freemode.net

Framing the debate    [ Politics ]

[ written after reading a newsletter from Colorate State Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon ]

I'm glad to see at least some Democrats turn around and realize what's
going on with Republican "ownership" of issues. This is something we
would cover for varsity debaters, that you need to get your opponent
talking about the issues in the round using your language, and from
your point of view. At that point, even if they debate you to a draw
on the issues, most judges (or voters :) will still vote for you,
since the battle is framed on your terms.

This isn't something that happened overnight, either. Conservatives
have been making a concerted effort since Barry Goldwater got trounced
in '64 to carve out easily defendable positions on key issues, using
very specific language to frame the debate, and sometimes it seems
like the Democrats (generalizing at a national level) have ignored
this and let them do it. There's been some individual exceptions, but
by and large the Democrats have tacitly accepted this Republican
"ownership" and played along instead of framing any kind of national
debate on their terms.

I would argue that the Democratic national platform (such as it is),
much like the core constituencies for the Democrats, is grievously
fractured and has no unifying values. It's a bunch of disparate
concepts - roll back tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, some sort
of national health care reform, stay in Iraq but "do it right", and
John Kerry Fought In Vietnam - much as the core voter blocks that the
Democrats depend upon are a mishmash of cultural and ethnic minority
groups, labor unions, farmers, east coasters, left coasters, educators
and social workers.

What the Democrats are not talking about are values. Not once during
the Presidential debates did I hear John Kerry frame the tax cut
question in terms of a work ethic: capital gains tax cuts and estate
tax reductions value wealth over income, which means that working hard
for your money is worth less than already having money and not
working; Republicans don't value hard work, they value people with
money. Social Security reform as Bush envisions it is a regressive
benefit: those who have the most to lose and need the benefits most
will see the least return from individual investmest accounts, while
those who already have time and money to spend on investment advice
and planning will benefit more; Republicans don't value the working
man, they value the rich man. All of these issues can be framed in
terms of what *should* be valued by our government, and what values
(hard work, responsibility and accountability) are most important.
The Democrats are *not* linking their issues back to any central
concept or idea, and that's just as fatal in national politics as it
is in a debate round - your opponent will walk all over you, even if
the details of your arguments are technically better.

Of course, if Democrats start talking about social responsibility,
income versus wealth and the ever-widening economic divide between
Middle America and the wealthy, Republicans will claim it's "class
warfare", yadda yadda yadda. We need Democrats who will happily fight
back and not be afraid of these labels, and who can frame important,
vital local and national issues in terms of basic American values, and
in a consistent and coherent manner.

I think it's rather telling that despite John Kerry managed to get
within 3% of the popular vote, despite not having much personal
appeal, having a piss-poor campaign between the primaries and the
convention, and focusing so much on his Vietnam service. I think that
speaks to a huge opportunity for a Democratic party and candidates who
can present a unified, coherent policy that matters in terms of basic
American values.