Framing for Change: Leveraging Lakoff’s Lessons Today

As the returns came in on election night, the idea of losing went from unthinkable to unbearable. “Lose? To this guy?! Have voters lost their minds?!?” When the concession speech began, I slipped away from my post at the media riser and up to the balcony to "check the stage lights." It was a ruse to be alone among the packed ballroom of supporters. I found a dark corner to release my tears of anger, defeat, and helplessness.

This was more than 20 years ago for me, yet I imagine my contemporaries across the nation are feeling these same feels right now. One of the many lessons I learned in the aftermath of California’s 2003 Recall Election was that it’s not so much what you say. It’s how you say it.

In 2004, George Lakoff ’s Don’t Think of an Elephant emerged as a guide for progressive communicators grappling with a shifting political landscape. It was a different time: George W. Bush had narrowly won the presidency in 2000, and the aforementioned gubernatorial recall election had just replaced Democrat Gray Davis with Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In that era, progressive communicators, myself included, felt the ground slipping under them, a sentiment echoed in 2016 and today. Lakoff’s book gave progressives hope and a framework for understanding and articulating their values — a way to reframe issues that felt intuitive and resonant. It was as much a call to action as a roadmap for redefining the narrative, which has been and will continue to be essential.

I re-read this book the weekend before the election. Two decades later, two central lessons from Lakoff’s work continue to ring true today.

1. The "Resource Trap": A Quiet War of Attrition

One of Lakoff’s key insights is what he called the “resource trap,” where policies that cut public services subtly force progressive groups to shift their resources away from advocacy and communications. When Arnold Schwarzenegger took office, for example, California’s public services felt the impact of policy shifts, with community groups struggling to fill gaps. This dynamic forced progressive foundations and nonprofits to redirect funds to basic services rather than messaging and advocacy, creating a structural disadvantage in shaping public discourse.

My experience during this period drove this point home. Watching these groups attempt to balance limited resources made it clear that every dollar invested in resonant messaging was as crucial as funding essential services. In the “resource trap,” immediate needs take priority, but neglecting strategic communications undercuts long-term change (and that’s the point).

There are already calls for nonprofits and foundations to address the gaps expected to be created from the policies and practices of the second Trump Administration.

2. Framing Reveals Weaknesses

Lakoff used Bush’s “Clear Skies Initiative" — a policy that actually increased pollution — as an example of how framing can obscure policy intent. Today, phrases like “election integrity” are often used to mask restrictive policies that ultimately result in disenfranchising voters, especially in historically marginalized communities. Recognizing these frames helps expose a policy’s hidden agenda and weaknesses.

Framing is often pejoratively seen as spin and “putting lipstick on a pig,” but Lakoff’s work teaches us to see through the disguise — to help audiences see the wolves in grandma’s clothes that are the true threat to our lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness.

This insight has guided my work, showing how reframing can shift focus away from a misleading narrative to reveal a policy’s real impact. By understanding framing, we uncover policy vulnerabilities and build counter-narratives that reveal the truth.

Reclaiming the Narrative and Avoiding Political Distractions

Two years into Donald Trump’s first term as president, Lakoff and Gil D. described the dangers of distraction tactics in politics, especially on social media. Trump’s use of X, then-Twitter, for instance, was more than just digital communication; it was a way to hijack the public narrative, controlling news cycles and shaping public thought.

Lakoff and Durán highlight three ways to reclaim control over this narrative:

• Stop Reinforcing Harmful Messages: Every time we repeat and react to Trump’s words, even negatively, we amplify his ideas. Instead of focusing on his language, we should redirect attention to the core issues his words seek to obscure. Shifting focus away from “Witch Hunt” and “Crooked” allows us to address policies and consequences with real impact.
• Reframe the Focus: Rather than react to every tweet, use intentional framing to center discussions on issues that truly matter — the weakening of democratic institutions, growing inequality, and systemic injustices. Letting go of the reactive cycle isn’t about ignoring; it’s about consciously choosing what deserves attention.
• Build Resilience to Distraction: Recognizing distraction tactics strengthens our ability to focus on substance. Lakoff calls this the “focusing illusion” — the tendency to give excessive weight to what grabs attention at the moment. Vice President-elect JD Vance said this quiet part out loud when he admitted making up stories to drive the news media’s focus. Shrinking this exaggerated focus enables us to engage more deeply with critical issues.

As Lakoff and Durán put it, and it still resonates today, “As long as we allow Trump to manipulate our public discourse with his fingertips, we’ll remain puppets. It’s time to cut the strings.” Understanding these principles helps communicators and the public reclaim a grounded, meaningful discourse. But can it be done?

Looking Forward: Pete Buttigieg’s Mastery of Lakoff’s Lessons

Conservative commentator Jaime Watt dissected U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s approach to public communication, showing how it exemplifies many of Lakoff’s principles in action. This a roadmap we can all learn from:

• Reject flawed premises: Buttigieg masterfully reframes biased questions, guiding conversations toward the real issues rather than allowing incomplete premises to dictate the terms.
• Strategically deploy facts: Rather than overwhelming audiences, Buttigieg uses selective facts to clarify, supporting his message without falling into an academic “just-the-facts” approach that lacks resonance.
• Master transitions: Lakoff emphasized guiding understanding, and Buttigieg’s seamless transitions keep audiences engaged, leading them through complex topics without losing them.
• Share personal stories: In line with Lakoff’s belief that facts alone don’t persuade, Buttigieg often uses personal anecdotes to make his points, fostering connection and authenticity.

These techniques are valuable in any field, and I want to demonstrate how they can applied to issues now and in the future.

Applying Lakoff’s Lessons to the Immigration Debate

The immigration debate is often dominated by fear-driven frames, with terms like “illegal immigration” and “border crisis” creating an impression of threat. And, sadly, it’s only going to get louder and more intense. Lakoff’s insights offer a way to counter these frames and reshape the narrative to encourage a fair discourse on the issues:

• Reframe the Issue as “Opportunity and Community Strength”: Begin by defining immigration positively. Instead of “illegal” or “undocumented,” terms like “aspiring citizens” and “new Americans” emphasize the contributions immigrants make to society. Like this:“Aspiring citizens strengthen our communities, fuel economic growth, and enrich our culture. Immigration is about people and potential.”
• Shift Focus to Shared Values and Long-term Benefits: Lakoff teaches that effective framing connects with shared values. Reframing “chain migration” as “family reunification” underscores family and opportunity. For example, “Every family deserves to be together, and everyone should have the chance to contribute to their community. Immigrants bring skills, create jobs, and work hard to build better lives for their families — values we all share.”
• Build Resilience Against Negative Framing by Reclaiming Words: Avoid fear-laden terms like “invasion” or “border crisis.” Instead, use language that suggests fairness, order, and community benefit, such as “migration system” or “pathway to citizenship.” I would say “We’re committed to a fair and efficient migration system that keeps families safe and strengthens our economy.”

By focusing on positive impacts, sharing stories of contributions, and using language that reframes immigration's very real benefits, we reshape the debate. This helps communities see immigrants as integral members of society and directs attention toward what we all want: realistic and constructive solutions.

In the end, Lakoff’s work reminds us that communication isn’t just about presenting facts; it’s about helping people see meaning in those facts. The power of framing lies in its ability to shape perception and inspire action. It took years of work, years of effort, years of research, years of listening, years of learning, and years of doing, but reframing the issues helped create the winds of progress in California and dried my Election Night tears.

Let’s work together to reclaim the narrative and build a more empathetic, informed society.