Right-Wing Pushes Violent Rhetoric To Frame Election
Against the backdrop of a noisy Democratic nomination contest, the Republican Party slowly, but deliberately launched its framing strategy to win the general election.
That effort is based on the coordinated use of 'violent rhetoric' to redefine the election through a 'violence frame.'
In an effort to win the presidential election, the Republican Party will not just put up a candidate and run a few ads saying he is the better on defense and taxes. Instead, right-wing pundits and politicians will work in unison to define the basic choice in the election by using violent language and logic.
The State of the Frame: Obama Holds It
So far, the Democratic side of the election has dominated the framing the race. In particular the Obama campaign's language of 'hope' and 'change' has established a core logic defining the election that looks something like this:
[election] = [change]
[voting] = [new]
[victory] = [something new]
Now, the Obama camp had a hard time setting this frame in the beginning, but once the campaign won Iowa, it was fairly clear that the frame had been set. Since Iowa, there has not been any successful effort to reframe the election, although there has been an ongoing attempt to do so.
Specifically, the Clinton campaign has tried to reframe the election in terms of 'experience'--which has had limited success, but has largely failed for two reasons.
First, the Clinton framing effort was not well run, not well coordinated, and involved a largely top down push. Second, it failed because the Obama camp responded to the Clinton effort by relocating the 'experience' frame to the more vague and flexible concept o f 'leadership' and, ultimately, away from 'election.' Clinton said this should be an election about 'experience,' Obama countered by saying 'judgment' was the basis of 'experience,' and reasserted that the election was about 'hope' and 'change.' He still leads.
Now, just because the frame has been held by the Obama camp does not mean that the Clinton 'experience' frame did not have an impact on the race. It had a very big impact -- on the Republican side.
As reported in mid-February, shortly after the Clinton camp rolled out its effort to frame the election in terms of 'experience,' the McCain campaign started using their framing.
That's right. First the Clinton camp said that this was an election about 'experience,' then the Obama camp re-asserted that it was about 'change,' then the McCain camp started using the Clinton 'experience' frame.
What voters are now seeing on the Republican nominee side of the aisle is a clumsy attempt by the McCain camp to use the 'experience' frame first provided by the Clinton camp. In a word, it is also a sign of how far behind the McCain camp is and will likely continue to be. After a long and closely contested Democratic nomination, the clearly established Republican nominee is imitating the not-so-successful framing efforts of the 2nd-place Democratic contender.
If imitation is the greatest form of flattery, then the Clinton campaign should be deeply moved by the McCain camp's 'ready-on-day-one' campaign. The fact that a decorated war veteran feels he needs to remind people that he has military experience should give Republican strategist reasons to pause if not panic. Mostly though, it is a testament to how effective the Obama's 'change' framing has been.
Efforts To Reframe Have Failed
In the wake of the string of losses to the Obama camp after Super Tuesday, the Clinton camp tried again to reframe the debate--this time trying to redefine the meaning of Obama's campaign rallies by pushing the logic of 'mass hypnosis.' Obama's speeches, which were widely talked about as the reason for his success on the campaign trail, were criticized as having turned voters into 'cult' followers. That criticism -- while ridiculous to young voters deeply involved in the Obama campaign's on-the-ground effort -- actually tapped into a deep fear about mass politics that many Americans hold, and it lured the Obama camp into a useless and distracting fight. But it did not change the frame.
The second effort at interference has been the relentless attempt by the Clinton campaign to argue that Barack Obama is not ready to be Commander in Chief. This effort has largely failed for another reason: American history. The reality of American government is that most Presidents have not been quite ready to be Commander in Chief when they were elected. In fact, one of the virtues of our system of government is that elected officials run the military, not the other way around. That feature is not by accident, but by design. The framers of the United States Constitution wanted it that way because they did not want a military junta to emerge. Ergo, from the moment we moved away from being a revolutionary nation where every leader was essentially a military leader, we have had a succession of Presidents who begin commanding the military on day one -- never before.
Unfortunately for the Obama camp, instead of making the argument about American history and the nature of our Constitutional government, they decided to step up and criticize Hillary Clinton for supporting George W. Bush's war policies. Relatively speaking, that arguments was small and not very effective, but it did not matter much. Obama's 'hope' and 'change' frame still held, despite the attack on his readiness to lead U.S. military forces.
Right Redoubles Its Effort: Violent Rhetoric
Despite most of the news focusing on the Democratic side of the race, the big story in the election this week was the Republicans launch of their own effort at reframing the debate.
To win the election, the right is going to try to capitalize on a long-term effort by right-wing pundits to reframe every issue in terms of violent language and logic. This effort has been going on almost entirely under the radar of the mainstream media, as it is unfolding in books written by right-wing pundits and on right-wing TV shows that most big media reporters dismiss as insignificant.
Through this effort, the right has framed our entire system of politics through a logic of violence, the result of which is that Democrats and Liberals are not just seen as political opponents to Republicans, but as a collective mortal threat to the continuing existence of America.
The most common focus of this 'violent rhetoric' is national security.
Most political analysts stop short at understanding the right-wing frame of national security by focusing only on the phrase 'War on Terror.' Indeed, that is a key phrase used brought into American politics through a coordinated effort by the right. But that's not the frame.
The right-wing frame of national security takes the form of a much more general, violent concept of a 'war' for American survival on 'two fronts.' In this logic, American national security is endangered by two enemies, not just by one: (1) by a global movement of Islamic militants and (2) by an internal war against cultural militants--Liberals.
The vast majority of dedicated Republican voters has been subject to years and years of this framing effort through an ongoing conversation on TV, radio, and in books.
Moreover, this 'two front' logic does more than lay out a sustained criticism of Democrats. It leads many Republicans to the false conclusion that Democrats--somehow--share a common goal with terrorists: the defeat of George W. Bush, the defeat of the United States in Iraq. It even leads many Republicans to believe that Democrats harbor a secret desire to bring about the end of the United States as we know it.
Over the past five years, primarily through books and TV shows, these right-wing arguments have been well established in the minds of Republican voters. This week, the Republican party began its effort to use these arguments to frame the debate in the general election.
Republican Party Takes Up Pundits' Violent Rhetoric
Their effort has been deceptively simple:
From the AP:
An Iowa Republican congressman said Friday that terrorists would be "dancing in the streets" if Democratic candidate Barack Obama were to win the presidency.
Rep. Steve King based his prediction on Obama's pledge to pull troops out of Iraq, his Kenyan heritage and his middle name, Hussein.
"The radical Islamists, the al-Qaida ... would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they would declare victory in this war on terror," King said in an interview with the Daily Reporter in Spencer.
King said his comments were not meant to demean Obama but to warn how an Obama presidency would look to the world.
"His middle name does matter," King said. "It matters because they read a meaning into that." (link)
As foolish as Steve King's comment may seem at first glance, his effort has probably had more of an impact on the general election than all the combined efforts by the Clinton and McCain campaigns to question the 'experience' of the Obama camp.
By saying that Al Qaeda would rejoice if Obama is elected, King reinforced an already existing Republican frame that defines Democrats as violent threats to the future of this nation. When that happened, the core concepts that make up the public's understanding of the election shifted from 'hope' and 'change' to something more sinister and threatening:
[election] = [threat]
[voting] = [danger]
[victory] = [life or death]
Needless to say, those metaphors build a terrain that is much more favorable to Republicans than to Democrats and have an impact on voters that is far deeper than a simple ethnic slur or racist remark.
King's remark is not new, but is merely a reassertion of the violent rhetoric used by right-wing pundit Ann Counter in her writing and in her many appearances on broadcast TV. For almost a year, Coulter has been pushing the argument that Barack Obama -- by virtue of his name--poses a terrorist threat to America. This violent argument has been ridiculed by some, but Coulter has continued to push in her columns and in her role as a pundit on a variety of major TV networks.
King's comment about Obama constitutes a Republican elected official adopting the violent rhetoric of a right-wing pundit.
To respond to King's assertion, all Americans -- not just the Obama camp -- should reject the violent idea that an American leader by virtue of his name somehow compliments the efforts of our enemies. We should all respond to Representative King by saying that the world watches our Presidential election with great interest, and knows that candidates from both parties have chosen to run for office out of deep respect for our Constitution. They all share a commitment to guarding the country from attack.
Democrats can then push their own frame for foreign policy -- a frame that does not use violent rhetoric or logic, but pushes regionalism, smart security, and stature. Accordingly, Democrats are deeply dedicated to revisiting the regional tensions that were ignored by the Republican obsession with pre-emptive military strikes on sovereign nations. A Democratic president will usher in a new era of smart security -- a vision of foreign policy that gives our allies reason o stand tall again and gives our enemies reason to pause.
Of course, the goal of the Republican Party is to win the election and that is the purpose of launching their violent rhetoric: to frame the election in such a way that defeats the Democratic candidate. The stakes however, are much greater than just who wins or loses the White House. If violent logic takes over America's political debate, voters will likely see a rapid shut down of the deliberative democracy on which our entire system of government depends.
When political debate is taken over by violent language and logic, the effect it has on the public sphere is poisonous and debilitating. Conversation itself shuts down, opening up the door for the return of a pre-modern form of politics antithetical to the free and open exchange of ideas through words.
It has been almost 50 years since this country experienced a sudden collapse in our political conversation and the sudden shift to violence that follows. The Republican effort to frame the presidential debate with violent rhetoric has once again opened the door that leads in that direction. Americans everywhere and of all political perspectives should take note of it and reject it.
Crossposted from Frameshop
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Most excellent, Mr. Feldman!
All the Rebuplican party has for sale is fear. And as you said, there is nothing new about this.
I particularly admired your thoughts on the idea of Smart Security.
That's the core of what Bush lacked, and the core of the malaise this country has been in since the start of the Iraq War. We all want to take the fight back to Al-Queda, where it belonged in the first place, and most of us know that America can't go it alone any more- the cost has already become more than we want to shoulder. Our allies in Iraq have dropped out, one by one, and we have no chance in the larger fight until we have the rest of the world with us. That will take intelligence and a completely new direction; it's already been shown that our former friends are less willing to sacrifice their young than we are for bad decisions that are stubbornly held.
The Obama frame is giving more than just Americans hope- it is giving hope to our allies and the rest of the world. This is the time for the big change. We cannot expect our friends, and those who were once our friends, to endure 4 more years of our muddled divisiveness. And we can't pay the bills that are coming due for our mistakes now; how much worse will it be after 4 more years?
Nice work. George Lakoff writes about this issue a lot. I like the specifics you add here.
Can you please follow with a posting on why the mainstream media is so easily manipulated into framing arguments the right-wing way?
This blog establishes that framing is simply another word for spin.
I certainly agree with the sentiment in the last sentence of this piece. The Republicans are not going to change their framing of the debate, however, and Clinton's efforts at framing it have been ill-considered and short-signted from the outset. Her insistence on her allegedly superior "experience" has been a loser from the beginning because it depends on transparent exaggerations and because her claims of experience look downright silly against McCain's. Moreover, rather than rejecting OR denouncing a politics of fear, she has engaged in an effort to out-fear- and out-war-monger all but the most extreme neo-con bullies, which is also a dead-bang loser of an argument against McCain and one that repels 60% of the electorate, especially Democrats.
Only an Obama candidacy will permit a clear differentiation between the parties and the candidates in November.
Is Mr. Feldman saying that this is a new thing, this violent rhetoric? It seems like this has been going on for a very long time. The right wing has traded on the "Democrats are weak-kneed pussies, who'll surrender to our enemies, brun the flag and turn all of our women to lesbians" meme for as long as I can remember. They have been greatly helped in this effort by a string of weak-kneed pussies who somehow have gained the Democratic nomination. (Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, etc.)
I don't see anything new in this. I agree that it will be a large part of the framing of the debate on the Republican side, but it always has been. Unfortunately, the only Democratic candiate that has been sucessful against this violent rhetoric has been Bill Clinton. That is due to the Clinton "triangulation" strategy of pitting both sides against the middle. Well, that and the Clintons willingness to say anything that works (i.e..it's 3 AM, Obama is just the black candidate, or McCain and I are the only ones qualified to be Commander-in-Chief, etc ..etc...ad nauseum.)
If the Democrats don't stop taking the corporatist media's bait immediately and quit the food fight they're in at the moment, they will be unable to frame anything. I would like the next President to be one that puts the State Dept. back in the forefront as our international face, so I would like to see the CIC debate go away in favor of what the Democratic candidates will do to advance peace. I would like to know that the next President is going to restore the Balance of Power that was written into our Constitution, so I would like to hear what the Democratic candidates will do to dismantle the Unitary Executive that Darth and Addington have built up. I would like to see the next President restore the Rule of Law and the Bill of Rights that this democracy is built on, so I would like to hear the Democratic candidates address those issues. In short, the Democratic Party currently is all involved in the Republican frame of violence by focusing on the CIC and the war issue when what really separates us is that Democrats want the democracy at home that we keep saying we're trying to force everyone else to have and we want it without sacrificing our safety. That's not asking too much, I don't think.
Very thoughtful post, and rather prescient.
As someone who Sen. McCain might call a Reagan Democrat, may I say that if Reagan were alive and healthy today, he would be horrified at what the Republican party has become, and what the GOP is doing in his name. As a man of some conscience, it is my hope and belief that he would renounce the Republican party, and switch back to being in the Democratic party.
Today's Republicans are so far out in la-la land, that they are becoming the party of the lunatic fringe.
This is one Reagan Democrat who is shocked at the hijacking of what used to be the Republican party.
Hope and change are Obama's most effective tools.
Renewing our belief in our country's values requires changing the way America operates on the world stage. Change reinvigorates hope that our dreams and aspirations are still attainable. Hope replaces fear of a bleak and dismal future.
Clearly winning at all costs comes at the expense of the nation and the electorate. False accusations and misleading statements to tear down an opponent's character comes at a personal cost, too. I suggest all candidates hitherto must pass a litmus test. Any candidate who chooses to employ the politics of fear and/or use divisive tactics ought to be disqualified. Rewarding that kind of behaviour is counter to the best interests of the voters and the nation.
Voters are drawn to Obama because he inspires people to hope again. Hillary cannot compete on that level. Likewise McCain. Thus explains the Clinton campaign throwing everything including the kitchen-sink at Obama. Sometimes I wonder if Clinton & McCain view the people as nothing more than voters who are an unnecessary evil in which to claim the mantle of power in the WH.
Obama's ability to inspire millions of voters to vote for him in the belief he can instigate unity and change is certainly much more attractive to voters than the alternative. Immobilizing people using politics of fear has little chance of success up against empowering the people with the politics of hope that make change possible. But a lot depends on whether Americans fully recognize the politics of fear while cloaked in any one of its many different disguises.
An electorate hungry for hope and a thirst for change have been inspired by Obama's vision for better tomorrows because it is a vision all of us share.
Revised draft:
Republicans and Al Qaeda use fear to strike terror in the American people. Both Al Qaeda and the Republicans want you scared! Republicans now openly attack you and your ability to make up your mind when voting for your candidate. Instead of feeling proud when you walk into the voting booth, Republicans terrorize you, to take away your freedom to choose our next president.
Do you want to give away your vote to the very same Republicans who spent the last 8 years doing Al Qaeda's dirty work, watching while our country's infrastructure collapses, building up massive national debt, hemorrhaging your tax dollars in another country, weakening our national security, and destroying the lifeblood of our military, the thousands of patriotic American soldiers we still have left in Iraq?
Rather than working as Al Qaeda's terror marketing team in America, how about the Republicans do some actual work for the American people for a change? If the Republicans know what Al Qaeda is up to and on which streets they live, they had better come clean about it right now to the American people. Republicans, tell us where they are so President Obama or Clinton can go after them, after all these years when you wouldn't.
- Tom
Thoughtful piece, Mr. Feldman. Surprised I haven't yet heard one of the candidates yet claim this was the most important Presidential election in our nation's history. Sure that's coming at some point.
Is Sen. McCain really a straight talking maverick? If so, why has he not rejected the support of his supporters and all republicans who use such language? Sen. Obama is expected to denounce and reject any support from people who speak in such a manner.
Should not Sen. McCain be held to the same level of responsibility - that is if Sen. McCain is truly a straight talking maverick.. Sen. McCain needs to be proactive behind his facade of , "straight talk.," rhetoric and reject the support of any republican or conservative who speaks in such a manner.
Sen. McCain must not stand with the likes of Rev. Hagee and merely say, "well, I don't always agree with everything that the people who are supporting me say."
Sen. McCain is benefiting from the support of republicans like Mr. King and, Sen. McCain will benefit from the 527's that have been formed to be divisive in the manner that Mr. King has exhibited.
As long as Sen. McCain gives a wink and a nod to the likes of Mr. King and Rev. Hagee and Mr. Cunningham, Sen. McCain's feet of clay will be mired in the muck of bigotry.
How about this frame:
Republicans support Al Qaeda's efforts to terrorize the American people. Republicans serve Al Qaeda by keeping you scared. Republicans now openly attack you and your ability to make up your mind in choosing our next president. Instead of feeling proud when you walk into the voting booth, Republicans want you to be so paralyzed by fear that they and Al Qaeda cast your vote for you.
Do you want to give away your right to vote to the very same Republicans who spent the last 8 years doing Al Qaeda's dirty work by leaving our country's infrastructure in ruins, building up massive national debt, hemorrhaging your tax dollars in another country, weakening our national security, and destroying the lifeblood of our military, the thousands of patriotic American soldiers in Iraq?
Rather than serving as Al Qaeda's terror marketing team in America, how about the Republicans do some actual work on behalf of the American people for a change? If the Republicans know on which streets Al Qaeda members live, they had better come clean about it right now to the American people.
Republicans, tell us where they are so President Obama or Clinton can go after them after all these years when you wouldn't.
- Tom
If the Democrats do not reframe the debate as THE REPUBLICAN FAILURE IN THE WAR ON TERROR by explaining our mistakes in Afghanistand and our outright failures in Iraq, then they don't deserve to win. The WAR ON TERROR is BOGUS because BUSH ignored OSAMA BIN LADEN once he had milked the propaganda value out of the world's #1 terrorist. The Democrats have to go straight at the Repubicans--NO HOLDS BARRED--or fear will dominate the general election.
This is nothing new for the Republicans. That is how they framed every presidential contest since the end of WWII. What is sad is that the leading Democratic candidate and his followers go apoplectic when his Democratic challenger brings up the issue.
If Obama is the nominee, he and the Democrats had better be ready to forcefully rebut the Republican mantra. With all their whining about the Clintons, instead producing a reasoned, convincing response, they've given the Republicans the opening they desperately needed.
Great post, completely right on every point but one. No matter what military positions that a president has held before, there is a difference between a military leader, and the Commander In Chief. In fact, the only person who's ever been ready to lead on day one was Grover Cleveland, when he took office for the second time, as the 24th president.
He had other problems.
Yes he did, but he's STILL the only person to step into office with all the experience needed to lead the military, while not being IN the military.
Loading comments…
Posted March 8, 2008 | 06:15 PM (EST)