Frames and Framing
Expressing progressive political ideas and values effectively begins with understanding frames. Frames are the mental structures that allow human beings to understand reality — and sometimes to create what we take to be reality. Contemporary research on the brain and the mind has shown that most thought — most of what the brain does — is below the level of consciousness, and these unconscious thoughts frame conscious thought in ways that are not obvious. These mental structures, or frames, appear in and operate through the words we use to discuss the world around us, including politics.
Frames simultaneously shape our thinking and language at multiple levels — the level of moral values, the level of political principles, the level of issue areas (e.g., the environment), the level of a single issue (e.g., the climate crisis), and the level of specific policy (e.g., cap-and-auction). Successful political arguments depend as much on a well-articulated moral frame as they do on policy details — often more. The most effective political messages are those that clearly and coherently link an issue area, single issue, or specific policy to fundamental moral values and political principle frames. Rockridge is the only progressive think tank that takes such a comprehensive view of framing and messaging.
The primary determinant of how someone thinks about politics is what we refer to as their fundamental moral frame or their moral worldview. Progressive politics is about morality, about doing what is right. That moral frame is not always obvious, yet it can be stated simply: Progressives care about people and the earth, and act responsibly on that sense of care. All other progressive values — freedom, fairness, equality, security, opportunity, honesty, community, and all the rest — flow from that basic moral understanding of how people should act in the world.
Conservatives have been more effective than progressives at getting their worldview, or moral frame, into public discourse. So effective, that progressives all too often adopt conservative frames — as members of Congress did in adopting the President's "unitary executive" frame which defined Congress as responsible for carrying out his mission — and thus primarily responsible for the safety of the troops. Congress may argue against the President's Iraq policy, but when they do so using his words, and thus his fundamental moral frame, they put themselves at a distinct disadvantage. It is nearly impossible to persuasively present a progressive policy using conservative language and frames.
The debate on the U.S. response to 9/11 is a great example of how frames work. The phrases "war on terror" and "crimes against humanity" use different words to frame the same issue and, in doing so, evoke different ideas and guide us toward different actions. The phrase "war on terror" frames the issue as an open-ended military action against a vague, indeterminate enemy, with open-ended war powers given to the President for an indefinite period. "Crimes against humanity" frames our response to 9/11 as a police action where international law enforcement agencies are directed to root out groups and individual criminals using many of the same methods effective against crime syndicates. Further, these phrases trigger related moral and political principle frames deep in our unconscious minds, shaping how we experience our relationships to our political leaders and to people in other countries.
"War" triggers fundamental moral and political principle frames that evoke an evil world in which we must look to an authoritarian President as commander-in-chief, whose orders we obey in order to protect our entire society from destruction by foreign enemies. With these frames dominating our thinking, we are more likely to tolerate giving up some of our civil liberties and dropping bombs that kill innocent civilians. By contrast, "crimes against humanity," as both a word and issue frame, triggers deep moral and political principle frames of an interdependent world where dangers occur, but they are not debilitating. With this frame foremost in our minds, we are more likely to protect society by enlisting the police, while also reaching out to our neighbors, who are suffering in other countries where poverty, disease, and oppression make it more likely that people will become terrorists.
The persistent repetition of the "war on terror" word and issue frame triggers and reinforces deep moral and political principle frames. So, even when someone opposes the Iraq policy, they often do it by invoking the frame they wish to negate. This is why Americans who want to shift the ideas underlying American political debate — towards a greater emphasis on the values of empathy, social responsibility, fairness, honesty, integrity, and community — must do so by changing the deep moral and political principle frames that we use in thinking. We do this in large part by stating these frames openly and often. In other words, it is nearly impossible to persuasively articulate a law enforcement policy on Iraq when one is continually using the phrase "war on terror."
Frames matter. Our fundamental moral frame, our worldview, determines how we experience and think about every aspect of our lives, from child rearing to healthcare, from public transportation to national security, from religion to love of country. Yet, people are typically unconscious of how their fundamental moral frames shape their political positions. The Rockridge Institute works to make that thinking more explicit in order to improve political debate.
