Sep 30, 2008
In the first presidential debate of the general election, polls show
that Barack Obama dominated in the discussion of economics. A USA
Today/Gallup poll shows that 34% of viewers had more confidence in
Obama's economic agenda as a result of the debate, while only 26% said
they had less confidence. McCain's results were nearly the opposite,
with only 23% having more confidence and 37% having less confidence.
On the other hand, McCain and Obama broke even when viewers were
questioned about any shift in their perceptions regarding the
candidates' stances on foreign policy. This was in spite of McCain's
strident defense of a deeply unpopular war.
Professor George Lakoff has popularized understanding of the use frames
in political debate, and I believe his theories provide us a strong
road map for understanding these results. Lakoff believes that whoever
frames the debate, will win the debate. And while Obama strongly framed
the economic debate, he accepted far too much of McCain's frame for the
foreign policy debate.
On economic issues, Obama presented the difference clearly: government
regulation and progressive taxation to build the economy from the
bottom up vs. deregulated markets and other policies designed to
stimulate the economy from the top down. Obama argued for the former
clearly and compellingly, and as a result, his individual policies fell
neatly into place, creating a strong sense of internal logic to what he
was saying, and creating an aura of integrity for himself around those
issues.
On the other hand, in the discussion over foreign policy, Obama
accepted much of McCain's frame, and it blunted what should have been a
natural advantage in that arena. The more conservative version of the
narrative goes as follows:
Small but powerful bands of ruthless terrorists are hell-bent on
killing us and destroying our culture. These terrorists exist in dozens
of countries. Their grievances are unreasonable and unresolvable and
therefore can not be addressed with negotiation or good will.
Overwhelming and unilateral military force is the only way to protect
ourselves.
The progressive version of the narrative, on the other hand, says, more
or less:
Diplomacy, negotiation, justice, and development are the foundation
of peace. Terrorism is the violence of the weak against the strong, and
terrorist groups recruit from amongst the angry, the poor and the
oppressed. Overwhelming military force and occupation results in the
killing of innocent people, even if some legitimate terrorists are
stopped in the process. That, in turn, leads to increased support for
radical ideologies and groups that practice terrorism.
Of course, these are oversimplifications, but they should be good
enough to demonstrate the point. Obama invoked both frames
intermittently, and it created a lack of internal consistency to his
positions which weaken both his positions and his apparent integrity.
For example, Obama invokes the conservative frame in several ways such
as: agreeing that we need to use overwhelming military force as our
tool in Afghanistan - and perhaps more strikingly, even in Pakistan,
with or without the support of the Pakistani government; stating that
Al Qaeda exists in 60 countries, creating a justification for attacking
a huge number of countries in the world; using the phrase "hunt and
kill," thereby dehumanizing the enemy; and finally, accepting that the
"surge" has been successful, thereby supporting the idea that problems
can be solved through a simple increase in military force.
On the other hand, he argues we should leave Iraq in 16 months. But the
questions is, why? If indeed terrorists are in 60 countries, which
would certainly include Iraq, and overwhelming military force is the
proper method, and the surge is working, then why should we leave Iraq
a couple years earlier, if it means the possibility of rolling back all
the progress we've made there? It appears cowardly and weak, and it
doesn't make any logical sense. At best, it appears selfish - cutting
our losses and leaving Iraq to fend for itself.
Leaving Iraq does make sense though, if you believe that the violent
nature of the occupation in and of itself creates terrorism. The
solution may be U.N. troops, assistance to pro-democracy groups in
Iraq, development assistance and more, but unilateral and overwhelming
force will fail in the long-term. The downturn in violence in Iraq can
be seen as a temporary improvement held together by massive amounts of
U.S. tax dollars rather than as proof of a successful strategy that
will persist.
Of course, the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 is also
compelling, but by talking about the fact that Al Qaeda exists in 60
countries, Obama works against the premise of this frame, which is that
terrorism is isolated to specific groups and actions, rather than a
ubiquitous and ever-present evil, particularly in the Islamic world.
Obama invokes the progressive frame as well, in pushing for direct
talks with Iran, where his arguments are persuasive in that they are a
simple matter of common sense. But he doesn't take his foreign policy
frame far enough, and ends up creating a patchwork of individual
positions that aren't bound by a strong frame, and in turn, have loads
of internal contradictions. So, McCain, despite his support of an
deeply unpopular war, ended up breaking even with Obama.
Obama, while hinting at and skirting the edges of the progressive
frame, never argued forcefully for it, in a way that would be
convincing to those who didn't already share the paradigm. In addition,
Obama's individual policies should fit into the overall frame. For
example, Obama could have talked about his actual plan to provide a
large amount of development assistance to Afghanistan. The idea is not
to rule out military force in all situations, but rather to invoke
cooperation and negotiation in all its forms, as the primary method of
achieving peace.
It's understandable that candidates are afraid to speak out against
dominant paradigms, fearing that voters accustomed to a certain point
of view may not be persuadable, but those who are able to articulate
clear frames will not only change minds, but they will earn respect of
undecided voters, who are looking for integrity as much as they are any
particular policy position.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In the first presidential debate of the general election, polls show
that Barack Obama dominated in the discussion of economics. A USA
Today/Gallup poll shows that 34% of viewers had more confidence in
Obama's economic agenda as a result of the debate, while only 26% said
they had less confidence. McCain's results were nearly the opposite,
with only 23% having more confidence and 37% having less confidence.
On the other hand, McCain and Obama broke even when viewers were
questioned about any shift in their perceptions regarding the
candidates' stances on foreign policy. This was in spite of McCain's
strident defense of a deeply unpopular war.
Professor George Lakoff has popularized understanding of the use frames
in political debate, and I believe his theories provide us a strong
road map for understanding these results. Lakoff believes that whoever
frames the debate, will win the debate. And while Obama strongly framed
the economic debate, he accepted far too much of McCain's frame for the
foreign policy debate.
On economic issues, Obama presented the difference clearly: government
regulation and progressive taxation to build the economy from the
bottom up vs. deregulated markets and other policies designed to
stimulate the economy from the top down. Obama argued for the former
clearly and compellingly, and as a result, his individual policies fell
neatly into place, creating a strong sense of internal logic to what he
was saying, and creating an aura of integrity for himself around those
issues.
On the other hand, in the discussion over foreign policy, Obama
accepted much of McCain's frame, and it blunted what should have been a
natural advantage in that arena. The more conservative version of the
narrative goes as follows:
Small but powerful bands of ruthless terrorists are hell-bent on
killing us and destroying our culture. These terrorists exist in dozens
of countries. Their grievances are unreasonable and unresolvable and
therefore can not be addressed with negotiation or good will.
Overwhelming and unilateral military force is the only way to protect
ourselves.
The progressive version of the narrative, on the other hand, says, more
or less:
Diplomacy, negotiation, justice, and development are the foundation
of peace. Terrorism is the violence of the weak against the strong, and
terrorist groups recruit from amongst the angry, the poor and the
oppressed. Overwhelming military force and occupation results in the
killing of innocent people, even if some legitimate terrorists are
stopped in the process. That, in turn, leads to increased support for
radical ideologies and groups that practice terrorism.
Of course, these are oversimplifications, but they should be good
enough to demonstrate the point. Obama invoked both frames
intermittently, and it created a lack of internal consistency to his
positions which weaken both his positions and his apparent integrity.
For example, Obama invokes the conservative frame in several ways such
as: agreeing that we need to use overwhelming military force as our
tool in Afghanistan - and perhaps more strikingly, even in Pakistan,
with or without the support of the Pakistani government; stating that
Al Qaeda exists in 60 countries, creating a justification for attacking
a huge number of countries in the world; using the phrase "hunt and
kill," thereby dehumanizing the enemy; and finally, accepting that the
"surge" has been successful, thereby supporting the idea that problems
can be solved through a simple increase in military force.
On the other hand, he argues we should leave Iraq in 16 months. But the
questions is, why? If indeed terrorists are in 60 countries, which
would certainly include Iraq, and overwhelming military force is the
proper method, and the surge is working, then why should we leave Iraq
a couple years earlier, if it means the possibility of rolling back all
the progress we've made there? It appears cowardly and weak, and it
doesn't make any logical sense. At best, it appears selfish - cutting
our losses and leaving Iraq to fend for itself.
Leaving Iraq does make sense though, if you believe that the violent
nature of the occupation in and of itself creates terrorism. The
solution may be U.N. troops, assistance to pro-democracy groups in
Iraq, development assistance and more, but unilateral and overwhelming
force will fail in the long-term. The downturn in violence in Iraq can
be seen as a temporary improvement held together by massive amounts of
U.S. tax dollars rather than as proof of a successful strategy that
will persist.
Of course, the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 is also
compelling, but by talking about the fact that Al Qaeda exists in 60
countries, Obama works against the premise of this frame, which is that
terrorism is isolated to specific groups and actions, rather than a
ubiquitous and ever-present evil, particularly in the Islamic world.
Obama invokes the progressive frame as well, in pushing for direct
talks with Iran, where his arguments are persuasive in that they are a
simple matter of common sense. But he doesn't take his foreign policy
frame far enough, and ends up creating a patchwork of individual
positions that aren't bound by a strong frame, and in turn, have loads
of internal contradictions. So, McCain, despite his support of an
deeply unpopular war, ended up breaking even with Obama.
Obama, while hinting at and skirting the edges of the progressive
frame, never argued forcefully for it, in a way that would be
convincing to those who didn't already share the paradigm. In addition,
Obama's individual policies should fit into the overall frame. For
example, Obama could have talked about his actual plan to provide a
large amount of development assistance to Afghanistan. The idea is not
to rule out military force in all situations, but rather to invoke
cooperation and negotiation in all its forms, as the primary method of
achieving peace.
It's understandable that candidates are afraid to speak out against
dominant paradigms, fearing that voters accustomed to a certain point
of view may not be persuadable, but those who are able to articulate
clear frames will not only change minds, but they will earn respect of
undecided voters, who are looking for integrity as much as they are any
particular policy position.
In the first presidential debate of the general election, polls show
that Barack Obama dominated in the discussion of economics. A USA
Today/Gallup poll shows that 34% of viewers had more confidence in
Obama's economic agenda as a result of the debate, while only 26% said
they had less confidence. McCain's results were nearly the opposite,
with only 23% having more confidence and 37% having less confidence.
On the other hand, McCain and Obama broke even when viewers were
questioned about any shift in their perceptions regarding the
candidates' stances on foreign policy. This was in spite of McCain's
strident defense of a deeply unpopular war.
Professor George Lakoff has popularized understanding of the use frames
in political debate, and I believe his theories provide us a strong
road map for understanding these results. Lakoff believes that whoever
frames the debate, will win the debate. And while Obama strongly framed
the economic debate, he accepted far too much of McCain's frame for the
foreign policy debate.
On economic issues, Obama presented the difference clearly: government
regulation and progressive taxation to build the economy from the
bottom up vs. deregulated markets and other policies designed to
stimulate the economy from the top down. Obama argued for the former
clearly and compellingly, and as a result, his individual policies fell
neatly into place, creating a strong sense of internal logic to what he
was saying, and creating an aura of integrity for himself around those
issues.
On the other hand, in the discussion over foreign policy, Obama
accepted much of McCain's frame, and it blunted what should have been a
natural advantage in that arena. The more conservative version of the
narrative goes as follows:
Small but powerful bands of ruthless terrorists are hell-bent on
killing us and destroying our culture. These terrorists exist in dozens
of countries. Their grievances are unreasonable and unresolvable and
therefore can not be addressed with negotiation or good will.
Overwhelming and unilateral military force is the only way to protect
ourselves.
The progressive version of the narrative, on the other hand, says, more
or less:
Diplomacy, negotiation, justice, and development are the foundation
of peace. Terrorism is the violence of the weak against the strong, and
terrorist groups recruit from amongst the angry, the poor and the
oppressed. Overwhelming military force and occupation results in the
killing of innocent people, even if some legitimate terrorists are
stopped in the process. That, in turn, leads to increased support for
radical ideologies and groups that practice terrorism.
Of course, these are oversimplifications, but they should be good
enough to demonstrate the point. Obama invoked both frames
intermittently, and it created a lack of internal consistency to his
positions which weaken both his positions and his apparent integrity.
For example, Obama invokes the conservative frame in several ways such
as: agreeing that we need to use overwhelming military force as our
tool in Afghanistan - and perhaps more strikingly, even in Pakistan,
with or without the support of the Pakistani government; stating that
Al Qaeda exists in 60 countries, creating a justification for attacking
a huge number of countries in the world; using the phrase "hunt and
kill," thereby dehumanizing the enemy; and finally, accepting that the
"surge" has been successful, thereby supporting the idea that problems
can be solved through a simple increase in military force.
On the other hand, he argues we should leave Iraq in 16 months. But the
questions is, why? If indeed terrorists are in 60 countries, which
would certainly include Iraq, and overwhelming military force is the
proper method, and the surge is working, then why should we leave Iraq
a couple years earlier, if it means the possibility of rolling back all
the progress we've made there? It appears cowardly and weak, and it
doesn't make any logical sense. At best, it appears selfish - cutting
our losses and leaving Iraq to fend for itself.
Leaving Iraq does make sense though, if you believe that the violent
nature of the occupation in and of itself creates terrorism. The
solution may be U.N. troops, assistance to pro-democracy groups in
Iraq, development assistance and more, but unilateral and overwhelming
force will fail in the long-term. The downturn in violence in Iraq can
be seen as a temporary improvement held together by massive amounts of
U.S. tax dollars rather than as proof of a successful strategy that
will persist.
Of course, the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 is also
compelling, but by talking about the fact that Al Qaeda exists in 60
countries, Obama works against the premise of this frame, which is that
terrorism is isolated to specific groups and actions, rather than a
ubiquitous and ever-present evil, particularly in the Islamic world.
Obama invokes the progressive frame as well, in pushing for direct
talks with Iran, where his arguments are persuasive in that they are a
simple matter of common sense. But he doesn't take his foreign policy
frame far enough, and ends up creating a patchwork of individual
positions that aren't bound by a strong frame, and in turn, have loads
of internal contradictions. So, McCain, despite his support of an
deeply unpopular war, ended up breaking even with Obama.
Obama, while hinting at and skirting the edges of the progressive
frame, never argued forcefully for it, in a way that would be
convincing to those who didn't already share the paradigm. In addition,
Obama's individual policies should fit into the overall frame. For
example, Obama could have talked about his actual plan to provide a
large amount of development assistance to Afghanistan. The idea is not
to rule out military force in all situations, but rather to invoke
cooperation and negotiation in all its forms, as the primary method of
achieving peace.
It's understandable that candidates are afraid to speak out against
dominant paradigms, fearing that voters accustomed to a certain point
of view may not be persuadable, but those who are able to articulate
clear frames will not only change minds, but they will earn respect of
undecided voters, who are looking for integrity as much as they are any
particular policy position.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.