And Facts Don’t Matter

I’ve often believed that we are misled by political labels, and I’ve struggled to understand and articulate this issue.

I’ve since found someone, smarter than I, who has absolutely nailed this one. He is George Lakoff, a California Berkley professor of cognitive sciences who has become somewhat of a mini-celebrity.

Lakoff’s basic premise is that conservatives have used language to dominate politics. He has also provided progressives with the prescription for fighting back. You should read his stuff independently, and I’ll give you a few links. But here are a few of his themes:

”Framing” the Issues

“Framing” is the choosing of language to define a debate, and with fitting individual issues into the context of broader story lines. This is more than mere labeling. It’s choosing words to describe a political issue in a way which (1) is consistent with the moral value system of a majority of voters, and (2) forces the other side to either take a position contrary to that value system or take a “me too” position.

Two examples are gay marriages and the “war on terror”.

A vast majority of Americans oppose homosexuality – sex between two people of the same gender. A vast majority of Americans oppose discrimination against gay people – denial of rights to someone on account of his or her sexual orientation. These may seem contradictory but reflect two strongly held values – heterosexuality and fairness/equality of rights.

When the issue is framed as “gay marriage”, “marriage” is equated with sex, and it conflicts with the majority-held view. If framed this way, a progressive must either be “for” sex between two people of the same gender (and thus hold a view contrary to the majority) or be “opposed” to gay marriage (the “me too” position).

If instead, the issue is framed as whether gay individuals are entitled to the same health care, pension, inheritance, and other rights as all other Americans, then the progressive view is consistent with the majority-held view. A conservative must either be “against” fairness and equality of rights (and thus hold a view contrary to the majority) or take the “me too” position.

The Iraq war is another example. The Bush Administration has framed the war as a “war on terror”. Another frame is “fighting the war there so we don’t have to fight it here”. Opponents of the administration, if the war is framed this way, must be “for terror” or “willing to fight the war here”. Or, like John Kerry, take the “me too” approach.

A contrary frame would oppose the war in a manner which is consistent with a majority-held value – a majority of Americans are patriotic and value a strong defense. This contrary frame is that the Bush Administration has weakened America’s defense, made us more vulnerable at home and abroad. Buy moving troops from Afghanistan to Iraq, we’ve allowed al Qaeda to regroup and bin Laden to get away; by invading Iraq, we’ve created an environment for the recruitment of more terrorists; by wasting billions on Iraq we’re unable to enhance homeland security; by focusing all of our resources on Iraq, we’ve emasculated ourselves and allowed Iran and North Korea to move towards become nuclear powers; etc., etc.

There are many other examples of “framing of issues on a 2003 and a 2004 posting on UC Berkley’s website. These include “exploring for energy” rather than “drilling for oil”; being “anti-Washington” and “not anti-government” (which cleans our streets and pays our fire fighters). (2019 update: The original Wolverine Café posting had links to Lakoff’s various postings. Much of his work now can be found at UC Berkeley Berkeley Blogs and at Lakoff’s own site.

The New York Times Magazine recently ran a lengthy piece on Lakoff and others called The Framing Wars. Here’s one Lakoff quote in that article:

What (conservatives) have done is find ways to set their frames into words over many years and have then repeated them over and over again and have everybody say it the same way and get their journalists to repeat them, until they become part of normal English.”

Does this ring true to you?

Conservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue in current and recent politics. To counter this, Lakoff formed his own think tank, Rockridge Institute. We will have to see if this changes the nature of political debate. (2019 Update: Rockridge Institute has since closed.)

(More 2019 Update – for the sake of brevity, I omitted some additional text from the 2005 posting)

The Facts Don’t Matter

One of the more serious, and troublesome, implications of this line of thinking is that THE FACTS DON’T MATTER.

Cognitive science suggests that all of us are programmed to respond to the frames which are deeply embedded in our unconscious minds.

Note that these frames are not necessarily negative or nefarious. Our family, our church, our schools, our communities, all provide us with frames which we use to analyze and digest information. (This partially explain why a young man in Saudi Arabia and a young man in Kansas, or an Israeli and a Palestinian, or a white American and a black American, may look at the same set of facts and come to entirely different conclusions.)

What conservatives have done is actually reprogramming of the neural networks inside our brains, by the long-term repetition of certain frames!

And the problem is: if the facts don’t fit the frame, our brains simply reject them!

Scary thought, isn’t it?