Election Analysis: Humanizing the Dehumanizable

The beagle - a white person's dog: How could Warnock 

possibly be a monster?

The New York Times published a fascinating piece on how Raphael Warnock used a cute puppy dog in political ads to make himself seem less threatening and more human to white voters in Georgia. The ad campaign indicates a sophisticated knowledge of cognitive biology and social behavior. The NYT writes:

The dog had a lot of work to do.

He was co-starring in a political ad that had to showcase the candidate’s good-natured warmth. But the ad also needed to deflect an onslaught of racialized attacks without engaging them directly[1], and to convey to white voters in Georgia that the Black pastor who led Ebenezer Baptist Church could represent them, too.

Of course, Alvin the beagle couldn’t have known any of that when he went for a walk with the Rev. Raphael Warnock last fall as a film crew captured their time together in a neighborhood outside Atlanta.

“The entire ad screams that I am a Black candidate whom white people ought not be afraid of,” said Hakeem Jefferson, a professor of political science at Stanford who studies race, stigma and politics in America.

While there is no singular factor responsible for victories this narrow — Mr. Warnock won by less than 100,000 votes out of roughly 4.5 million and the other new Democratic senator, Jon Ossoff, won by even less — there is bipartisan agreement that the beagle played an outsize role in cutting through the clutter in two contests that broke every Senate spending record.

“The puppy ad got people talking,” said Brian C. Robinson, a Georgia-based Republican strategist. “It made it harder to caricature him because they humanized him.”

By the end of the campaign, Warnock aides saw dog references popping up in their internal polling, supporters hoisting up their own puppies at campaign rallies in solidarity and beagle-themed homemade signs staked into front yards. They even started selling “Puppies 4 Warnock” merchandise.

All of which would probably come as a surprise to Alvin. After all, he wasn’t even Mr. Warnock’s dog.

“He knew he was going to be perceived as a highly racialized candidate,” said Andra Gillespie, a professor of political science at Emory University in Georgia and the author of multiple books about race and politics. A key question for his campaign was, she said: “Can you be racially transcendent and the pastor of arguably the most prominent Black church in America?”

There has been some discussion that the beagle — the kind of breed “we psychologically associate with white people,” as Dr. Jefferson put it — was another subtle yet intentional effort to explode racial stereotypes. Mr. Magnus said the reality was more mundane: “The dog needed to be very cute, somewhat relatable and he needed to be able to hold the dog.”

A shot of Alvin in Mr. Warnock’s arms would be the punchline.

“Get ready Georgia, the negative attacks are coming,” the candidate said, predicting smears about everything from eating pizza with a fork and knife to hating puppies.

“And by the way, I love puppies,” he added, cradling Alvin. (emphasis added)

An OP here from last October discussed the intensity of tactics that candidates need to use to have a chance of being competitive. In that case, the democratic candidate's life fell apart and he psychologically broke down and withdrew from the race. 

The more this kind of information is known, the better able people are to understand that modern politics is based on sophisticated science and tactics that work to humanize a candidate and/or to dehumanize the opponent. Dehumanization can be (usually is?) coupled with lies, unwarranted character assassination and partisan motivated reasoning. The effects of such campaign speech are powerful and subtle at the same time. The human mind is unconsciously responding to such content because it is designed to work unconsciously. That is the epitome of subtlety.

Probably no average white voter consciously thought of Alvin as a white person's dog being used to humanize Warnock. They saw something cute and responded emotionally. Political operatives knew exactly what was going on.

Footnote:  

1. Warnock not directly responding to the attacks on him is an example of a politician refusing to step into the opponent's frame (discussed here and here).

An Ascendant Liberal Christianity?

The New York Times writes about Biden's devout Catholic faith, describing it as an ascendant liberal Christianity. Compared to the major toxic influence that conservative Evangelical Christianity has had and will continue to exert on society, characterization of Biden's brand as liberal seems to be about right. But how ascendant is it? The NYT writes:

“Your public service is animated by the same conviction,” he said, “to help and protect people and to advance justice and reconciliation, especially for those who are too often looked over and left behind.”

“This is your noble commission,” he said. “This is the divine summons for all of us.”

There are myriad changes with the incoming Biden administration. One of the most significant: a president who has spent a lifetime steeped in Christian rituals and practices.

Mr. Biden, perhaps the most religiously observant commander in chief in half a century, regularly attends Mass and speaks of how his Catholic faith grounds his life and his policies.

And with Mr. Biden, a different, more liberal Christianity is ascendant: less focused on sexual politics and more on combating poverty, climate change and racial inequality.

His arrival comes after four years in which conservative Christianity has reigned in America’s highest halls of power, embodied in white evangelicals laser-focused on ending abortion and guarding against what they saw as encroachments on their freedoms. Their devotion to former President Donald J. Trump was so fervent that many showed up in Washington on Jan. 6 to protest the election results. (emphasis added)

Before Biden

Evangelical Christians see themselves as being under severe attack in America and threatened with loss of their rights to believe and practice religion as they wish privately, socially, in government and in commerce. The core narrative of the oppressed, persecuted American Christian struggling to simply be free unites that tribe. As discussed here before, (i) the core narrative is pure malarkey, and (ii) Evangelical Christian Nationalists have succeeded in gaining control of the Supreme Court and are now aggressively attacking secularism, feminism and other social circumstances they morally disapprove of. The core persecution narrative is false propaganda used to scare the tribe into extremism, intolerance and hostility to the rights of others they disapprove of. In particular, racial minorities and the LGBQT community are heavily disapproved of. 

Evangelical Christian Nationalism as a political and social force in America is not going to go away. Nor will it soften its aggressive attacks on aspects of society its leaders deem to be unacceptable to their God. These people and their ideology are focused on eliminating from American society the things they know are immoral, ungodly and in need of self-righteous social cleansing. That most Americans generally disagree with them is of no concern. Most of these people are anti-democratic authoritarians who supported the attempted coup on Jan. 6. Contrary public opinion is something on the list of things that needs to be cleansed from American society. 

During and after Biden

The NYT characterizes Biden’s leadership as repudiating conservative claims that Democrats are anti-Christian (the false persecution narrative). It is true that fewer registered Democrats identify as Christian compared to republicans. In 2019, about 80 percent of registered Republicans identified as Christian, while about 52 percent of democrats did. But that does not mean that non-Christians are anti-Christian. The anti-Christian lie is necessary to maintain the power of the persecution narrative to keep the tribe united, frightened, angry, intolerant, aggressive and non-compromising (authoritarian).[1]

In general, it doesn't seen to be the case that liberal Christianity will come to exert the power that conservative Christian Nationalism has and will continue to have. But time will tell how this social dynamic plays out. Maybe tolerant liberalism will come to replace intolerant conservatism in American Christianity.

Footnote: 

1. It helps to keep some context in mind to highlight just how ridiculous the fake Christian persecution narrative is in modern America. Among other things, Christians dominate (i) local, state and federal courts, law enforcement, police, and prisons, including the Supreme Court, (ii) congress and state legislatures, (iii) the White House and state governorships, (iv) public and private schools and colleges, and their curricula, (v) local, state and federal employees, (vi) Christian churches, schools and businesses, (vii) the US military, (viii) the US postal service, and (ix) most private sector businesses. Christians dominate just about everything important in America today. Where is the threat in that?

Second, religious belief and practice enjoys rock solid protection in the Constitution, and federal and state laws. Third, no major segment of US society is arguing to get rid of Christianity. Again, no threat in any of that.

To remain a powerful propaganda and deceit tool, the persecution narrative has no choice but to characterize rights for despised groups and secularism as vicious attacks on, and existential threats to, poor, persecuted Christians. That was exactly how Christian conservatives characterized 2015 Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage. Some or most Christians called Obergefell a massive attack on both religious practice and Christian free speech. The characterization was gross exaggeration to the point of clearly being intentional, outright lies. Conservative Christians just cannot tolerate or accept social changes that they dislike. So they lie about it, call disliked social change serious persecution. Most appear to live in a state of either genuine self-delusion or cynical lust for power. 

One reflection of the deranged persecution narrative is propaganda from radical right online sites. One version of persecution that is circulating is that now that democrats have "absolute" power, Christians will be rounded up and put into re-education camps. Persecution Christians are scared that they will be forcibly converted into atheists and maybe also cannabalistic pedophiles or something crackpot like that. 

Finding Joy In The Wreckage: Acknowledging Trauma In The Post-Trump Era

The pandemic, the acknowledgment of racism in the U.S. and the presidential election have left so many Americans feeling collectively traumatized.

It’s something Kiese Laymon has been writing about. He's a professor of English and creative writing at the University of Mississippi and an author of several books that confront and unpack trauma.

Laymon believes we’re now having a mainstream conversation about trauma through writing and even 24-hour news.

.“In my lifetime, I think we've suffered the most trauma that I've ever suffered in a four year period,” he says. “And we are acknowledging one of the things that connects us, sadly, and I think [former President] Trump and Trumpism made that abundantly clear.”

After acknowledging trauma, he thinks people need to leave behind the desire for life to return to normal and understand that our previous definition of normal paved the way for Trumpism.

“I think we have to do what some of us have been doing since birth, right — which is lovingly fight, fighting for radical fairness, holding ourselves accountable, which is the most important thing,” he says. “We have to fight faithfully, not just with hope, but faithfully. And I also just think we have to look forward to a future where equity is not just possible, but the new norm.

Part of this work is acknowledging failure. One of the most harmful aspects of Trump’s leadership was his “resistance to regret” and admitting his wrongdoings, Laymon says.

Acknowledging how we played a part in the current state of our country is an important part of healing, he says.

Through the process of collective mourning, people need to continue calling out their experiences, he says. Laymon sees an important distinction between collective mourning and unity.

“I think unity or any sort of unification that comes before acknowledgment of all of the colors of collective mourning is not a unification that can hold its weight,” he says. “So I think the collective mourning definitely needs to proceed any sort of talk or movement toward unity.”

Interview Highlights

On acknowledging feelings of hurt and pain, as some men did when Biden cried during his farewell address in Delaware

“When you said that initially I just thought about Trump again, like modeling what we call toxic masculinity every single day on Twitter and on 24-hour news. And then I thought about the 75 million people who seemingly want that modeled even more. Right. But what I think is really important is that it is crucial for us to see. And this goes against a lot of things I believe. Representational politics matter, but I think we have to build representational politics not around people, but around emotions. And I think we definitely need to see more people in this country who are in positions of power sincerely empathize and feel. And so I just think yes, yes, yes. Like I cried but you know I've been crying these last four years. It wasn't new to me. But I do think we all, no matter how old we are, and I actually argue the older you are, and I would say particularly like cisgender men, we need to see more models of mushy masculinity.”

On how the insurrection at the Capitol made him think about his parents meeting in Washington, D.C.

“My parents weren't together when I was born, for example. Right. And I don't think about them ever being together because I could not find that memory. Right. When I watched those white men go across that, mostly white men, you know, siege that Capitol, I thought about my parents being together in D.C., right? I never, ever thought about that before. Like they were in love at one point. So for me, that wreckage served as a portal to a memory, to a duo of people who were not in love for a long time, but were in love and were radical and were like, you know, inspired by Malcolm X and were questionable of Martin [Luther King Jr.] but loved Martin just as well. And so for me, it's looking in spaces that we've been told not to look for joy and finding joy, even if it doesn't fit the shape or the sound or scent that we're used to. And I just think that might sound like whatever, you know, like goofy. But, you know, we need more goofy in this country.

On the role of art during difficult times

“Art is sort of how I breathe. It's how I pray. So art, for me, particularly like reading and writing, is literally how I've made it through the pandemic. I've tightened up my practice. I used to have a practice that I was steadfast to for 20 years. I changed my writing practice during this pandemic. And I am privileged to do that because I have you know, I don't have to worry about my next meal, you know what I mean? Like, I don't think that what I'm saying is something that is true for every human in this country at all.”

“I've been listening to a lot of Aretha Franklin, especially like her rendition of 'Wholy Holy' from Marvin Gaye. It reminds me of my grandmother. She still cries when she hears that song. So that's been on repeat. And I’ve just been like, you know, making my own music. And I don't feel comfortable talking about that because I'm such a terrible musician and a terrible singer. But I've been trying to create some songs for myself.”

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/01/22/trauma-trump-coronavirus

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.

Framing Issues in Politics

One of the most common reasons that politicians do not answer questions directly is to avoid stepping into an opponent's frame.[1] It is almost always the case that when one steps into an opponent's frame, one loses the engagement or debate. This is a fundamental truth about how the human mind works. Framing issues leads the mind to see and think about a question within the frame. It is almost always harder to explain one's position within a frame that favors the opponent's argument. The general rule is simple: The more one has to explain themself, the weaker their arguments are seen to be 

In framing political issues, one is presenting their perception of reality, facts and logic to persuade people to agree with them. In essence, a frame is the words, images and the mental and biological effects of how one describes one's own version of reality, reasoning, right and wrong.

Effective frames: 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 this tactic fails. 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. Inexperienced politicians make the mistake of ‘stepping into their opponent's frame’, which significantly undermines their 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. 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’ or ‘undocumented children’.

2. The frame: An allegation by a politician who wants to get rid of a bureaucracy by arguing that that the bureaucracy has insufficient expertise. Stepping into that frame in rebuttal with multiple true facts: (i) we have lots of expert experts, (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 experts 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 and not answering question, because they are talking past each other and avoiding the frame a question is couched in. Avoidance of stepping into an opponent's frame is extremely important.

Reframing: To avoid an opponent's frame, you need to reframe.[2]

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. . . . .”

4. Frame: Abort a fetus
Reframe: Murder or kill a baby or person with full rights of citizens

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.”
- 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.

An 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. .... This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn’t broken in 2015. We weren’t living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet is perhaps the one thing in American society we can all agree has been a stunning success.”

Ajit Pai, Trump's FCC chairman provided a written statement in advance of an FCC vote that reversed net neutrality rules. Pai's frame was repeated many time in written and public statements. Pai's ‘light touch’ regulation frame was contrasted with his asserted ‘heavy-handed micromanagement’ frame. In this case, the light touch 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. Here, a frame was used to deceive the public and to make a partisan attack on some existing federal rules.

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. The course is short and easy to comprehend. It makes it clear why, (i) much political rhetoric seems strange because people talk past each other, and (ii) politicians frequently fail to answer straightforward questions and instead give responses having little or nothing to do with the question.

Footnotes: 

1. Another common reason is to avoid giving an opponent a basis to attack the response.  

2. A devastating reframe: 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, 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) 

DP: 8/10/19; 10/16/19; B&B orig: 12/13/17

Want a Pair of Mittens Like Bernie Sanders'?

 

His recycled wool-and-fleece mittens delighted the world on Inauguration Day.

The day looked sunny but chilly in Washington, D.C., as the presidential inauguration took place, but one thing's for sure – Bernie Sanders' hands were toasty warm. The Vermont senator was seen sporting a pair of large mittens made from recycled wool that have caught the world's attention. 

They are so incongruously ordinary, the kind of mittens anyone would want for shoveling a snowy driveway, doing the school run in midwinter, or hauling recycling to the curb, that they stood out amid the sea of dark formal wear that the rest of the audience was wearing. There's a good chance they struck envy into the hearts of many who would much rather have their hands encased in cozy wool and fleece than cold leather.

These same mittens were spotted a year ago when Sanders was still campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination. (Treehugger is pleased to see Sanders is a proud outfit repeater.) The Cut reports that they were a gift from schoolteacher Jen Ellis, whose daughter attended a daycare run by Sanders' daughter-in-law. Ellis gave the mittens to Sanders with a note that said, "I believe in you, I've always believed in you, and I hope you run again." When he did run again and started wearing the mittens in public, Ellis was delighted. She sent ten additional pairs of mittens to be distributed along the campaign trail.

After their first appearance, the mittens garnered so much attention that they got their own Twitter page, known as @BerniesMittens. Now, thanks to their re-emergence on Inauguration Day, that Twitter page is buzzing with excitement once again. "Bernie is trending during inauguration bc he's both a fashion and policy icon," one person tweeted. Another posted a meme that reads, "These mittens and healthcare should be a right, not a privilege!" I love The Cut's conclusion about Bernie's sartorial signaling: 

"What does Bernie want to say with these mittens and his overall look? That he is cold. That he supports a Green New Deal. That he doesn’t mind repeating an outfit. Mostly it is a reminder that we could have had, in these troubled times, a Ross Dress for Less president for the people." 

I made Bernie’s mittens as a gift a couple years ago. They are made from repurposed wool sweaters and lined with fleece (made from recycled plastic bottles). #BerniesMittens

For those wondering how they can get their own hands into a pair of these, Jen Ellis says she still makes them and will accept orders over email. She has posted her contact info on Twitter. If she's inundated (which seems likely), you could look on Etsy. Woolies by Charlie, Barefoot Girl Design, Baabaazuzu, and Collection Gaia all have great options for upcycled mittens.

https://www.treehugger.com/want-mittens-bernie-sanders-5096305