  Six months ago, I stumbled onto&nbsp; urlLink an article written by&nbsp;George Lakoff + ,&nbsp;who is a&nbsp;professor of cognitive&nbsp;linguistics at UCLA. I'm almost entirely convinced that Lakoff found the key to the GOP's wild success during the last decade. No matter what, don't think&nbsp;about pink elephants. Without a doubt, you just thought about pink elephants. In order avoid thinking about pink elephants, you must first think about a pink elephants. Professor Lakoff uses&nbsp;that&nbsp;exercise to introduce his students to cognitive frames.
Lakoff&nbsp;observed that&nbsp;Richard Nixon would never have infamously declared "I'm not a crook" had he taken cognitive linguistics. Frames are mental structures which help us define relationships between words. For example, the word "pink elephant" is both a word and a frame.&nbsp;Any attempts to block the&nbsp;frame require you to&nbsp;activate the frame. For example, the reader might be unconsciously expecting me to reveal a pink elephant in the room&nbsp;that no one is talking about- that is the "pink elephant" frame at work.&nbsp;&nbsp; The story of the GOPs success was&nbsp;their tailoring a unified message to the&nbsp;cognitive frame of conservatives. The failures of the Democratic party are strongly linked with their ignorance of framing. Lakoff's research&nbsp;found the political worldviews of progressives and conservatives could be understood as opposing models of an ideal family.
Conservatives are understood through a strict father family model were as progressives are understood by the nurturing&nbsp;parent family model*. Embedded within these models are systems of morality&nbsp;which create powerful frames for every political issue. The Strict Father&nbsp;Frame of the&nbsp;Conservatives: &nbsp; In strict father family views the world as dangerous, unfriendly, and immoral. To the strict father, the survival of his children depends on them having discipline, a strong sense of morality, and a good work ethic. The strict father views himself as the supporter and protector of his family. His strong sense of moral authority creates a need for him to control the women in his family, especially in matters of sexuality and reproduction.
The strict father believes that the pursuit of self interest is a moral undertaking. If everybody pursued their own self-interest, the self-interest of all will be maximized. Thus, he views those who are unsuccessful as being undisciplined, and lazy. For him, it is better to allow them to suffer so that one day they might acquire the discipline required to succeed in the world. If we translate this view into politics, the conservatives view the government as a strict father. The purpose of government is to support (maximize wealth) and protect (strong military and strict criminal law).
To the strict father government, there are two types of citizens: Mature and&nbsp;disciplined citizens who should be left alone, and lazy and immoral citizens who should grow up. Domestically, the strict father wishes to preserve and extend the power of his morality. This translates into opposition to social safety nets (I work hard so why should I support the lazy),&nbsp; opposition to reproductive rights (people should be held accountable for their promiscuity), and support of strict criminal laws (If the punishment is bad enough, worthwhile people will be compelled to not break the law). The strict father does not believe the wealthy should be taxed, as they have worked hard and deserve their full reward. Needless to say, the strict father supports&nbsp;the church's influence&nbsp;government,&nbsp;&nbsp;as he views religion as&nbsp;the ultimate&nbsp;protector of morality. In foreign matters, the strict father sees the power of the United States as evidence of its moral superiority.
He won't stand for weaker nations (which are presumably lazy and immoral) that&nbsp;attempt to interfere with our just and superior will. -- Unlike the Democrats, the&nbsp;Republicans are experts in utilizing cognitive&nbsp;frames. The strict father model was likely the end result of the billions of dollars which flooded conservative think tanks after the Goldwater debacle. A comparison between GOP's agenda and behavior to Lakoff's strict father model reveals a neat little package.. The strict father provided the GOP with a cognitively-unified message;&nbsp;framing was the&nbsp;key to their success. Toward a Unified Frame for Progress The Democrat's ignorance of framing&nbsp;has led&nbsp;them to repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot.
Lakoff gave a rather telling example; consider the below statement. I'm against Bush's plan for tax relief . The word "relief" evokes a&nbsp;frame of heroic rescue. In this frame, a hero (Bush), relieves&nbsp;the victim (Americans), from an unendurable affliction (taxes). Thus, the above statement in blue is in fact saying, "Americans should continue to suffer their affliction. " Yet, Democrats ignorance to framing has led to them constantly&nbsp;declaring opposition to the&nbsp;tax cuts by&nbsp;using&nbsp;Bush's frame of&nbsp;"tax relief".
&nbsp;In a sense, by doing so they are providing the GOP a&nbsp;nearly priceless gift. Kerry desperately&nbsp;needs to re-frame his agenda. His incessant barrage of equivocating remarks: "a stronger America", "a better future",&nbsp; all need to&nbsp;boxed away to&nbsp;gather dust in his rhetorical attic. The Democrats tiresome message tends to be issue by issue, and cut between various&nbsp;interest groups.&nbsp;They needs to show moral fervor in the way that Republicans do. &nbsp; Lakoff attempted a rough draft of the progressive frame, but I found it to be uncompelling as a whole. Its greatest weakness, for lack of a better word, is its overwhelming femininity.
It relies to heavily on words like "empathic" or "nurturing". A nascar dad would look upon it as a view for "dandy idealists". However, he did provide us with a some good places to start. In regards to abortion, progressives should re-frame the debate away from a question of "balancing morality with woman's rights"&nbsp;and more toward a moral&nbsp;cause for protecting&nbsp;freedom. The state should not be involved in a womans pregnancy. We must preserve the freedom of women to choose when, if, and by whom they will have children.
In post-September 11th politics, progressives should re-frame the word "security". Security includes keeping our harbors, cities, and air ports safe. It also includes safe neighborhoods and schools (gun control). Security is having safe water, air and food (environmental reform). &nbsp;Safety implies being able to live healthily (help for uninsured, social security, etc. ) Perhaps the most powerful frame from progressives is "our children's future".
It covers everything from deficit spending, to better education, to environmental reform, to the dismantling of nuclear arms. However, progressives will need to work together to formulate this view. Lakoff gave&nbsp;us wise&nbsp;last words of advise: Articulate your ideals, frame what you believe effectively, say what you believe and say it well, strongly and with moral fervor. Re framing is telling the truth as we see it -- telling it forcefully, straightforwardly and articulately, with moral conviction and without hesitation. The language must fit the conceptual re-framing, a re-framing from the perspective of progressive values. It is not just a matter of words, though the right ones are needed to evoke progressive frames.
And stop saying "tax relief. " Notes: +A&nbsp;large&nbsp;number&nbsp;of ideas discussed in this&nbsp;post were adapted from urlLink Framing a Democratic Agenda. By George Lakoff *Lakoff's label&nbsp;reveals unquestionable bias urlLink MORE… 
