Left Preparing For Holiday Table Talk With Conservative Relatives- Here's Their Textbook

An excerpt from the book Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate.

The following is a letter I received while writing this chapter. It arrived several days after I had appeared on a TV show, NOW with Bill Moyers.

I listened to Dr. Lakoff last Friday night on NOW with great interest. I love the use of words and have been consistently puzzled at how the far right has co-opted so many definitions.

So I tried an experiment I wanted to tell you about. I took several examples from the interview; particularly trial vs. public protection lawyer and gay marriage and used those examples all week on AOL’s political chat room. Every time someone would scream about [John] Edwards’s being a trial lawyer, I’d respond with public protection lawyer and how they are the last defense against negligent corporations and [are] professional, and that the opposite of a public protection lawyer is a corporate lawyer who typically makes $400-500/per hr., and we pay that in higher prices for good and services. Every time someone started screaming about “gay marriage” I’d ask if they want the federal government to tell them who they could marry. I’d go on to explain when challenged that once government has crossed the huge barrier into telling one group of people who they could not marry, it is only a small step to telling other groups, and a smaller yet step to telling people who they had to marry.

I also asked for definitions. Every time someone would holler “dirty liberal,” I’d request their definition of “liberal.”

The last was my own hot button. Every time someone would scream “abortion,” “baby-killer,” etc., I’d suggest that if they are anti-abortion, then by all means, they should not have one.

I’ve got to tell you, the results were startling to me. I had some other people (completely unknown to me) join me and take up the same tacks. By last night, the chat room was civil. An amazing (to me) number of posters turned off their capitalization and we were actually having conversations.

I’m going to keep this up, but I really wanted you to know that I heard Dr. Lakoff, appreciate his work, and am trying to put it into practice. And it’s really really fun.
Thanks, Penney Kolb

This book is written for people like Penney Kolb. Progressives are constantly put in positions where they are expected to respond to conservative arguments. It may be over Thanksgiving dinner, around the water cooler, or in front of an audience. But because conservatives have commandeered so much of the language, progressives are often put on the defensive with little or nothing to say in response.

The earlier chapters are meant to explain who conservatives are, what they stand for, what kind of morality they see themselves as having, and how their family values shape their politics. They are also meant to make explicit what is usually felt but not articulated — progressive family values and how they carry over into progressive politics. And finally there is an introduction to framing — what mistakes to avoid and how to reframe, with some chapters providing examples of how framing works.

But sooner or later, you are in Penney’s position. What do you do? Penney’s instincts are impeccable, and provide us with guidelines.

Progressive values are the best of traditional American values. Stand up for your values with dignity and strength. You are a true patriot because of your values. Remember that right-wing ideologues have convinced half of the country that the strict father family model, which is bad enough for raising children, should govern our national morality and politics. This is the model that the best in American values has defeated over and over again in the course of our history—from the emancipation of the slaves to women’s suffrage, Social Security and Medicare, civil rights and voting rights acts, and Brown v. the Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. Each time we have unified our country more behind our finest traditional values.

Remember that everybody has both strict and nurturant models, either actively or passively, perhaps active in different parts of their lives. Your job is to activate for politics the nurturant, progressive values already there (perhaps only passively) in your interlocutors. Show respect to the conservatives you are responding to. No one will listen to you if you don’t accord them respect. Listen to them. You may disagree strongly with everything that is being said, but you should know what is being said. Be sincere. Avoid cheap shots. What if they don’t show you respect? Two wrongs don’t make a right. Turn the other cheek and show respect anyway. That takes character and dignity. Show character and dignity.

Avoid a shouting match. Remember that the radical right requires a culture war, and shouting is the discourse form of that culture war. Civil discourse is the discourse form of nurturant morality. You win a victory when the discourse turns civil. They win when they get you to shout.

What if you have moral outrage? You should have moral outrage. But you can display it with controlled passion. If you lose control, they win.

Distinguish between ordinary conservatives and nasty ideologues. Most conservatives are personally nice people, and you want to bring out their niceness and their sense of neighborliness and hospitality.

Be good-humored. A good-natured sense of humor shows you are comfortable with yourself.

Hold your ground. Always be on the offense. Never go on defense. Never whine or complain. Never act like a victim. Never plead. Avoid the language of weakness, for example, rising intonations on statements. Your voice should be steady. Your body and voice should show optimism. You should convey passionate conviction without losing control.

Conservatives have parodied liberals as weak, angry (hence not in control of their emotions), weak-minded, softhearted, unpatriotic, uninformed, and elitist. Don’t give them any opportunities to stereotype you in any of these ways. Expect these stereotypes, and deal with them when they come up.

By the way you conduct yourself, show strength, calmness, and control; an ability to reason; a sense of realism; love of country; a command of the basic facts; and a sense of being an equal, not a superior. At the very least you want your audience to think of you with respect, as someone they may disagree with but who they have to take seriously. In many situations this is the best you can hope for. You have to recognize those situations and realize that a draw with dignity is a victory in the game of being taken seriously. Many conversations are ongoing. In an ongoing conversation, your job is to establish a position of respect and dignity, and then keep it.

Don’t expect to convert staunch conservatives. You can make considerable progress with biconceptuals, those who use both models but in different parts of their life. They are your best audience. Your job is to capture territory of the mind. With biconceptuals your goal is to find out, if you can by probing, just which parts of their life they are nurturant about. For example, ask who they care about the most, what responsibilities they feel they have to those they care about, and how they carry out those responsibilities. This should activate their nurturant models as much as possible. Then, while the nurturant model is active for them, try linking it to politics. For example, if they are nurturant at home but strict in business, talk about the home and family and how they relate to political issues. Example: Real family values mean that your parents, as they age, don’t have to sell their home or mortgage their future to pay for health care or the medications they need.

Avoid the usual mistakes. Remember, don’t just negate the other person’s claims; reframe. The facts unframed will not set you free. You cannot win just by stating the true facts and showing that they contradict your opponent’s claims. Frames trump facts. His frames will stay and the facts will bounce off. Always reframe. If you remember nothing else about framing, remember this: Once your frame is accepted into the discourse, everything you say is just common sense.* Why? Because that’s what common sense is: reasoning within a commonplace, accepted frame.

Never answer a question framed from your opponent’s point of view. Always reframe the question to fit your values and your frames. This may make you uncomfortable, since normal discourse styles require you to directly answer questions posed. That is a trap. Practice changing frames.

A useful thing to do is to use rhetorical questions: *Wouldn’t it be better if...? Such a question should be chosen to presuppose your frame. Example:* Wouldn’t it be better if we had a president who went to war with a plan to secure the peace?

Tell a story. Find stories where your frame is built into the story. Build up a stock of effective stories.

Always start with values, preferably values all Americans share like security, prosperity, opportunity, freedom, and so on. Pick the values most relevant to the frame you want to shift to. Try to win the argument at the values level. Pick a frame where your position exemplifies a value everyone holds — like fairness. Example: Suppose someone argues against a form of universal health care. If people don’t have health care, he argues, it’s their own fault. They’re not working hard enough or not managing their money properly. We shouldn’t have to pay for their lack of initiative or their financial mismanagement. Frame shift: Most of the forty million people who can’t afford health care work full-time at essential jobs that cannot pay enough to get them health care. Yet these working people support the lifestyles of the top three-quarters of our population. Some forty million people have to do those hard jobs — or you don’t have your lifestyle. America promises a decent standard of living in return for hard work. These workers have earned their health care by doing essential jobs to support the economy. There is money in the economy to pay them. Tax credits are the easiest mechanism. Their health care would be covered by having the top 2 percent pay the same taxes they used to pay. It’s only fair that the wealthy pay for their own lifestyles, and that people who provide those lifestyles get paid fairly for it.

Be prepared. You should be able to recognize the basic frames that conservatives use, and you should prepare frames to shift to. The Rockridge Institute Web site will post examples from time to time. Example: Your opponent says, We should get rid of taxes. People know how to spend their money better than the government. Reframe: “The government has made very wise investments with taxpayer money. Our interstate highway system, for example. You couldn’t build a highway with your tax refund. The government built them. Or the Internet, paid for by taxpayer investment. You could not make your own Internet. Most of our scientific advances have been made through funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health — great government investments of taxpayer money. No matter how wisely you spent your own money, you’d never get those scientific and medical breakthroughs. And how far would you get hiring your own army with your tax refund?

Use wedge issues, cases where your opponent will violate some belief he holds no matter what he says. Example: Suppose he brings up abortion. Raise the issue of military rape treatment. Women soldiers who are raped (by our own soldiers, in Iraq, or on military bases) and who subsequently get pregnant presently cannot end their pregnancies in a military hospital, because abortions are not permitted there. A Military Rape Treatment Act would allow our raped women soldiers to be treated in military hospitals to end their rapeinduced pregnancies. The wedge: If he agrees, he sanctions abortion, in government-supported facilities no less, where doctors would have to be trained and facilities provided for terminating pregnancies. If he disagrees, he dishonors our women soldiers who are putting their lives on the line for him. To the women it is like being raped twice — once by a criminal soldier and once by a self-righteous conservative.

An opponent may be disingenuous if his real goal isn’t what he says his goal is. Politely point out the real goal, then reframe. Example: Suppose he starts touting smaller government. Point out that conservatives don’t really want smaller government. They don’t want to eliminate the military, or the FBI, or the Treasury and Commerce Departments, or the nine-tenths of the courts that support corporate law. It is big government that they like. What they really want to do away with is social programs — programs that invest in people, to help people to help themselves. Such a position contradicts the values the country was founded on — the idea of a community where people pull together to help each other. From John Winthrop on, that is what our nation has stood for.

Your opponent may use language that means the opposite of what he says, called Orwellian language. Realize that he is weak on this issue. Use language that accurately describes what he’s talking about to frame the discussion your way. Example: Suppose he cites the “Healthy Forests Initiative” as a balanced approach to the environment. Point out that it should be called “No Tree Left Behind” because it permits and promotes clear-cutting, which is destructive to forests and other living things in the forest habitat. Use the name to point out that the public likes forests, doesn’t want them clear-cut, and that the use of the phony name shows weakness on the issue. Most people want to preserve the grandeur of America, not destroy it.

Remember once more that our goal is to unite our country behind our values, the best of traditional American values. Right-wing ideologues need to divide our country via a nasty cultural civil war. They need discord and shouting and name-calling and put-downs. We win with civil discourse and respectful cooperative conversation. Why? Because it is an instance of the nurturant model at the level of communication, and our job is to evoke and maintain the nurturant model.

Show respect
Respond by reframing
Think and talk at the level of values
Say what you believe

Forewarned is forearmed.

After culling out the left-wing premises, there's actually some practical technique for dealing with people contained in Dr. Lakoff's words.

I hope you all have a tranquil time around your holidy tables. Oh, yeah- Nurturant season's greetings! :-)

Stay away from set-ups. Fox News shows and other rabidly conservative shows try to put you in an impossible situation, where a conservative host sets the frame and insists on it, where you don’t control the floor, can’t present your case, and are not accorded enough respect to be taken seriously. If the game is fixed, don’t play.

I personally take offense to this statement, i work in news and EVERY SINGLE NEWS ORGANIZATION PRODUCER(not host) sets up a tight frame. they have commercial breaks to take, on time, or advertisers call IMMEDIATELY after the show... they have 7-10min segments at most and 2 or 3 people to talk in that time frame. UGH. i wish these people would find out what goes on behind the scenes before talking smack.

Know Your Enemy BUMP.

I'd love to spend some time ripping this Leftist nonsense to ribbons, but my blood sugar is presently FUBAR'd and I think I'm gonna go lie down now.

But because conservatives have commandeered so much of the language, progressives are often put on the defensive with little or nothing to say in response.

Yeah, stupid conservatives are always bringing “language” to debates.

Language relies too heavily on logic, coherence, and clarity.

If only the left could invent a language-free debate format based solely on confused emotions, tantrums, and rage.

i forgot one point. every news person HAS to be in control, if i go out on an interview and someone tries to hold the mic, i yank it back out of their hands, it's typical protocol, next time you watch the news watch an interview, the interviewee NEVER touches the mic. what if they went off and started cussing or whatever.

Please note that this is, in essence, a tip sheet for acting a certain way to deceive the listener audience.

The key to these debates to keep the focus on facts in relation to the constitution and traditional American government. The Left only has emotion and rhetorical trickery to rely on because the majority of people will side with conservatives if the proper perspective is given with context.

Enjoy the turkey on your plate, but also be sure to carve up the Leftist turkeys in your family anywhere between the Thanksgiving prayer and the pumpkin pie.

This almost reads like satire, especially the part about fathers being detrimental: the strict father family model, which is bad enough for raising children ...

Never mind that chidren raised in fatherless homes are more likely to use drugs, drop out of school, end up in jail, and be parents while still in their teens. I can't take seriously anyone who ignores the obvious.

OMG - this sounds like every Thanksgiving conversation I've ever had with my broken-glass-liberal family!

Great Post!

Note that every tactic requires they control the debate. A liberal can never win the argument without your cooperation.

I'm pretty quiet at the holiday table. Most of my liberal relatives are more intelligent that your average DUmmie. The one aunt that isn't too bright is going on some international healing mission to a Canadian indian reservation with a bunch of muslim "peace activists".

She's mad at me anyway. I asked if she was going to learn to make a bomb belt out of natural beads and fibers.

We win with civil discourse and respectful cooperative conversation.

That's why you're losers... you find that so easy to say before you start in screaming slogans again. Parade the homeless. Global warming. What the hell do I know? I'm just a STUPID conservative.

Good Lord, put down the bong.

If only the left could invent a language-free debate format based solely on confused emotions, tantrums, and rage

LOL!

We are trying to stay away from discussing politics and religion with anyone. It's better that way.

A liberal can never win the argument without your cooperation.

It's true. But I am a polite person, and the fam (2 school teachers, 2 retired school teachers and a lawyer) go for fast talk and amplitude. Hard to beat because the debate is not civil. One-on-one in an unemotional debate and I can shred their arguements, but my politeness causes me to not give up but to shut up.

17 posted on 11/23/2004 2:29:17 PM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)

After reading all these threads about the horror people have to endure during holiday meals with their family, I realize how good I have it.

I am one of six siblings, five of whom are married, and there isn't a hint of liberalism in a single one of us or our spouses.

We argue over things like "Who would have been a bigger disaster - Gore or Kerry?" and "Which Kennedy family member was the biggest scumbag?"

(BTW, the correct answers are Gore and Skakel (a darkhorse from the fringe, edging out Teddy and that dead baby-sitter raping one.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.