Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama: Who is Better at "Framing" Progressive Issues?
BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG Mark Karlin, Editor and Publisher, BuzzFlash.com February 3, 2008 What do Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have to do with the strategy of "framing"? BuzzFlash has been proud to every Monday post a column by George Lakoff's Rockridge Institute on "framing" progressive issues. It's called Ask Rockridge, and may be the most important commentary that we post each week. Lakoff, with his colleagues, has built a think tank in Berkeley with the mission of "Rethinking Progressive Politics, Reframing Public Debate, and Changing Public Policy." Their work is invaluable if we are to begin to turn the corner on the decades long -- and successful -- right wing effort to reshape the terms and the language about the role of the public commons and government. While Rockridge is non-partisan and does not delve into electoral politics, we were thinking about their work (and a past BuzzFlash interview with Lakoff) as we read a February 2nd New York Times article on how Hillary Clinton's views on civil rights have evolved. Anyone who reads BuzzFlash knows that we are frequently critical of the NYT reporting on the Bush Administration, the Occupation of Iraq, etc, but this article did nurture some reflection due to a nugget buried at the end (by and large it was a balanced piece on how Clinton moved from "Goldwater Girl" to civil rights advocate). It was this passage:
In Washington, as in Arkansas, Mrs. Clinton viewed civil rights within her broader portfolio of causes. Maggie Williams, her former chief of staff as first lady and a current campaign adviser, said that those interests were inevitably fused. “Low wages, poor health care and lack of educational opportunities disproportionately impact people of color in this country,” Ms. Williams said.
Professor Lani Guinier of Harvard Law School, who is supporting Mr. Obama, said the key distinction between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton lies in how they view their relationship to power. In doing so, Ms. Guinier, whose nomination as assistant attorney general for civil rights in 1993 was pummeled by conservative groups and aborted by the White House, referred to their respective biographies.
Mrs. Clinton “is the talented lawyer serving her clients,” Ms. Guinier said. Mr. Obama is the organizer, she said, “who sees the source of his power as the ability to inspire people to mobilize.”
(For the record, both Williams and Guinier are African-American females.)
Guinier, who was dropped like a hot potato by Bill Clinton due to right wing opposition to Guinier's position on "proportional voting," makes an observation about a key issue: how Clinton and Obama view the exercise of power.
One can agree or disagree with her, but it has come up in the debates, albeit a little more obliquely.
Clinton has boasted -- rightfully or wrongfully -- of her ability to "get things done." Obama has reaffirmed his belief in the transformative power of leadership to mobilize grassroots support to "get things done." These are oversimplifications of both their perspectives, but not by far.
Clinton spent many years as a corporate lawyer for the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock. She has repeated how she is ready to meet the challenges of the Oval Office "from day one." She has said that she has been an agent of change because she has worked with the likes of Bill Frist. Clinton posits herself as a decision-maker and bi-partisan dealmaker on our behalf.
Obama, on the other hand, has posited that he is a transformative figure (thus the comments on Reagan), who leads by bringing people along with him, and by people then mobilizing to influence Congress. It's the difference between a corporate lawyer and a Wal-Mart board member as compared to a community organizer who also honed his political skills as a state senator dealing with the needs of a South Side Chicago district.
One can call it top down vs. bottom up, but that would be a bit too simplistic.
There is -- and that brings us back to the Rockridge Institute and Lakoff -- a need for language that inspires, a language that uses the correct words to bring people together. Lakoff told BuzzFlash in an interview that many elected officials and pundits falsely believe that he is just promoting a change in wording. What he emphasized to us is that positive language has to be built upon a foundation of a long-term investment in changing the national mindset. For the right wing, this has been nearly four decades of think tank output, ownership of broadcast journalism, and right wing "scholarship." Reagan came to the fore as a "transformative figure" not because he was a brilliant "get it done" man, but because he was an inspirational figure to some (originally backed for his selling skills by right wing Californians who positioned him to become Governor of that state) who came at a time that the right wing groundwork was beginning to coalesce. But Reagan put the words and anecdotes together that made many voters believe that "it was morning in America." Reagan may not have, as Margaret Thatcher noted, had much more than air between his ears, but his scriptwriters (speechwriters) were great "framers" and Reagan knew how to deliver the lines.
Obama, we would argue, can deliver the framing, but as the former head of the Harvard Law Review, he also has the top-notch mind to galvanize the public to convert the framing into reality, which is what the right wing has been doing to us since 1980. For Reagan, the work was always done by others while he sat back, ate jelly beans and watched old John Wayne movies.
(Let it be noted that this is one of the most high-powered brainiac primaries of all time, with both Obamas being graduates of Harvard Law School and both Clintons being graduates of Yale Law School.)
Hillary Clinton is equally brilliant (once you kind of make the grade to be a graduate of Yale or Harvard Law School, it's hard to start trying to figure out who is smarter), but Guinier gets to, perhaps, a key difference in governmental outlook.
One can argue with what we are positing here, but Hillary Clinton's narrative appears to be (and we are paraphrasing) "I have 35 years of experience and I can get the job done for you." Barack Obama's narrative appears to be "Let's look at what values bind us as a nation, instead of what rhetoric and emotions divide us, and let's work on achieving these goals together."
Those are two very different frames -- if one agrees that we have interpreted them correctly. We would also add that it is implicit that Obama believes strongly that framing, in and of itself combined with a strong progressive infrastructure, can impact change. Clinton is much less confident in the concept of framing and places much more emphasis on personal decision-making to achieve goals (or as Guinier suggests, the American people are her clients).
Obviously, we at BuzzFlash are big believers and supporters of Lakoff's work and the importance of language in shaping political outcomes (along with the grunt work of passing legislation and implementing regulations). But framing is intimately connected to the concept that people vote mostly for a political "narrative," often even if it goes against their personal interests. The Republicans have been particularly good at achieving the latter.
Clinton argues -- more or less -- that Obama is all "framing," inspiration, dreams and not enough experience and content. Obama argues that Clinton's experience is too often not guided by progressive values, but rather raw political calculation, and that "transformational change" can only move us beyond achieving small incremental goals.
This is how we arrived at the now tortuously scrutinized suggestion by Clinton that it wasn't MLK who achieved civil rights legislation, but LBJ. The statement actually represented a fundamental difference in governmental outlooks. Obama would argue that someone like Reagan did for the right what MLK did for our Constitutional vision of equality, that you can be someone who inspires and achieves; you can be an MLK and an LBJ. Clinton basically would counter argue that you can only be one or the other.
It is worthy of note that as one tries to sort this out, MLK spent his final days inspiring people to oppose the Vietnam War that LBJ was escalating. Obama would probably say that if he were president on day one (when JFK was assassinated) there would have been no Vietnam War build up and he would have shut it down. Because leadership, framed in its broadest context, is not just about the achievement of goals to be achieved, it's about judgment and vision too.
Reagan achieved so many dreadful goals on behalf of the right wing financiers because he had a persuasive narrative (even if it was almost all a lie). And he never broke a sweat.
Hillary Clinton is a scrapper and says that she will get down in the mosh pit and fight, but will she change the frame of the debate, or forever be locked -- as happened in the first 8 years of the Clinton Administration -- into the frames and terms of debate imposed upon her and Bill by the right wing?
A good question to ponder as we move inexorably toward Super Tuesday.
BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG
Technorati Tags: - Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash.com
BuzzFlash: Editorials | Interviews | News Analysis | Alerts | Perspectives | Radio Ads | Reviews: Books, Movies, Music | Television | Books, DVDs, CDs, Hats, T-shirts
Community: BuzzFlash Mailbag | Reader and Guest Contributions | News Releases
Columns: Wings of Justice | GOP Hypocrite of the Week | Last Chance Democracy Cafe | Libby Defense Fund | Jeffrey Feldman's Frameshop | The Daily Buzz | Independent Thinker of the Month | World Media Watch | Blue State Jukebox | Verse-Case Scenario | Ms. Smith Goes to Washington | Caption This
Columnists: P.M. Carpenter | David Lindorff | Barbara's Daily Buzz | Ann Davidow | Thom Hartmann | Steven C. Day | Steven Jonas | Tony Peyser | Shirley Smith
Cartoonists: Kirk Anderson | Steve Bradenton | Tony Peyser | Andrew Wahl
Poets: Tony Peyser
Other: About | Frequently Asked Questions | Headlines | Search BuzzFlash | Put BuzzFlash Headlines on Your Web Site | Get BuzzFlash Alerts | Contact | Home
Support Independent Media: Click Here to See How
Unless otherwise noted, all original content
and headlines are © BuzzFlash.
Contact BuzzFlash for reprint rights.
General Disclaimer: Guest and Reader Contributions, News Releases and Mailbag Letters posted on BuzzFlash are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of BuzzFlash or its editors.
Becareful what you wish for-you might just get it!
A vote for Obama would not be a good choice.
His inexperience will only bring further economic pressures. He has been given a free pass from the press, and I can only say... why knock him down now for if he should win the nomination the Republicans will have plenty. Republicans at this time concentrate on bashing Hillary and hopefully the fools will vote for Obama. As the economy gets worse and Obama with limited experience, WE can tell all without having a crystal ball because everyone knows that we are facing crucial financial difficulties and that we truly need an experienced President.
A vote for Obama is a Vote for another Republican administration. Why do you think they say that they would prefer to run against Hillary. Do you honestly think the Republicans are going to tell you who they really want to run against? Lets not be naïve!
Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it…
Now if the ticket was Obama as VP, well that’s another story!
Experience???
i dont understand how you guys just willfully ignore the facts. Obama actually has more experience in public office than clinton. obama actually spent time in the trenches as a community organizer. clinton's experience is that of a first lady. since when does that count for anything. most of her professional experience comes from working at a corporate law firm and sitting on corporate boards such as walmart, helping to destroy unions.
furthermore, clinton seems to be completely incapable of telling the truth. she may be a congenital liar. something ingrained into her DNA. which is sad and pathetic. what about the fact that she worked tirelessly on the Goldwater campaign against johnson. do your homework. she was anti-civil rights, and pro-segregationist. but yet she now claims to a lifelong supporter. why not just admit you were young and made a poor decsion? people would understand that. but no, she just lies about the whole thing. not to mention, as a public in a free society, we arent even allowed to go back and read her thesis on this topic, written during the goldwater campaign, because pres bill clinton had all of the materials sealed and unavailable to the public.
character matters. leadership and the ability to motivate ordinary people to hope and dream for a better america matters. in fact, you could argue that this ability alone is of most importance. Lincoln had it, roosevelt had it, JFK had it, reagan had it...this unique ability to inspire the masses. Obama has it too. clinton doesnt. she has massive disapproval ratings and the all the polls show she is crushed by mccain in a national campaign. i for one, and many many many Obama supporters i speak with agaree, will not and can not in good conscience vote for clinton in a national campaign. i would support mccain over hillary without question.
so before you go repeating the hillary talking points, at least open your mind, do some independent research. this contest is too damn important. a vote for obama is a vote for hope, a vote for integrity. a good and decent man. a man who had it right on the war from the beginning. a man a who had it right on NAFTA from the beginning.
Link to an interesting point by point comparison of these 2 candidates.
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/why-support-barack-obama-not-hillary-clinton-comparison-compare-records/
A vote for Obama
I couldn't agree more with "voteresponsibly". I say....... Obama? Come on America. Haven't we learned anything over the past eight years? I have a question for everyone out there. Would you submit your resume for a job that you have no experience in? Would a company actually hire you let alone give you a job interview if you had no experience? I'd say not. Yet Americans are rallying around Obama who is an inexperience, motivational speaker with no substance for the job of "President of the United States"? It's laughable. All he does is speak words of "change" and everyone falls over and says "Yahoo". What change? The man never tells you. The more he talks, the more he sounds like the person who physics people up "before" the "real" candidate makes his appearance. There have been many past elections where candidates have said the word "change" (remember Bush, Jr.) and look at the "change" we got. Eight years of total deception, hated by the world, indebted to other countries. The only candidate I liked, and thought would do a wonderful job was Edward's. Unfortunately he never got any media coverage, and people never gave him a chance. This whole Obama movement amazes me. After eight years of utter brainwashing by the Bush administration, you'd think we be more choosy about finding the right candidate who can do the best job. A candidate who has experience,strength,and the determination to get us back on the right road. Out of debt, out of war, and out of relying on foreign bailouts, among many other things this president will need to work on. Obama's right when he says "change", unfortunately it may NOT be the change we were looking for. If you think eight years with Bush, Jr. was bad, you better hang onto your hats my friends because the next eight years is going to be a very bumpy ride.
Once Again
It's not who we put in the White House, it's whether or not our next president is going to end the Iraq war plus turning things around here at home, because either we end this war or it'll be the end of us.
Inspiration vs substance
I along with many others have been having some problems with Obama's lack of specifics, and with some of his inadequate (to my thinking)specifics. However, I think the real point of this article is that we need a candidate that is able to inspire us to struggle toward a new progressive vision of the future. I think Obama can do that, whereas HIllary can't. Why is this so important? First, we need to get someone elected president - and I'm not sure that with Hillary's baggage she can be elected. Second, we should know by now that the specifics of the campaign rhetoric is relatively unimportant - once a new administration takes office, a lot of other influences come into play. We are in a much better position tactically trying to push Obama in a more progressive direction than we are with McCain, or I think with Clinton. Most important, we need someone who can frame and sell a new progressive vision, a more inclusive "we are all together in one country" vision of a future where we are not reduced to fighting each other for our piece of the pie, reguardless of the consequences for others, but are cooperating to make the country better for everyone - not just the few. I think Obama can do this.
Is he perfect? NO. Is democracy perfect? No. WE've got to work within the possible. As noted by others, the perfect is the enemy of the good. THis does not mean, however, that we are going to give up our progressive vision, or not fight strongly for it.
eag
Obama inspirations...
Obama's inspirations have no substance.
Hillary has inspired many, maybe not you but many have been inspired. She has brought many changes to our country. Inspiring words are not going to gain back the jobs, homes and the sadness of having a Country in a recession. Nothing against Mr. Obama, however the bottom line his empty words are not going to solve the crucial times we are going thru. It was very clear from the debate that Hillary definitely has the experience, perseverance, conviction and the passion to be the best president of our time. The media has given Obama a free pass and its time to stop wishing he may be the solver of our problems, because all he will be the first American Puppet President. Now if he were to come in on the ticket as Vice President then that would be the ideal situation. Then let the progressive vision loose because at least there would be balance for all. Remember after all it's the economic future of our Country! Our Livelihood!
and so on
"I think the real point of this article is that we need a candidate that is able to inspire us to struggle toward a new progressive vision of the future"
"we need someone who can frame and sell a new progressive vision, a more inclusive "we are all together in one country" vision of a future where we are not reduced to fighting each other for our piece of the pie, reguardless of the consequences for others, but are cooperating to make the country better for everyone - not just the few"
i think we are much more likely to be able to do that with either of the democratic candidates than with any of the gop ones. vote for whoever wins the democratic nomination. altho i have a preference, on another level i don't really care as i think either of them will be better than any of the gop candidates.
No One Gets It!
Wow, Mark, I'm really disappointed in the posts here so far. It looks like no one is getting it, and I don't understand that because what you wrote is so well explained. And I think it hits the nail right on the head. As to the question, "Who frames better?" without a doubt I think it's Obama. He's looking to reshape rather than bandage. With what Clinton says, nothing changes. She "gets things done," but what exactly is she "getting done?" The same old business as usual? Clinton will always be "answering" to the right wing and not moving forward. I want to see things change. I want to see all the people discussing issues, looking for solutions, and that will only happen if someone can inspire and motivate them ALL to do so: a leader. I don't see Clinton being that type of leader. Obama has what it takes to do that.
If by "frame"
you mean "lie," then I think there's no doubt that it's Obama. He says he's offering a health care proposal, and that he's the friend of the people. That's good "framing," I suppose.
Ever wonder why lower-income Dems are voting for Hillary, and the latte-drinking, Volvo-driving upper-middle class likes Obama? Might it have something to do with 'substance'?
yes we do get it
the act of simply disagreeing with you and with mark hardly means people don't get it. if you read my earlier post, you will see that i "got it" enough to even be able to point out a flaw in the presentation of the argument and add a further comment about framing. i will not make snide comments about your post as you did about other people's posts. and i disagree with you re obama and clinton but i will support whichever one gets the nomination unlike some obama folks who are saying hey won't. have a nice day.
Obama
His frames of unity and inclusiveness are effective because they take the focus off the Republican frame of divisiveness that they use to win elections. They speak to the common problems we all face, not the silly prejudices that have nothing to do with governance.
Phony Election
Obama and Clinton are in the same bed at the same party as the Neocons. Anyone who thinks there's hope in these two poltroons is a fool.
Phony Election by Tim Hollis
You sir, are an idiot. Go back to your mom's trailer and relax.
I would like to know
WHY did Edwards quit just before "super" Tuesday?
WHAT did they say to him in Florida?
Did the Florida Mafia threaten him?
That is the way I want this phony contest FRAMED.
Of the two that are left?
Obama is a social climber with unproven other than slick maneuvering background.
Hillary is a proven genius. At least she knows how to fight the RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY.
She really is not at liberty at this time to step out of the corporate mold or they will do to her what they did to Edwards.
My guess? They threatened his life.
So far, Obama has been using GOP framing to the point
where he has turned me off completely. His use of a "Harry and Louise" type ad completely ended it for me.
I wouldn't trust this guy at all! Shelby Steele, his biographer, was on CSpan BookTalk last weekend...he noted that Obama has stated that since the age of 14 he has had his "bargainer" strategy all figured out. He quotes Obama saying that "if you don't get them angry, they'll like you." MMMM...reminds me of Clinton looking for approval all over again. Combined with his thin-skinned and rather petulant personality at times, I'd say Obama has some combination of qualities that might not wear very well. Steele calls it Obama's mask and says that if he ever drops it, there will be a lot of disappointed people. His current framing has turned a lot of us off, while wooing
Republicans. They won't be around long if Obama suddenly switches his talk. In the long run, he's set up to disappoint any way he turns. Short term gains, long term problems.
very good question
the presidency may be the only position/office from which a progressive can frame effectively.
any other efforts by progressives to frame anything can easily be torn down or framed over, and have been for the last 15 or 20 years, by the talk radio monopoly. the right wingers have used that uncontested repetition like a nail gun while progressives might as well have been using rocks.
Or, who's the progressive?
Who's the one who "frames" his healthcare, which sucks, as "progressive," because it doesn't "force" people into healthcare? Why, Obama. Who's the one who is the big progressive, who leaves his programs vague, and full of conservative signal words, so he can get more votes than Hillary in the Democratic primaries? Who uses the word "bipartisanship" like a talisman, when all Democrats have gotten out of bipartisanship is more humiliation and rule by the Republicans plus the Blue Dogs? (Ben Nelson for Obama! Yay!) This Obamamania makes no sense to me at all. He's okay. If someone was to beat Hillary, I'd rather it be from the actual LEFT, like Edwards or Kucinich, rather than the Kennedy "left." JFK lied (yes, he did) about the Missile Gap so he could attack Nixon from the right, and yet was totally unprepared to kibosh the Bay of Pigs operation -- his Dad told him not to fire Allen Dulles -- and made Khruschev so contemptuous of the young, inexperienced president that he dared to put missiles in Cuba. Kennedy only started getting good at the job in about 1962, after the Missile Crisis nearly killed us all, and though he wanted the Civil Rights Bill, he couldn't do a damn thing about it. It was going to die so he could run again in '64. Seriously, folks. Those terrible years, and MLK's killing and Bobby's senseless death, has made a myth of JFK. He escalated Eisenhower's presence in Vietnam, made the advisors active combatants without telling anybody, and engineered the coup against Diem. Now, some say he meant to start withdrawing, but the evidence is scant. So Teddy, keeper of the flame, is probably the Democrat who did the most to ensure the election of Reagan, because he ran a "liberal" campaign opposing the sitting president, Carter.
Seriously, I loved JFK. I wasn't quite old enough to vote for him, and like all Democrats, I've kept a little shrine for him for decades. But the powerful Kennedys are all gone now, except for new generation office-holders like the Kennedys -- who endorsed Hillary. Don't play symbolic word-games. Read the policy papers. Ask what "bipartisanship" has done for YOU lately. (Hint: it's kept Bush and Cheney from impeachment.)
framing the frames
there are frames and there are frames and there is reframing. suggesting that framing the issues is the same as having to combat an historical frame that the right, the msm, and progressives searching in vain for a charismatic leader will try to impose on clinton is to obfuscate the issue of framing either by deliberately and misleadingly designing your argument to do so or by simply engaging in muddy thinking. regardless of what the democratic candidate does, the gop attack machine will come after that candidate -- hillary because she is hillary, obama because he is black and they will paint him as a radical. they would have come after edwards as a radical as well. whoever is nominated must figure how to reframe, "draw a different frame," around the issues of the day and the future as well as herself or himself (notice the differentiation between the frames there) in a fashion that draws in voters from the base and from the center as well.
framing
"Reagan achieved so many dreadful goals on behalf of the right wing financiers because he had a persuasive narrative (even if it was almost all a lie). And he never broke a sweat."
It wasnt "framing", it was money and power that controlled the
narrative just like today. Over half want to impeach Bush/Cheney
but that is not reported. Congressional Democrats decided for the
good of the Republic not to impeach Reagan for Iran-Contra.
Whatever the "framing", will they continue wars and terror on third-world countries? Will they take from the poor and give to the rich?
Will they compromise the health of the Planet?
Yes, yes and yes.
Framing and Democratic Candidates
Bunkerhill75
Thoughtful posts. Clearly, over the past 30 years the Right has managed to "frame" a number of issues into a 'mainstream' package. How else would middle-class American vote AGAINST their personal and financial self-interests over-and-over?
The questions we should be discussing are the SUBJECTS, or ISSUES facing the next (Democratic) President, and a Democratic/Progressive Congress.
Where's 'our' message? I hope that by now, we know what the Right is going to put out. Besides the 'Swift Boat' stuff, more war, terror, tax cut, 'broken government', and now economic gloom and doom to boot if Democrats are elected.
This is all juxtapositioned around 'family values' issues, ignorning the 1,000,000 plus Iraqi civilians killed by Bush, Cheney, and the warmongering right-wingers!
Where is the 'framing' to lead, inspire, and captivate a Nation? How will we get our progressive, liberal, Democratic message out with GE controling NBC, for example.
The Senate seems poised to hand Bush another victory with respect to FISA and immunity for the telecoms. UNBELIEVABLE!
A modest proposal I have been kicking around is that perhaps on or near April 1st 2008, those of us disgusted with the Democratic [sic] leadership in Congress, RESIGN from the Democratic Party.
Do you think that 5,000,000 or 20,000,000 resignations might get the Party's attention?
Just a thought. There's lots of damage that must be undone in the Executive, Legislative, and when possible, the Judicial branches of our government. The neoCONS and radical, right-wing financiers and business folk are bound and determined to create a governing aristocracy, with an expanded and mostly struggling middle-class doing most of the sweating and struggling. Money talks, the rest of us walk!
So what do you think? Let's establish what the frames should contain, a real blueprint for Progressive change and growth. Second, then, who can best frame and carry out the program (I don't know, yet), and third, let's get a message across to the Democratic leadership. Stop wimping out to the Bush-leaguer. DO WHAT'S RIGHT, NOT WHAT'S EXPEDIENT.