The Framing War Game is Full On

Framing Biden's executive orders as divisive

As part of its all-out opposition to Biden, radical right sources are including in their attacks framing of issues in ways that misrepresent Biden's position and attack him on that basis. For example, The Heritage Foundation (THF) attacks one of Biden's executive orders as intentionally divisive and harmful to the public generally. That order relates to protection for transgender children. Here is how THF frames the issue:

Actions speak louder than words. And on his very first day in office, Biden signed a radically divisive executive order mandating the transgender agenda. Here’s what it says:

“Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports. People should be able to access health care and secure a roof over their heads without being subjected to sex discrimination.”

And here’s what it means:

Boys who identify as girls must be allowed to compete in the girls’ athletic competitions, men who identify as women must be allowed in women-only spaces, healthcare plans must pay for gender-transition procedures, and doctors and hospitals must perform them.

Sounds unifying, right?

In reality, it spells the end of girls’ and women’s sports as we know them. And, of course, no child should be told the lie that they’re “trapped in the wrong body,” and adults should not pump them full of puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones. (emphasis added)

What THF intentionally fails to mention is that the divisiveness here is partisan. The THF frame hides the fact that the radical right wants bigots to have complete freedom to discriminate against transgendered people. It also mischaracterizes the reality that some people actually do feel they are  trapped in the wrong body. THF says that truth is a lie. The lie fits the frame.

 

Biden's inaugural speech framed as divisive and far left

The radical right is going at attack Biden as divisive in essentially everything he does. This framing hides the fact that there are policy differences and Biden will try to get them implemented. That is no different than what the GOP and former president did over the last four years, and they often or usually did it without did it in opposition to majority public opinion. On matters where the radical right could unilaterally act, especially via presidential executive orders, they did so without hesitation or concern for divisiveness. Divisiveness has not been a concern for the radical right for years. The New York Times writes: 

Moments after Mr. Biden’s Inaugural Address, the leader of a conservative advocacy group underscored the divisiveness that remains in Washington, accusing the president of making moves on Day 1 that “will make America less safe, less free, and less prosperous.”

“As the Biden administration begins today, conservatives are prepared to fight back against the destructive policies of the far left,” said Jessica Anderson, the executive director of Heritage Action.

In this case, the radical right frames actions that most Americans agree with as far left and destructive. Neither assertion is true from the point of view of most Americans, but the radical right is not interested in taking such things into account. It is interested in winning the messaging war by any means, including misleading the public using toxic framing tactics coupled with lies.

Not surprisingly, Biden's team frames his actions very differently:

Individually, the actions are targeted at what the president views as specific, egregious abuses by Mr. Trump during four tumultuous years. Collectively, Mr. Biden’s assertive use of executive authority was intended to be a hefty and visible down payment on one of his primary goals: to, as his top advisers described it, “reverse the gravest damages” done to the country by Mr. Trump.

“We’ll press forward with speed and urgency, for we have much to do in this winter of peril and significant possibilities,” Mr. Biden said during his Inaugural Address at the Capitol, delivered to a crowd shrunken by coronavirus risks and threats of violence. “Much to repair. Much to restore. Much to heal. Much to build, and much to gain.”

What is the difference in framing tactics here, if any? Lies and disinformation, e.g., Biden is not far left. So far, the radical right is relying on lies and hyperbole far more than Biden and his team.

Fox News & GOP politicians

Another example of intentionally misleading partisan framing attacks Biden as weak for not opposing the impeachment of the ex-president. The Washington Post writes about this Fox News framing war assault in an opinion piece: 

In between host Maria Bartiromo’s hard-hitting observations — such as opining that President Trump’s impeachment is actually “a crisis for the Biden administration" — Graham claimed, “If you do not stand up against the impeachment of President Trump after he leaves office, you’re an incredibly weak figure in American history.” 

There’s the weakness of his reasoning. “President Trump is trying to heal the nation,” Graham told Bartiromo. “Pursuing impeachment after he leaves the office will further divide the country.” Left unoffered was any explanation how Trump’s words to the rioters — “We love you. You’re very special" — are helping to heal the nation, or how not impeaching will unite the country when Republicans claim that, as Graham told Bartiromo, Biden will usher in “the most aggressive socialized policy effort in the history of the country.”

That framing relies on either the false dilemma logic fallacy or just a bald-faced lie. For example, one could see people who do not oppose impeachment of the ex-president as a sign of strength or just common sense. That contradicts the false dilemma. If it's a matter of common sense, then arguably Bartiromo’s assertion can reasonably be seen as just a partisan lie.

McConnell's deceitful frame

Another fallacious radical right framing attack came from Mitch McConnell. McConnell's office released this mischaracterization and frames the election as one where Biden has no mandate:

Certainly November's elections did not hand any side a mandate for sweeping ideological change. Americans elected a closely divided Senate, a closely divided House and a presidential candidate who said he'd represent everyone. So our marching orders from the American people are clear. We're to have a robust discussion and seek common ground. We are to pursue bipartisan agreement everywhere we can, and check and balance one another, respectfully, where we must.

Given the lies that GOP voters operated under, one can argue that Biden has a solid mandate for ideological change. What McConnell did not mention, for obvious reasons, is that millions of Americans voted as they did on the basis of blatant, provable lies and deceit. Lies and deceit heavily favored the GOP. If the GOP leadership, specifically including McConnell, had been honest with the American people about our situation and much of what happened over the last four years, the election would not have been close.

Also note that McConnell, along with the rest of the radical right, still refuses to use the word compromise. The GOP will not compromise. Some are again talking about finding common ground to pretend they are trying to be cooperative. As pointed out before, finding common ground is a way to frame being obstructionist as being cooperative. That frame has been a standard GOP talking point at least since Obama was in office.

Framing on the right is in service to the GOP, not the public interest. It is based mostly on lies, deceit, emotional manipulation (irrational fear mongering: “conservatives are prepared to fight back against the destructive policies of the far left,”), and crackpot partisan motivated reasoning.

In other words, for the radical right, it is business as usual, regardless of who is in the white House or why.