|
Goal Versus Means
One way to get to into the workings of a policy issue is to compare the stated goal of the policy with the means being used to achieve that goal. Do they line up? Politicians too often state a goal that we support, but then use a means that actually achieves something we do not support.
An example of a mismatch occurred in the mid 1990s when "gays in the military" was being used as a wedge issue. One stated goal of excluding gays was "because we need a moral military." So the question is, would excluding only gays match with the goal of a moral military, i.e. is everyone included in the classification that is necessary to achieve this goal?
Why were those who engaged in adultery or frequented prostitutes not included in the ban if a moral military was the goal? It is more likely the policy of excluding gays had as its goal the mobilization of people who saw homosexuality as immoral and offensive to their religious beliefs. This goal is consistent with the classification chosen.
Confusing the stated goal and the means chosen to achieve that goal is a sleight of hand that some politicians cultivate, and it is important that we not be deceived by it. We deserve honesty from our politicians. One way to get it is to ask them to explain discrepancies between the stated goal of a policy they propose and the means they want to use to achieve it when they do not match up.
Top
Renaming
To understand the workings of a policy issue, compare the language used with what the words are actually describing. Are terms with which we would want to be associated being used to disguise acts that we would not deem acceptable?
It is currently popular among political operatives to couch policy issues in terms of "moral values." But it is important to distinguish between moral values and moral judgment. Moral values such as kindness, honesty, integrity and forgiveness are to be encouraged in public discourse.
But moral judgment, the condemnation of one by another based on cultural or religious differences, is not acceptable in public policy debate, as it leads to divisiveness and social discord. In this country, people have a cherished right to hold diverse religious views, but they do not have the right to use the power of government to impose those views on others.
To rename "moral judgment" and call it "moral values" does not change what it is. Declaring one side of a political debate to be "moral" and everyone who disagrees with that view to be "immoral" is turning out to be one of the most destructive framing tactics the political operatives have devised.
Unfortunately, the usual response of those deemed to be "immoral" is to themselves profess they are the morally superior group and those who denigrate them are the immoral group. In this posture, the solution is seen by each side as a matter of getting more people to join their "moral" stance and fight the "immoral" stance of the other side. No policy problem ever gets solved in this "I'm right, you're wrong" mode.
To stop this tactic we must call it what it is every time it shows up. Do not let renaming be used to disguise what is actually going on.
Top
Insiders Versus Outsiders
When a politician is using labels or stereotypes, or is tying an opponent to a negative image, look for the insiders versus outsiders tactic. This is the game of attributing the inside group with positive qualities and the outside group with stereotypes and labels that are negative. For example, if you can get people to associate Barry Goldwater with an atomic mushroom cloud that snuffs out a little girl picking daisies or Michael Dukakis with a dangerous African American convict with dark skin and an afro, you have a ringer.
Labels are a shorthand way to put complex, multidimensional people, programs or nations in a tiny box so the truth about them disappears. Labels are very effective.
If politicians can get people to buy into a label, they can often get them to act in ways they otherwise would not. Think about how labels have been used in the past to spawn terrible deeds, like "nigger" in this country, "Jew" in Germany, "Tutsi" in Rawanda, or "Catholic" in Ireland. This list demonstrates how effective labels can be for political mobilization of the wrong kind.
When popular labels like "terrorist," or "axis of evil" are used, we should ask what truth might be hidden behind these negative stereotypes and how do the politicians want to influence how we act when we buy into this type of coded language.
When a label is used by a politician, call him or her on it. Ask that he or she explain what is meant by the label, because your information indicates x, y, z, etc. Above all, do not buy into framing such as, "Actually, I'm not a liberal, I believe in fiscal responsibility." Bingo. That is the frame the politician wanted you to step into.
Top
Newton's Third Law of Motion
Newton's third law of motion holds that for every action there is always an opposite and equal reaction. In political debate, this is reflected in the themes of perversity, futility and jeopardy. Albert O. Hirschman, Rhetoric of Reaction, (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1991).
When one party proposes a change in public policy, the opponent contends that the policy will:
1. Make the situation even worse (perversity thesis);
2. Fail and is not worth the attempt (futility thesis);
3. Threaten previous precious accomplishments (jeopardy thesis).
Another example: When a group of grassroots citizens are clamoring for change, their opponents warn of the danger of the masses.
If the issue being addressed is a serious one, and this counter is all that a politician offers, you might ask what his or her plan to address the problem looks like.
Top
Policy Versus Personality
Another tactic to watch for is a switch in the debate from the policy issue to the person or people associated with the policy. This tactic can be used between politicians or by the media. For example, a politician might say that refurbishing the mayor's office was not a responsible way to spend taxpayer dollars. A reporter might ask in response, "Do you think the mayor is being irresponsible?"
What do you, as a citizen, want to knowhow the politician intends to spend your tax dollars or what that politician thinks about another politician?
Top
Framing the Argument
Attorneys are trained to frame the facts in a context consistent with their theory of a case, their "winning" strategy. Does blood on a knife mean that a murder took place, or that there was a barbecue last night? If there are remains of a cow carcass lying nearby, the context begins to give the blood on the knife a particular meaning. A dead person, instead of a cow carcass, would change the context of the knife.
The context in which the facts are found will significantly influence the meaning that people give to the facts, or are willing to give to them. Something may not be true, but when posited in a context with which it is consistent, it may be accepted as true. Even when a fact is true, it may become believable only when it is consistent with other facts within a given context. This internal consistency is powerful in determining what "facts" can be floated.
Examples of internally consistent arguments that are mutually supportive:
The idea that Kerry was power hungry, if believed to be true, made the argument his medals were a fraud plausible.
The idea that Bush is stupid, if believed to be true, made the argument that he wore a listening device in the debates plausible.
Framing a political issue is putting it in a context that gives it the meaning you want it to have. For example, President Bush chose to frame the issue of terrorism in the context of war instead of crime, although war is something engaged in only between nations. Within this frame, he then beefed up the military and justified a counter war against Iraq. (Terrorism is actually a tactic normally treated as a crime--unless of course, you see it as the work of freedom fighters--because it is the work of individuals, not states, although they may have state support.)
How the politicians frame an issue gives you clues about the conclusions they want you to draw. Be alert to this tactic so you can decide for yourself. .
Top
|
