Republicans and Democrats Need to Understand Framing

There is a problem with political discourse. The communication of complex programs with facts and logic usually does not get through because the issue has already been framed by a perspective with its own label. Framing wins.

Consider the difference in perspectives on taxation driven by a phrase that frames the discussion. “Tax relief” - an extremely effective Republican frame - which engenders the metaphor of a hero who is relieving people of a burden with tax cuts. “Tax as investment in the future,” on the other hand, produces the image of roads built, children educated, and a defense force enhanced. And “tax as dues” is a metaphor associated with paying your fair share for services benefiting you and others like you. Each frame influences the discourse by implicitly altering the objectives. Once a frame like “tax relief” is in place, the argument is all but over, any facts or logic will be ignored or distorted.  

Or consider the difference between a view of healthcare. A frame of pre-existing conditions, that works well for Democrats, suggests that a system that allows people to lose their insurance because they have cancer or were born with a heart defect is unacceptable. However, another frame, “mandates,” suggest that you are going to be forced to pay for something you don’t want. Still another, “Obamacare,” suggests that this is a big government effort to march us toward socialism. Again, the frame or perspective of pre-existing conditions affects future communication and attitudes.

Being able to frame the discussion by imposing a perspective that’s driven by a label is key to winning—whether it’s a divisive political argument or a tough brand battle. The linguist, George Lakoff (“Don’t Think of an Elephant,” White River Junction, VT, Chelsea Green, 2004), observes that winning the framing war with respect to a brand, object, or issue will dictate perceptions, attitudes and behavior, no matter what the logic and evidence may say. Strong frames or perspectives smother and distort rational information processing.  

What can be done to prevent or reduce the impact of the negative frame that is inhibiting your message? What one should not do is argue that the frame does not apply or, worse, that the proposed frame is being interpreted correctly and explain what it really is. If you accept their frame, you just dig yourself a bigger hole. Rather, the task is to find the right frames and use them consistently.

A primary frame should be around the social issue or problem that needs attention—climate change, inequality, second amendment rights, socialism. When the issue or problem remains the focus and frames the discussion, it is more difficult to dismiss solution options. It should be so prominent that it compels the audience to look at communicating from that perspective. The detractors are then on the defense.

The solution should also have a frame. The task is to make sure the positive elements of your program or solution are out in front and not the negative ones.

Finally, it is critical to be persistent and disciplined over time about always using your frame and never that of the opponent. Make sure that no one deviates.

If you lose the framing battle, you lose. When building a brand or a public policy position instead of arguing about its superiority, focus on framing the discussion so that competitors’ arguments are not heard because they don’t speak to the key element of the issue or brand decision.

I had made these same comments in a prior version of this post but from the Democrat point of view. In doing so I made a framing mistake and my point of framing got lost. As my kids would say, “my bad.”