Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
How To Frame Yourself: A Framing Memo For Occupy Wall Street
I was asked weeks ago by some in the Occupy Wall Street movement to make suggestions for how to frame the movement. I have hesitated so far, because I think the movement should be framing itself. It’s a general principle: Unless you frame yourself, others will frame you — the media, your enemies, your competitors, your well-meaning friends. I have so far hesitated to offer suggestions. But the movement appears to maturing and entering a critical time when small framing errors could have large negative consequences. So I thought it might be helpful to accept the invitation and start a discussion of how the movement might think about framing itself.
About framing: It’s normal. Everybody engages in it all the time. Frames are just structures of thought that we use every day. All words in all languages are defined in terms of frame-circuits in the brain. But, ultimately, framing is about ideas, about how we see the world, which determines how we act.
In politics, frames are part of competing moral systems that are used in political discourse and in charting political action. In short, framing is a moral enterprise: it says what the character of a movement is. All politics is moral. Political figures and movements always make policy recommendations claiming they are the right things to do. No political figure ever says, do what I say because it’s wrong! Or because it doesn’t matter! Some moral principles or other lie behind every political policy agenda.
photo: Tom Giebel
Two Moral Framing Systems in Politics
Conservatives have figured out their moral basis and you see it on Wall Street: It includes: The primacy of self-interest. Individual responsibility, but not social responsibility. Hierarchical authority based on wealth or other forms of power. A moral hierarchy of who is “deserving,” defined by success. And the highest principle is the primacy of this moral system itself, which goes beyond Wall Street and the economy to other arenas: family life, social life, religion, foreign policy, and especially government. Conservative “democracy” is seen as a system of governance and elections that fits this model.
Though OWS concerns go well beyond financial issues, your target is right: the application of these principles in Wall Street is central, since that is where the money comes from for elections, for media, and for right-wing policy-making institutions of all sorts on all issues.
The alternative view of democracy is progressive: Democracy starts with citizens caring about one another and acting responsibly on that sense of care, taking responsibility both for oneself and for one’s family, community, country, people in general, and the planet. The role of government is to protect and empower all citizens equally via The Public: public infrastructure, laws and enforcement, health, education, scientific research, protection, public lands, transportation, resources, art and culture, trade policies, safety nets, and on and on. Nobody makes it on their own. If you got wealthy, you depended on The Public, and you have a responsibility to contribute significantly to The Public so that others can benefit in the future. Moreover, the wealthy depend on those who work, and who deserve a fair return for their contribution to our national life. Corporations exist to make life better for most people. Their reason for existing is as public as it is private.
A disproportionate distribution of wealth robs most citizens of access to the resources controlled by the wealthy. Immense wealth is a thief. It takes resources from the rest of the population — the best places to live, the best food, the best educations, the best health facilities, access to the best in nature and culture, the best professionals, and on and on. Resources are limited, and great wealth greatly limits access to resources for most people.
It appears to me that OWS has a progressive moral vision and view of democracy, and that what it is protesting is the disastrous effects that have come from operating with a conservative moral, economic, and political worldview. I see OWS as primarily a moral movement, seeking economic and political changes to carry out that moral movement — whatever those particular changes might be.
A Moral Focus for Occupy Wall Street
I think it is a good thing that the occupation movement is not making specific policy demands. If it did, the movement would become about those demands. If the demands were not met, the movement would be seen as having failed.
It seems to me that the OWS movement is moral in nature, that occupiers want the country to change its moral focus. It is easy to find useful policies; hundreds have been suggested. It is harder to find a moral focus and stick to it. If the movement is to frame itself, it should be on the basis of its moral focus, not a particular agenda or list of policy demands. If the moral focus of America changes, new people will be elected and the policies will follow. Without a change of moral focus, the conservative worldview that has brought us to the present disastrous and dangerous moment will continue to prevail.
We Love America. We’re Here to Fix It
I see OWS as a patriotic movement, based on a deep and abiding love of country — a patriotism that it is not just about the self-interests of individuals, but about what the country is and is to be. Do Americans care about other citizens, or mainly just about themselves? That’s what love of America is about. I therefore think it is important to be positive, to be clear about loving America, seeing it in need of fixing, and not just being willing to fix it, but being willing to take to the streets to fix it. A populist movement starts with the people seeing that they are all in the same boat and being ready to come together to fix the leaks.
Publicize the Public
Tell the truth about The Public, that nobody makes it purely on their own without The Public, that is, without public infrastructure, the justice system, health, education, scientific research, protections of all sorts, public lands, transportation, resources, art and culture, trade policies, safety nets, … That is a truth to be told day after day. It is an idea that must take hold in public discourse. It must go beyond what I and others have written about it and beyond what Elizabeth Warren has said in her famous video. The Public is not opposed to The Private. The Public is what makes The Private possible. And it is what makes freedom possible. Wall Street exists only through public support. It has a moral obligation to direct itself to public needs.
All OWS approaches to policy follow from such a moral focus. Here are a handful examples.
Democracy should be about the 99%
Money directs our politics. In a democracy, that must end. We need publicly supported elections, however that is to be arranged.
Strong Wages Make a Strong America
Middle-class wages have not gone up significantly in 30 years, and there is conservative pressure to lower them. But when most people get more money, they spend it and spur the economy, making the economy and the country stronger, as well as making their individual lives better. This truth needs to be central to public economic discourse.
Global Citizenship
America has been a moral beacon to the world. It can function as such only if it sets an example of what a nation should be.
Do we have to spend more on the military that all other nations combined? Do we really need hundreds of military bases abroad?
Nature
We are part of nature. Nature makes us, and all that we love, possible. Yet we are destroying Nature through global warming and other forms of ecological destruction, like fracking and deep-water drilling.
At a global scale, nature is systemic: its effects are neither local nor linear. Global warming is causing the ferocity of the monster storms, tornados, floods, blizzards, heat waves, and fires that have devastated huge areas of our country. The hotter the atmosphere, the more evaporated water and the more energy going into storms, tornados, and blizzards. Global warming cannot be shown to cause any particular storm, but when a storm system forms, global warming will ramp up the power of the storm and the amount of water it carries. In winter, evaporated water from the overly heated Pacific will go into the atmosphere, blow northeast over the arctic, and fall as record snows.
We depend on nature – on clean air, water, food, and a livable climate. And we find beauty and grandeur in nature, and a sense of awe that makes life worth living. A love of country requires a love of nature. And a fair and thriving economy requires the preservation of nature as we have known it.
Summary
OWS is a moral and patriotic movement. It sees Democracy as flowing from citizens caring about one another as well as themselves, and acting with both personal and social responsibility. Democratic governance is about The Public, and the liberty that The Public provides for a thriving Private Sphere. From such a democracy flows fairness, which is incompatible with a hugely disproportionate distribution of wealth. And from the sense of care implicit in such a democracy flows a commitment to the preservation of nature.
From what I have seen of most members of OWS, your individual concerns all flow from one moral focus.
Elections
The Tea Party solidified the power of the conservative worldview via elections. OWS will have no long-term effect unless it too brings its moral focus to the 2012 elections. Insist on supporting candidates that have your overall moral views, no matter what the local issues are.
A Warning
This movement could be destroyed by negativity, by calls for revenge, by chaos, or by having nothing positive to say. Be positive about all things and state the moral basis of all suggestions. Positive and moral in calling for debt relief. Positive and moral in upholding laws, as they apply to finances. Positive and moral in calling for fairness in acquiring needed revenue. Positive and moral in calling for clean elections. To be effective, your movement must be seen by all of the 99% as positive and moral. To get positive press, you must stress the positive and the moral.
Remember: The Tea Party sees itself as stressing only individual responsibility. The Occupation Movement is stressing both individual and social responsibility.
I believe, and I think you believe, that most Americans care about their fellow citizens as well as themselves. Let’s find out! Shout your moral and patriotic views out loud, regularly. Put them on your signs. Repeat them to the media. Tweet them. And tell everyone you know to do the same. You have to use your own language with your own framing and you have to repeat it over and over for the ideas to sink in.
Occupy elections: voter registration drives, town hall meetings, talk radio airtime, party organizations, nomination campaigns, election campaigns, and voting booths.
Above all: Frame yourselves before others frame you.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


286 Comments so far
Show AllYou say "a movement without a party to represent it is a movement adrift."
It works the other way around - always has, always will.
There is an inherent contradiction in your thinking. On the one hand, you p[raise the so-called "representative democracy" and urge everyone to think in terms of that being the ultimate and most important form of political expression. Then you claim that the only value of the OWS movement is if and when it finds expression in partisan electoral politics. Logically, both cannot be true.
If there is representative democracy, as you may claim, then the burden would be on the politicians to follow the OWS movement, to support it, to obey it, to define themselves by it. But you demand that the OWS people take up the burden and define themselves within the parameters of the politicians and parties.
You have expressed the big lie about "American democracy" - that the politicians represent us, when actually you are calling for us to represent them.
Very insightful post nicely done sir. I agree 100%. Politicians are welcome to come to a general assembly *as individuals* to watch and learn how consensus based direct democracy work as long as they don't shill for themselves and their party. They are also welcome to take our ideas to heart as policy suggestions. What we should not allow is for the occupy movement to brand and support politicians who as people who are only answerable to their campaign funding sources, and not the people *directly*, do not truly represent us.
Never liked Lakoff. He's a liberal shill.
Lakoff starts off with setting the acceptable parameters: Conservative/liberal, i.e., republican/democrats. The corporate media tries to spin it that way as well. Rachel Maddow never tires of comparing OWS as liberal and the Tea party (the original one, whose founder, by the way, supports OWS) as conservative.
For instance universal health care doesn't have to be just a liberal issue. It's every bit about family values, moral decency and fiscal responsibility as it is about rights, but liberals and conservatives lead their herds in different directions to get them to fight amongst each other instead of banning together and fighting the corporate order. Sadly those who put categories and party first will follow their leaders down the road to continued and expanding self-enslavement.
OWS is about breaking down these divide and conquer catergories. For me, it's about people power and autonomy, and dismantling corporate power, both of which, in one way or another, the sincere Tea Party and OWS seek. (But the tea party was founded on more or less erroneous assumptions, and has since petered out).
Rachel Maddow, Rush Limbaugh and George Lakoff have the task of ensuring that OWS does not become a universal voice against the Ruling Class.
My two cents is that OWS should fight corporate power: no corporate contributions to anything. They should not fund think tanks, political parties or colleges; no corporate officers in public service for min 5 years and vice versa; no corporate funded media; break up monopolies; etc.... All other issues can't not be seriously addressed otherwise.
That's something most "conservatives" and "liberals" can get behind.
Pundits should be ignored.
"For instance universal health care doesn't have to be just a liberal issue. It's every bit about family values, moral decency and fiscal responsibility as it is about rights"
Your comment is completely compatible with what Lakoff is saying. But because he advocatea changing the political system rather than disrupting it, you call him a shill.
Changing the system may not be feasible, but disrupting it definately is. that will just give "The Man" an excuse to call in the swat teams.
Accepting conservative/liberal division of issues is supporting the system. It is the foundation of the system.
Agree 100%.
Very well said.
This argument has swirled around every social and political movement in history.
Let's backdate it to another time when the same arguments you make here were being made:
"For instance, abolishing slavery doesn't have to be just a liberal issue. It's every bit about family values, moral decency and fiscal responsibility as it is about rights"
Your comment is completely compatible with what Lakoff is saying. But because he advocates changing the system of slavery rather than disrupting it, you call him a shill.
Changing the system of slavery may not be feasible, but disrupting it definitely is. that will just give the slave owners an excuse to call in the swat teams.
Divide and Conquer is right.
To Lakoff, it's all bout "US vs THEM" -- and about US "winning", of course.
In his case, the US happens to be liberals and the THEM conservatives, but the "game" is the same one played by propagandists on the right (Lakoff is a left wing propagandist)
The elites (Republican and Democrat alike) use this "US vs them" game to keep the majority at each other's throats about things that don't really matter in the grand scheme of things -- while they themselves make off with everything including the kitchen sink.
With the protests, there are no clear party distinctions -- and this drives folks like Lakoff and most of the American media absolutely bonkers.
"Goodness, how am I supposed to "make sense" the protests if I can't fit it them into a neat democrat of republican pigeonhole?" is the way these folks think.
Great observation well said.
+ 1 Jimbojangles. In fact the Occupy GA is quite compatible with the New England style town meeting many real conservatives would like to see.
I agree, by taking OWS into the political realm it will be marginalized and compared in numbers to the two corporate parties. If they need to broaden the message to include all 99%, not just the 20 somethings aching to get inside the circle of the middle class life.
Additionally, if they don't address climate change, peak oil and the collapse they are causing, it's just rearranging the deck chairs.
A lot of occupiers I have talked with are very clued into how unsustainable finance capitalist industrialism is. I often hear words like permaculture pop up. It's not all 20 somethings either I am a 40 something and saw a few boomers and evwn the 70 + year old Alan Haber there.
+ 1 wobblie, more IWW, less Lakoff and Maddow shilling for Wall St. funded war mongering Dims please! The DIms hands are just covered with the empires blood, and the banker money as the Repigliecons, the system is DEAD, get it, either OWS wins, or they send the drones after US inside the U.S. next in total actual Nazis style fascism.
Here is another slogan which they should think about adopting:
Books not Bombs.
Excellent idea! Excellent.
Lakoff is simply right in most of this. Especially when he say's "Above all: Frame yourselves before others frame you."
Is there really anyone that disagree's with his enumerated points? Truly?
And lastly, anyone that thinks the Tea Party has "petered out" or gone away is in for a big surprise in 2012. Those folks are beavering away, especially at the state and local level.
The tea party has been bought out by the Koch Brothers. Your talking about a corporated co-opted conservative populist sentiment.
I do reject the conservative/liberal paradigm. Liberate yourself.
I don't buy the Democrats propaganda for one minute. It's wishful thinking on their part. Certainly not their "Koch Brothers" boogeyman in regards to the Tea Party people. Sure those boobs have kicked in when they could.
The Tea Party is pretty much a grass roots movement no matter how much that fact gets everyone's back up. It's an evident fact. As fact the people that go to their meetings simply represent a majority of people that think along the same lines. They are simply more organized and have more experience, expertise and money to draw on. I have little interest in ideology or it's demand of narrow reality. I prefer the truth and real facts.
"I do reject the conservative/liberal paradigm. Liberate yourself."
You can reject it, however it's the reality we live in. I feel fairly liberated, thank you for the thought though.
That's the essence of being a sucker.
You "feel" liberated when you are not.
I don't see a contrary argument there. I see what I see. I believe what I see, not what I'm told.
I would define a "sucker" as someone who believe's what they are told and after finding out it has no substance or is at best a half truth still believe it.
I voted for Obama, so you are correct, under my own definition at that point I was a "sucker". I won't again, under any circumstances, so by my definition, I'm no longer a "sucker.
Yah, the 1% believe it's immoral to let suckers keep their government.
The original tea party of Ron Paul supporting Libertarians was a grass roots movement. One that was wrong about predatory capitalism but a sincere movement nonetheless many of whom supported the good aspects of Paul's ideas like opposing war, police state and the Federal Reserve. These people who while I disagree with them on a lot I can have thoughtful conversations with, and I suspect are the people wobblie is talking about when he rejects the liberal v.s. conservative, "framing" (BURNED you!). A surprising number of these old school "End the Fed" tea parties ARE sympathetic to OWS.
The new Sarah Palin, Koch brothers, v. 2.0 astroturf Republican tea party is NOT grassroots it's just some Knee-O-con corporate war mongering pro Wall St. Rush Limpballs bullshit funded by horrible Koch bothers. Search out the article by Matt Tabbibi on the tea party he lays out what happened pretty well.
"Is there really anyone that disagree's with his enumerated points?"
That would be me.
"Corporations exist to make life better for most people."
Utter nonsense. All credibility gone.
"I see OWS as a patriotic movement ..."
Such crap! Patriotism is what brung us here. Mindless submission to a destructive phony emotion.
"A populist movement starts with the people seeing that they are all in the same boat and being ready to come together to fix the leaks."
Fix the leaks? The global community is abandoning the Amistad and looking for a New all inclusive boat.
"America has been a moral beacon to the world."
cough, belch, barf (notice the arrogant use of america)
I could go on about this pile of excrement, but it simply is not worth the effort.
Lakoff doesn't speak for me, OWS, or the people of the world.
Re: "A populist movement starts with the people seeing that they are all in the same boat and being ready to come together to fix the leaks."
__________________
When I read this, I couldn't help but wonder about the, er, framing of this metaphor.
It sounds very wholesome and pious to talk about people coming together to "fix the leaks", rather in the spirit of an Amish barn-raising.
But I prefer to think of OWS as a matter of abandoning the decadent and foundering USS Capitalist Imperium, instead of rushing below decks (or staying put in steerage) and trying to stuff what's left of one's possessions into the widening breach in the hull.
That's about it, isn't it. Staying afloat by clinging to the last end table. I hike and camp a lot. A couple of years ago, families started to show up at the parks, but they weren't there for the weekend, a mound of stuff covered with a tarp sat next to the tents, 21st century Joads.
"A couple of years ago, families started to show up at the parks, but they weren't there for the weekend, a mound of stuff covered with a tarp sat next to the tents, 21st century Joads." -- Buck
Exactly! There are tent cities popping up across this country -- and they have been popping up and growing for quite some time. M$M doesn't show this side of the U.S. to their audiences.
Very true that.
Well said!
I have been involved with OWS since the beginning -- one of the issues concerns the need to frame the issues instead of discussing the issues. OWS is really a community of people who have come together and they care. I have had some of the deepest and most profound social and political discussions of my life with quite a number of people who are part of OWS.
Like Buck stated in his post, "Lakoff doesn't speak for me, OWS, or the people of the world!"
The movement is NOT about fixing leaks, but about dismantling the systems. It's very difficult for people -- it seems -- to wrap their heads around the nonhierarchical concepts of the movement. People are actually listening to each other -- across generations, gender, color, etc., etc.
If you haven't already joined the OCCUPY movement in your community, go out and try it on for size -- attend the general assemblies and participate. The experience is unlike anything I have seen in my lifetime.
BRING DOWN THE WALL!
Nicely stated, and very true IMO, actually attending an occupy is a life changing experience even if you have done radical politics for decades. Once you have experienced consensus based direct democracy you'll never settle for the tepid mediated faux democracy again that people like Lakoff are shilling.
Thank you for your reports and for your inspiring posts, Kay Johnson.
"Corporations exist to make life better for most people."
Well crap Buck. I missed that, truly I did. My bad.
However there is nothing wrong with "patriotism", it's popping up all over the world. If you speak to people around the world they are hoping that the "old boat" doesn't go under. They are well aware what will likely take it's place. If you don't want to fix out country, what use are you to OWS or the people of the world or any of us. I don't believe for one ,moment you believe this "New World Order," Globalism" nonsense the elites are trying to push.
History says we actually have been better than most, I'm not much on revisionism. If you are looking for perfection you'll have to go elsewhere in the world. Even now, OWS is in New York and not in fear of their lives. Not a circumstance found in many other places in the world. Some as late as yesterday.
Perhaps I should just say his sentiments are good.
But you got my ass good on "Corporations exist to make life better for most people."
Not to worry, lakoff said it, not you.
I could not be farther from believing in the New World Order.
OWS has shown the ability of community without government.
I believe government, if at all, should be closer to the kitchen, same as food production. Nation states, size, is a major factor for corruption, oppression, and international war. Besides, I refuse to be governed, including by the majority.
Some keep calling OWS a direct democracy, but it my impression that it isn't. It's an open forum. Kay can help on this if she comes back.
History tells quite a different story than the one you apparently have heard. The u.s. was founded on stolen land, built with the stolen sweat of others' brows, and a relentless stream of blood that flows to this day.
I say scrap it, along with capitalism, and start over.
It's a New day, time to find a New way.
______________________________________
Yes, I like your thinking in these posts. Keep it up.
Now that i can get behind that's anarcho-syndacalism in a nutshell.
Lakoff claims to be making "observations" about what the OWS movement is about, but what he is ACTUALLY doing is suggesting that the people taking part in OWS exploit "patriotism" and "morality" to get more people on their side.
That is fundamentally dishonest.
If someone is protesting because their house is under foreclosure due to corrupt banks or because they don't have a job they should not claim they are doing it for "love of country".
This is precisely the kind of crap that makes people distrustful of one another.
And for Lakoff to say that people should not be negative is just a cruel joke.
Tell that to someone who has been out of work for a year -- or to a homeless person.
Who the hell does Lakoff think he is, anyway, telling people what they should and should not be saying when they protest?
People in OWS are VERY moral, and most see "patriotism" as a sick nationalistic swindle, DEAL liberal reformers. You are NOT going to get a drooling army of flag pin wearing "patriotic" Dim party voting zombies out of us, NOT happening. People don't do 3 hour meetings in the 45 degree rain in order to go vote for Dims, they do it because the scent of non violent, non hierarchical, direct democratic revolution is in the air. Partisan DIm party supporting sycophants are sadly going to be the last ones to get it, at least the 1% and Fox Newz watching Repigliecons know enough to be afraid that their OX is about to be gored, most nicey, nice liberals don't even get it that much, in that old "You don't understand what is happening here, do you Mr. Jones," kind of way.
So yep Lakoff is indeed a dishonest bullshit artist on behalf of the Dimorats. And many in the 99% are indeed righteously and unphotogenically angry about the bankster/Federal government double dip screw job, again deal "liberals." And then go listen to that old Phil Ochs song "Love me I am liberal."
I disagree because framing implies some small central committee cranking out talking points for the "masses" to mindlessly chant with no personal initiative. This movement is about EVERYONE having a chance to participate and formulate their own "talking points" based on their philosophy and life experience, much more real, and something you should experience first hand before your mindlessly critique it and demand talking point uniformity. No talking points, no political parties, direct consensus based citizen democracy, it's refreshing enough to make you want to cry once you've experienced it, and very much worth standing out in the cold rain to participate in.
If you must have theory to appeal to, Murray Bookchin's (small l anarchist) libertarian municipalism captures the spirit of it pretty well:
http://www.social-ecology.org/1991/04/libertarian-municipalism-an-overview/
The v. 2.0 tea party is just the Republicans, but OWS is NOT the Democrats nor will it ever let itself be captured in that way, it is a non violent revolution, deal!
"framing implies some small central committee cranking out talking points for the "masses" to mindlessly chant with no personal initiative."
It doesn't imply that; you infer it. It's about everyone being able to understand how conservatives think, so she or he can think for her or himself to communicate with conservatives in terms they can understand.
Your vision sounds wonderful; it's a beautiful experience to share with others who agree with us, and even some conservatives who are willing to open themselves in the same way. Most people on both sides aren't, and so only being able to do that will lead to us losing the media battle and losing the planet.
The Tea Party is the radical right as the Occupy movement is the radical left. The Republicans haven't captured the Tea Party the Tea party has captured the Republicans; that seems obvious to me from the bowing and scraping and position-switching so many Republican candidates have been doing, scrambling to pander, to get elected or just keep up, or a few, revealing how corrupt, racist, selfish and fascist their desires were all along.
If they're able to mature past the heady 'we're radicals everyone is paying attention to' stage, the Occupy Movement may be able to capture some of the Democrats but many are likely to split off to join the corporate right. It depends on how we present our ideas to them--as radical destroyers motivated by rage and hate as the Tea Party is, or by framing it in a way that they can understand and join with.
Lakoff's premise is flawed, or at the very least unexamined and unsupported - that there are two groups of people, as determined by which of the two parties they vote for, and that they think differently and that this difference is of vital importance. It could just as easily be the case, and I think that it is, that two different groups of people respond to two different marketing campaigns, marketing campaigns intended to sell them both the same product.
The Republican politicians do not believe the stuff they spout, nor do the conservative think tank propagandists believe the things they write and say. They are saying whatever will engage people on a very primitive emotional level and persuade them. It is lying, not "framing," and the Democratic party politicians are lying as well.
I agree TA, as part of the corporate/banker 1% controlled political system the Dims are every bit as much an enemy of OWS and the 99% as the Repigliecons, and what's more just about every Occupier I have talked to that is aware of that, and does not buy into the oligarchies two political parties that represent the same interests faux division of society. MILLIONS of Americans are sick of both parties and want real direct democracy and economic justice in their communities.
That's it?? I thought that was one of my best posts ever. LOL
Thanks for the many good posts on this thread, guitarist.
You are welcome, thanks for the same here TA.
TA
Some Republicans and some Democrats no doubt do believe what they say, some don’t. Telling the difference is often impossible and usually irrelevant. Many are lying. That doesn’t mean framing is lying, it means lying is lying and framing is framing and while framing can be used to lie, so can speaking. It doesn’t mean all speaking is lying.
I agree the framing model is flawed. Every model is. It is NOT however, unexamined or unsupported; it’s based on cognitive science and neuroscience and has been formulated and honed over years. I don’t understand when you say “It could just as easily be the case, and I think that it is, that two different groups of people respond to two different marketing campaigns, marketing campaigns intended to sell them both the same product.” How is that different from what he’s saying? I’m not sure what your point is or how it relates to my post.
The trouble with everyone wanting a list of demands from the Occupy movement is who do you propose they give then to?
The common thread through all the movements over the last year or so is the fact that 99% of the population have no voice.
This is the key in my opinion and must be the one and only message.
The 99% do not have representation.
The Government[s] only represent the interests of the 1%.
Get the money out of politics and return democracy to the people.
Then and ONLY then can we deal with all the demands.
Coming up with a list of demands, as if thats all the government needs so they can address them, is simply admitting defeat.
Lets focus on insisting on representation.
The people WANT to address the big issues, fraud and corruption, resource depletion, environmental degradation, human suffering, etc. but it will never happen until we remove money from the equation.
Spot on.
It's the changeover that'll be hell.
The current reality is hell. Why would fighting back be the thing we fear?
I agree! What else can we do but to fight back?
Eh, that's what I get for being brief and flip.
I don't fear fighting back, and we should not fear it, but, despite these very hopeful beginnings, it's still a minority out there, and backing is far too timid.
So, I think for most folks, the changeover from "I'm going to work and comfortably retire" to "I have to drop everything and stop this monster or all is lost" will be hell.
Right now, I'm convinced it will happen, but a lot of people were flipping off the local occupy camp in my neck of it--
So, yeah. Sorry to muddle that up.
It is always a small minority. That doesn't matter.
I hear what you are saying. Still, I don't think the changeover will be hell.