OWS Basic Info

Daily OWS News

We are....

~ firefly-dreaming
a virtual home to learn (or teach!) alternative methods of solving problems we find facing us each day. By sharing ideas & knowledge on living with less stress, more joy & embracing tolerance & compassion we are working towards building a sustainable future for all living beings.

please if you can... help us glow brightly!
~OR~ if you'd prefer
_{Remember, you can always}

Facebook

Do it DAILY!

Just a few seconds of your time can make a BIG difference
in someone's life....

be sure to click on ALL the top tabs at Click2Give!

be sure to click on ALL the side tabs at Care2!

A Perfect Conversation: Framing Redux

by: Gabriel D

Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 00:52:13 AM EDT

(10am~
- promoted by RiaD)

In response to yesterday's diary, A Perfect Conversation: Framing is FundamentalFraming, citizen k made the following comment:

well, you could start with some specifics (0+ / 0-)
For example, what should the President have done? What would the costs have been?
What could the President do about Sherrod Brown and Debbie Stabenow helping the Republicans on the EPA?
(don't know about that? why not?)
How bad is the 2010 budget compared to 2008 - what's the perspective?
How safe is Planned Parenthood against an override proof vote if the President had played it that way? Do you know?
Which specific cuts did you hate the most? Do you oppose the cut from DOD? Don't know about that? Why?
value added
by citizen k on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 06:54:41 AM CDT

These are all excellent questions. Well thought out. Very reasonable. Very rational. Wonky as all hell.

And completely missing the forest for the trees.

First off, these are the types of questions that result in the pie fights. Here's how it works. Now, I don't know jack about citizen k. I don't know his/her stances on the issue. I don't even know his/her gender (as you can see by they way I'm writing.) But let's assume for the moment citizen k is an Obama defender. After I answer the questions, citizen k responds by trying to rebut. All very reasonably. Then I respond, then k responds. Again, reasonably, but maybe a little strained. It goes back and forth, slowly building up until we're both pissed off at each other and flinging donuts like nobody's business. The problem here is not that one of us is right or not. It's how we frame our positions.

And that brings me to point number two. Framing is about the way in which the questions are posed and answered. For example, if Republicans were to answer these questions, you can be certain they'd use "socialism." No matter what Obama did, the actions and results are all socialistic and Obama is a socialist. That's their frame.

So, I'm not going to answer citizen k's questions. They're a trap. I'm not saying citizen k set out to intentionally trap me into starting a pie fight or something. As far as I'm aware, they were asked in good faith. (And as I said above, I don't know which side of the debate citizen k is on, either, so it would be disingenuous of me to remark on it further.) Rather, they're a trap of the mindset that has subsumed this site with the pie fights. And if we're going to get out of that, we have to find a new frame. Because there will always be those of us who disagree with the President, no matter what he does. So it's better to have a frame that we can always use to argue that while we think what the President does is not helping, we still want him to do well and are rooting for him.

A Perfect Conversation is a group for republishing diaries that:
A) Challenge the DK conventional wisdom.
B) Provide information which may lead to new ideas.
or
C) Push for action that is innovative or not just playing defense.
The point is not to agree (or disagree) with these diaries. It's about challenging ourselves to rethink our political philosophies, activities, and issue positions.

Please remember to not look at the GOSian curve as you make your way past.

Gabriel D :: A Perfect Conversation: Framing Redux

Republished to A Perfect Conversation on April 11, 2011:

Diary Title	Diary Author
Anti-Capitalist Meet-up: The Questions of Self-determination, National Struggles and Nationalism	NY brit expat
There's so much here to think about that I'm totally lost as to where to begin. Maybe start with the obvious relevance to the class war not only here in the US but abroad in North Africa and the Middle East.
ENOUGH! Get active. State & Local Action Group's First Campaign	mdmslle
Even if you don't think this is innovative, it's certainly not playing defense. More of this, please!

A full list of all diaries republished to A Perfect Conversation can always be found here. Feel free to check it out at any time.

Rec List from the Eclectic Boogaloo - April 11, 2011:

Diary Title	Diary Author
Anti-Capitalist Meet-up: The Questions of Self-determination, National Struggles and Nationalism	NY brit expat
ENOUGH! Get active. State & Local Action Group's First Campaign	mdmslle
Krugman, et al: "The President Is Missing"	bobswern
Language is a Virus	Tom Tomorrow
There Is NO Debt-Deficit "Crisis"	Tasini
Rep. Speier Calls Congress Complicit In Military Rape	Clarknt67
Obama aiming to cut Medicare, Medicaid, possibly Social Security	Joan McCarter
Stop. We're going about it all wrong.	RLMiller
Help retire anti-gay Dems	Delaware Right to Marry
Cantor: Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries 'don't need' safety net	Joan McCarter
This is What Resistance Looks Like	pollbuster
"Fracking" Shale Gas Emissions Far Worse Than Coal For Climate - Cornell Study	bdemelle
Gays should do WHAT? w/ important update	indiemcemopants
"Huge Embarassment" as POTUS' Fmr. Law Professor Opposes Manning Treatment	Nulwee
Cranky Users: Them Bones	belinda ridgewood
Strange Numbers from Waukesha and Milwaukee Counties on Supreme Court Only Ballots	jsamuel
Pew Pew Pew! version 2.0	bubbanomics
The Daily Diversion: April 11, 2011	weatherdude
Japan: Killer Aftershock Strikes One Month Later	journeyman
Democrat on Waukesha Canvassing Board Never Endorsed Official Ballot Count (minor update)	Puddytat
Ramona Kitzinger, member of Waukesha Board of Canvassers, Speaks Up	avadoria
U.N. Reprimands U.S. on Bradley Manning Mistreatment	FishOutofWater

Prologue

Lyrics

Tags: community, Framing, meta, Republicans, Barack Obama, A Perfect Conversation, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

- You can use Disqus, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Yahoo or OpenID accounts to comment

A Perfect Conversation: Framing Redux | 13 comments

Tip Jar. (15.00 / 1)

The GOSian curve bit makes more sense when you read this on Daily Kos.

For the curious, a GOSian curve is a two dimensional representation of an N dimensional curve, where N is one more dimension than you think is necessary to define the curve.

by: Gabriel D @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 04:53:32 AM UTC

you know, Gabriel - (3.50 / 2)

you can blow that horn all you want - but "framing" is not what the world is really about. It is about right and wrong at this juncture in our history especially. It is about the vulnerable and the careless strong. If you can't see that - there is little I can say. and I am not rooting for Obama - unless he does a turn around. Little chance!

but life is full of unexpected treasures - we shall see. I don't care about DK meta stuff.

:)

For who could have foretold
That the heart grows old.
W.B. Yeats

by: Xanthe @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 14:41:01 PM UTC

You just used framing. (0.00 / 0)

It's interesting how people try to say framing is inconsequential. How we don't use it or need it. Or as you put it, "framing is not what the world is really about."

It doesn't matter what the world is about. Framing is how we think. It's how we communicate.

For example, your frame is this: "[The world] is about right and wrong."

It's a good, strong frame, too. Very moral and just. Makes things simple. A nice black and white duality. Republicans would love it. Taken in the context of your comment, it implies you're on the side of that morality and I'm not. You paint yourself as morally superior to me.

What it doesn't do is provide any room for those who disagree with you to back down or even change their minds while at least saving face. (Sun Tzu: "To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape.") If there's no way out, those who disagree with you will fight tooth and nail for their pride.

Is it really so important to you to dominate those you disagree with that you would risk not accomplishing your goals over it? What's more important to you: "winning" the argument or your policy goals?

by: Gabriel D @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 16:09:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh and Sun Tzu (0.00 / 0)

God I'm screwed now.

It's important to me to have moral leaders, not leaders who will make huge gains after they leave office.

But you played the Sun Tzu card - so I am now not a serious person.

Hear that the Bowles-Simpson plan is lookin good.

again :)

For who could have foretold
That the heart grows old.
W.B. Yeats

by: Xanthe @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 16:23:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stop putting words in my mouth. (5.00 / 1)

I didn't say you weren't a serious person. Nor did I imply it.

My use of Sun Tzu was to point out what I believe is a flaw in your argument. Nothing more. You are taking offense where none was given. I won't apologize for you willfully misconstruing my words. And I definitely won't apologize for your baseless and erroneous assumptions of my political stances.

I will point out for the readers passing by, however, that you have once again used framing in an attempt to recast the discussion. You are trying to make this personal, not about the idea of framing and how it can be used to disagree without being disagreeable. I don't make any claims to being good at it, but judging by the comments of many others around the blogosphere, most people aren't, so I'm in good company. It is for this very reason that I brought up the subject in the first place. We could do better at communicating with our allies, so why not try?

by: Gabriel D @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 18:03:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not saying i am right (12.50 / 2)

because i have no idea of what xanthe meant.....

but.

her first comment threw me. i was unsure what exactly she was saying...
but knowing that the conversation here recently (& at the other alliance blogs, btw) has been pretty negative towards Obama & also the corporatist capitalists....
and how the Great Divide is not republican/democrat but more like rich/everyone else.....

well, i saw her point a little differently than you did.

i think because you are focused on framing just now AND have dealt with those at dkos primarily(i say assuming such) you may have assumed a disagreement in her words... a superior attitude which, from where i stand, i did not see.

i do very well see your point about leaving an escape route for an enemy
(btw i dunno wtf sun tzu is, so add that into this mix!)
imo that is one of the things very different in western & eastern cultures....
the japanese have built their society with the idea of not hurting each others pride.... saving face..... using manners. i admire them for it.
also, as an aside, i thought, this is the very same premise as not cornering a wild animal as it will fight it's fiercest then....

your questions on dominating/winning/policy i disregarded because i saw the whole of the conversation much much differently than you did, so the Q's did not apply.

xanthes next comment i took in a teasing manner.
but remember- i dunno who sun tzu is... & i confess right now i don't know bowles-simpson either. & i saw her smileys (never discount smileys!)

so then your seeming upset above seemed quite strange to me.
but then we saw these comments differently (as i seem to tend to do) & i'm working without (i fear) pertinent facts.

i do hope xanthe explains & you & i both can listen with an open mind & heart.

"Indeed, if a poor man will spend a year in prison for stealing out of hunger,
how high would the gallows need to be to hang the rich man?"
~The Patrician in 'Snuff' by Terry Pratchett

by: RiaD @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 18:56:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, I guess I am more used to DK. (3.00 / 1)

The current mood there is...fractured, to say the least. And that certainly clouds my perception of people's comments, smileys or not.

As for Sun Tzu, he was an ancient Chinese general known for having written the Art of War. It's actually a rather short book on military strategy/philosophy that turns out to be apropos to many other types of conflicts. I think I have two copies floating around, and it's available online for free. I highly recommend it.

Speaking of authors of strategy and tactics, Machiavelli's The Prince is also well worth your time. Evil bastard that he was, it's his book that is the foundation of modern politics. As Sun Tsu would say, know your enemy.

And I only recently started reading The Book of Five Rings, by Miyamoto Musashi. I can already tell that's going to be a very enlightening experience, too.

by: Gabriel D @ Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 00:14:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not offended, Gabriel - (8.00 / 2)

and I apologize. We are in Ria's house after all. This blog does not get contentious - so let's make up and be friends.

You win - I lose.

Boy do I lose - but maybe we can discuss that after tomorrow' speech.

With all due respect, I think we're way past "framing" but maybe I'm just tired.

Still it wouldn't hurt me to read about "framing" more carefully just because you are trying to teach "framing" not political statesmanship.

For who could have foretold
That the heart grows old.
W.B. Yeats

by: Xanthe @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 22:42:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ahhhh..... but~ (14.00 / 2)

there is no win/lose in a discussion between friends... (^.^)

only sides one has not looked at clearly before

"Indeed, if a poor man will spend a year in prison for stealing out of hunger,
how high would the gallows need to be to hang the rich man?"
~The Patrician in 'Snuff' by Terry Pratchett

by: RiaD @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 23:09:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My apologies, too. (10.00 / 1)

And I don't see either of us as winners or losers. Or if anything, we're both winners, because we're coming to an understanding of each other. IMO, that's far more important than which one of us is right or wrong in our comments.

If you'd like some introductory reading on framing, George Lakoff is the go-to person. It's his field of research, after all. (Sorry that's a DK link. I know some people don't like it, there. I'm sure google will also turn up a bunch of stuff.)

We've got a ton of problems in the country, and arguing over how good or bad Obama is just isn't working to solve them. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results, right?

But we're not going to stop criticizing, and the supporters aren't going to stop defending. So we need a way to get us to come together. We could be so much more powerful if we stopped the internal bickering. I think framing is the key to accomplishing that. Finding a way for us to criticize Obama that doesn't simultaneously tear him down.

Of course, I could be wrong. This group/series isn't about me being right so much as it's about rethinking how we approach politics. So even if I'm wrong, if it gets people to take a good, honest look at what they're doing, why they're doing it, how they're doing it, and pondering what changes they can make, then I'm accomplishing my goal.

I'm not trying to start flame wars, but I recognize that I'm going to push some buttons. It's not easy questioning your own stances, especially when those stances feel right. But we should always be open to self reflection. Otherwise, I don't see how we're any different than the Tea Party.

by: Gabriel D @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 23:47:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

from what i've seen (11.00 / 1)

the citizen is indeed an Obama defender, at times highly vocal & outraged about it.

but that is not the point.

the point is about framing & yes indeedy it does in fact matter.

my own personal theory is that both dem & rep sides use this...
(it would not surprise me to find out both get these talking point frames from one source)
they subtley teach this as the mode of conversation by the way they appear in speeches, debates, rallys, etc..... the want us to be divided & at each others throats over essentially bull-shit so that they can continue to reap ginormous profits.

now.

i do not think framing is all of it-
in fact i think it is only a percentage of the problem
but it is one of the things we must get past in order to get people to see that by & large we're all really on the same side & want basically the same things.

learning & teaching others how to frame things in an unbiased manner will be the heroic task, imho. most of society is geared towards "spin" (lies) these days. saying ppl said what they did not say, leaving out bits because they don't fit your frame, skewing facts & embellishing... all are if fact lies to one degree or another.

"Indeed, if a poor man will spend a year in prison for stealing out of hunger,
how high would the gallows need to be to hang the rich man?"
~The Patrician in 'Snuff' by Terry Pratchett

by: RiaD @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 18:10:50 PM UTC

uh-hurhm~ (14.00 / 1)

theY want us to be divided...

"Indeed, if a poor man will spend a year in prison for stealing out of hunger,
how high would the gallows need to be to hang the rich man?"
~The Patrician in 'Snuff' by Terry Pratchett

by: RiaD @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 18:59:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm... Well, I'd say there is a difference (12.00 / 2)

between what Republicans do and what Democrats do. Republicans are naturals at framing. I don't think they even realize they're doing it. If they ever do, we're screwed.

Democrats, OTOH, do messaging. They don't do framing. Their messaging appears like framing because they use the same frame that Republicans use.

For example:

Republicans are using the "deficit crisis" frame to cut all the programs they hate. We have a deficit crisis, so we have to cut funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood, and on and on. When Democrats respond, they use the same deficit crisis frame. So they say, "well, yeah, we've got a problem with the deficit...," and you don't really need to hear any more to know they've bought into the Republican frame. (Whether that's on purpose or not, I don't know.) It doesn't matter how good their messaging is at that point, they're agreeing with the premise of "deficit crisis." And once you've agreed on the premise, you're pretty much stuck working within it.

A better way to respond would be first to never mention the deficit, and second to talk about "strengthening the economy." Then you can talk about all the ways you're going to strengthen the economy. A government jobs program, higher taxes on the rich who've had a free-ride the past couple decades, eliminating corporate loopholes, and so on. This breaks out of the Republican frame and counters with an equally powerful one. Now we're on even ground and have a chance of fighting back.

So if you're asked about how to control the deficit, you could start by saying, "well, I think we need to start by implementing a public jobs program to help get people back to work and strengthen the economy. And after the 2007 economic crash brought on by a lax Republican administration, our economy is too weak to grant Republican ideologues a second chance at the helm."

And yes, I'd be at least that rhetorically bombastic.

How this could be translated into breaching the divide between Obama supporters and defenders, I'm not sure. That's part of the reason I wrote these two diaries. To put it out there as an idea. Sometimes it takes a while for an idea to percolate through the meme-sphere before it gets to the right person who comes up with the perfect solution. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

by: Gabriel D @ Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 00:50:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A Perfect Conversation: Framing Redux | 13 comments

_{Since February 19, 2010}

Need HELP setting up your website or blog? Have a site & want to give it more oomph?
Contact Edger at: edger10 {at} gmail {dot} com