The Winning Frame has Emerged

In the wake of John McCain's 'pig' ploy scandal, I wanted to draw attention to a new frame that is taking shape at break neck speed in the debate.

I call this the 'Solve Real Problems' frame and it has the potential to set the stage for Democrats to win the election.

Sometimes, people think of framing in Presidential elections as a tug of war. We set our frame, they set theirs -- whichever side pulls the hardest wins.

In fact, the more accurate metaphor is that of a chess game. Each side sets out to establish a broad, opening frame, but through a series of middle ground debates, the election ultimately arrives at an end frame--a final, compelling way to re-establish one side's opening frame, and which ultimately captures enough people's imagination to win the most votes.

In 2004, we saw this when Bush's 'Ownership Society' emerged as the 'It's Your Money' frame.

'Solve Real Problems' is a pragmatic end frame emerging right now (for a full discussion of 'pragmatism' see the conclusion of Outright Barbarous). If activists recognize it and push it hard, we have the potential to turn the gains in this campaign into an election victory in November.

Opening Frames: 'American Dream' and 'Hope'
The 2008 election started out with multiple competing frames from Democrats and Republicans. The largest opening frames, however, came from the Clinton campaign and the Obama Campaign.

From the start, Clinton set the idea of restoring the 'American Dream,' and idea that was fundamentally economic. During the course of the primary, Clinton arrived at a new way to express her opening frame by talking about 'the invisible.' It was a very convincing idea, particularly as the economy went south. Despite the ideological statements of the Republicans, a majority of Americans felt that the economy had left them behind and that nobody cared about their troubles. The 'American Dream' frame became 'the invisible' and Hillary Clinton won millions of votes as a result.

The Obama campaign offered a different opening frame in the idea of 'Hope.' In many ways, 'Hope' was a much stronger frame than 'American dream' because it spoke to larger questions about the future of the country as a whole. By talking about 'Hope,' Obama was talking about American idealism beyond the mechanics of building family wealth. 'Hope' was also a more forward looking frame because it implicitly acknowledged new challenges that Americans face--such as global warming, conservation, technology, international interdependence, and so forth. The 'American Dream,' was more nostalgic. The problem with 'Hope' as we discovered in the primary, was that it was difficult to re-emphasize in terms of the economy when that became the key issue in the primaries. The middle ground framing of 'more people participating' that was so successful for Obama in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, became less successful for his campaign in Pennsylvania. The better frame in idealistic terms, 'Hope' did not readily present a way to ground that idealism in the concrete issues that contingency was forcing into the election.

Obama won the nomination, but the sense coming out of that long contest was that he was left with a very big challenge of finding an economic foundation for his 'hope' frame. And even by the time of the DNC, it did not seem like that new frame had emerged quite yet.

McCain's 'Warrior' becomes 'Culture War'
In the aftermath of the RNC and the firestorm surrounding the nomination of Sarah Palin, the McCain campaign made it clear that they had no real middle ground frame to advance their opening 'warrior statesman' frame that they had unrolled early in the Republican primary.

Instead of unrolling a new frame that re-emphasized some aspect of McCain's militaristic logic, the McCain camp used the RNC to revert back to other Republican framing efforts that sought to frame 'conservative' in terms of 'small town values.' As a result, the McCain campaign went into the RNC pushing a strong militaristic theme, but they emerged pushing most of the old framing associated with the 'culture war.' The theme of 'war' remained, but with Sarah Palin on the ticket, the idea of a military warrior had officially given way to the old concept of a social or cultural warrior.

The key sign that this new middle ground had eroded the gains made by McCain's early framing were obvious. Suddenly, the media was obsessing over topics like Sarah Palin's church, pregnancy and abortion, and book censorship. All of these topics emerged at some point in the pre-convention primary, but they were always overshadowed by the McCain campaign emphasizing 'experience'--by which they meant 'military experience in a time of war.'

The culmination of the RNC framing switch happened this week when the McCain campaign accused Obama of 'sexism.' Many people hear this and they get confused because they think that this kind of attack is similar to late 1980s critiques of sexist language by liberals. In fact, it has nothing to do with that liberal thinking. Calling Barack Obama a 'sexist' was the first attempt by the McCain campaign to re-emphasize their new 'culture war' frame that they set in the RNC.

Right after the accusation of 'sexism,' McCain unleashed an ad accusing Obama of wanting to force young children to learn about sex in school--the familiar 'liberal debauchery' frame used for a decade by right-wing pundits to develop the 'culture war' frame.

'Hope' Becomes 'Solve Real Problems'
What is fascinating about McCain abandoning his initial 'warrior' frame for the older 'culture war' frame is not just the high level of smears and cynicism it introduced into the media, but what new language it sparked in the Obama camp.

Right from the start, the reaction to the 'culture war' framing from McCain was not to fight on the 'culture war' grounds, but (1) to accuse the McCain campaign of telling 'lies,' and (2) to emphasize that the McCain camp was impeding a more important conversation about 'solving real problems.'

Now, in general, the first step did not make much sense on its own in terms of framing for one Presidential campaign to accuse another Presidential campaign of telling 'lies.' To take that route is not really framing so much as announcing that there is a campaign (e.g., it's like saying 'I disagree with my opponent's campaign against me.'). But, when connected to the second step, it did make sense. By defining the McCain 'culture war' attacks as 'lies,' the Obama camp deflected those points and stepped immediately into the act of re-stating their opening 'hope' frame in new terms germane to the moment: 'solve real problems'

In one sense, 'solve real problems' is just old fashioned American pragmatism. In a much more profound sense, however, 'solve real problems' is a restating of the initial themes of the Obama campaign, but in quantitative, rather than qualitative terms.

Keep in mind that one of the initial themes of the Obama campaign is the transcendence of party allegiance in favor of facing solutions that we all face--a basic 'unity' frame. Also keep in mind that one of the obstacles the Obama camp faced after the Democratic primary was an inability to connect with voters primarily concerned with economic issues--primarily taxes.

Suddenly, following a week of relentless 'culture war' attacks form the McCain campaign, the entire media is shifting to a new line of discussion: the idea that these attacks from the McCain campaign impede the pragmatic conversation about getting things done.

Conclusion: Pragmatism is a Fundamentally American Idiom
As for the McCain campaign, having invested 100% of his framing in the old 'culture war' concept--particularly by his nomination of Sarah Palin--McCain has embraced ideological attacks over pragmatic problem solving. And from now until November, if McCain continues to re-emphasize the 'culture war' frame, by the debates the electorate will be so tired of squabbling over cultural issues that they will be clamoring for discussion of 'real' problems and 'real' concerns.

What I emphasize in the conclusion of Outright Barbarous, and what I also see in this phase of the 2008 Presidential election is a re-voicing of 'pragmatism' as a central concern amongst American voters. Pragmatism--a desire to understand and 'solve real problems'--is always present in the minds of Americans, but it quickly gets buried by violent and salacious rhetoric in the debate. Now that pragmatism is upon us again, and Democrats would be smart to see it, and really run with it from now until November. 'Solve real problems' is not just a theme du jour in the media. It is the core America worldview and the full realization of the early framing of the Obama campaign. It is the rhetorical path to victory for Democrats in November.

Follow Jeffrey Feldman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyFeldman

Comments

[filo]

I have one other idea. Actually I got it from Ted Kennedy's convention speech. At one point Ted said "Yes we will ! " after saying Yes We Can. I thought it was about time for Obama's campaign to make the switch to



YES WE WILL !!

[Kerbang]

Very smart. If the question voters ask themselves is "Who can help make the American Dream a Reality?" then Obama will surely win. Let's hope they pick it up.

[dguffelman]

I think another approach that would work be to brand McCain as a coward, hiding behind the skirts of Sarah Palin in order to avoid the true issues facing the country. Unrealistic? Well, consider this.

Karl Rove has always advocated attacking an opponent's strength. What greater strength does McCain have than being a brave POW?

It can be done without attacking McCain's service. Acknowledge that the McCain in the Hanoi Hilton was a hero. Acknowledge that the maverick of 2000 was a hero. Then note that the hero/maverick has disappeared. He has become King George Bush III. He's afraid to buck the Bush-Cheney crowd on anything, having sold his soul in his desire for the presidency. Once a man of honor, he has resorted to outright lies and Karl Rove tactics, casting aside his prior decency. He's afraid to fight the real issues, so he relies on distractions. He's not the man he once was (a subtle reference to his age). He has become a coward.

This approach might have the added benefit of moving McCain to a display of explosive anger.

What do you think?

[RI]

I'd love to agree with you, but don't bet on pragmatism to win it without an "image frame" to go with it.

Too many people vote on "image frames. " McCain has the war hero thing and Palin the attractive Annie Oakley image (forget the facts). Obama was the post-partisan hope savior, but now that people have beaten him into "being more specific" he is coming off too analytical, like Gore/Kerry: positions instead of passion.

The pragmatism needs to be animated by passion linked to core values somehow, so that the image is powerful. I'm thinking something like Nelson Mandela, but need we'll need an American version. FDR? JFK?

[pacodog]

Ahh...the one thing that will scare old Republicans more than a black Democratic president is a rapidly falling stock portfolio. The more jobs we lose, the more foreclosures, the more the market goes down. It is a stark reminder that despite the corporate welfare of the last eight years, even large companies are suffering. That will wake up the fiscal conservatives and McCain will be toast.

I agree that the last couple of days feel like we have turned a corner back toward Obama...I really hope so anyway.

[Pigliacci]

Perfect!

Calling them liars neatly summarizes everything that's been wrong with the GOP and the Bush regime for the last 8 years. From his cynical purchase of a "ranch" in 1999 right through to this day, every moment of Bush's tenure has been predicated on an Everest of lies. So far, Palin's introduction to the American people seems to be following suit.

If the Obama campaign and the Democratic party can maintain a sustained attack along these lines, it won't be long until McCain and Palin (and their surrogates) won't able to utter so much as a shaded truth without being called to account. "Enough of the lies. Americans want real answers to real problems."

[Gib]

Good point - Palin is McCain's ranch.

[foothillsgal]

I hope someone from the campaign reads this. Very smart.

I also think Obama needs to name his cabinet, and Hillary needs to be on it, and I'm not really a fan of hers. We need to get to work--which is the natural conclusion to hope! Obama can't do this by himself. The American people need to see a huge wave of smart leaders stand beside him and say "enough." Even tho it may be politically risky for those leaders who want to protect themselves if he loses. The deal is, he really mustn't lose. There really is too much at stake for our country to let these self serving, right wing bullies win this time.

Mainstream press, please do your part! You could be the heroes of this "movie" if you break out of the handcuffs and stand up for what you know is right. I'm going to put an Obama sign in my yard, among other things, which will cause many of my neighbors to shun me, as well as talk about me behind my back. Enough said.

[WAstateliberal]

Disagree about Hillary in the cabinet. I want that woman in the Senate, and then I want her for president in 2016. The only way she should be in the cabinet is if its a biggie, like Secretary of State.

[jimme]

Gotta go with Hillary as Attorney General. She would thoroughly enjoy going after all of the war profiteers.

[jimme]

Gotta go with Hillary as Attorney General. I do think that she would thoroughly enjoy going after all of the crooks and profiteers from the last 8 years. It would be a great set-up for 2012.

[husbusfun]

I agree with the above poster. Saying they're telling lies is something that is not done enough. Its always distorting, bending, mispoke, misrepresent. blah blah blah

No they're saying: Lie.
and I applaud it.

Second, I agree with the author that the" We need to get things done, but Mccain wants to play children games." idea is spot on.

[gulopartisan]

"Telling lies" is not the same thing as "disagreeing." The "Liars" approach is breathing fresh air through the country. We've listened to lies euphemized as "misstatements" and "half truths" and "disinformation" for eight years. "Liar" has a simplicity and directness about it that most Americans will find refreshing. We don't mind being disagreed with. We hate liars.