies? In other words, does the idealist set himself up to fail by not taking into account human cognitive and social biology, which is what frames are intended to manipulate or play on.
What is the difference between framing, manipulation, and honest argument? How can one know the difference?
Source materials: Most of the material for this discussion is taken from the edX online course “Framing: Creating powerful political messages”, which is available to the public at no charge here: https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:DelftX+Frame101x+3T2017/course/
The course is short and easy to comprehend. It makes it much easier to understand, (i) the reasons for the apparent incomprehensibility of most political rhetoric when people talk past each other, and (ii) politicians' (a) frequent failure to answer straightforward questions, and (b) to reply with things having nothing to do with a question.
Footnote:
1. Megan Kelly asks Trump about his misogynistic views of women. Trump reframes the question by using the strategy of meta-framing: (1) He does not to enter into the frame that he is a misogynist, and (2) he rebuts the allegation with a meta-frame, i.e., the question is not whether me (Trump) is a misogynist, but that too many politicians are politically correct - Trump himself is not politically correct and that is what the country needs.
Kelly: You’ve called women you don’t like “fat pigs”, “dogs”, “slobs” and “disgusting animals”. Your twitter account -
Trump interrupts: Only Rosie O’Donnell. (applause, cheers and much mirth)
Kelly: No it wasn’t. You twitter account- For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell. Yes, I’m sure it was. Your twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity apprentice “it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. . . . . Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president? . . . .
Trump: I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct. I’ve been challenged by so many people and I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either. This country is in big trouble, we don’t win anymore, we lose to China we lose to Mexico, both in trade and at the border, we lose to everybody. And frankly what I say, and often times it’s fun, it’s kidding, we have a good time, what I say is what I say. And honestly Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you although I could probably maybe not be based on the way you have treated me, but I wouldn’t do that. But you know what, we need strength, we need energy, we need quickness and we need brain in this country to turn it around. That I can tell you right now. (cheers and applause - crowd loves it)
B&B orig: 12/23/17
No comments:
Post a Comment