Reframing 'Reform'
http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2006/01/please_dont_say.html
Who is responsible for the honest functioning of our government? When we call the present indiscretions a lobbying scandal or legislate for lobbying reform this not only demonstrates but actually reinforces a particular understanding of who’s to blame: the lobbyists. Calling it a Congressional scandal and demanding integrity from the leaders we elect reframes both the past culpability and future responsibility for proper functioning of government.Newspapers have been referring to the scandals as lobbying scandals, and the reform proposals put forth by both parties as lobbying reform bills (as seen here, here and here). Centering the frame on the lobbyist as the volitional agent puts others involved in the background as passive participants. The name of the Democratic reform bill, however, is the “Honest Leadership, Open Government Act.” Referring to the problem this way puts our leaders and our Government front and center as being responsible for what happened; the lobbyists and their actions become periphery.
The proposed bills reflects this crucial distinction in conceptualizing the scandal. The Republican bill focuses the restrictions on what lobbyists and ex-Congressmen can and cannot do. The Democratic bill has the Congressmen as the agent of each sentence, restricting their behavior rather than that of the lobbyist.
This shows the importance of not only highlighting the right frame, but also of centering the right components within it. Two very different ways of describing the same transaction, “the owner sold Pat the chair” and “Pat bought a chair from the owner” illustrate this phenomenon. If the chair breaks down in the first scenario it would seem incumbent upon the owner to fix it – the second scenario seems to entail buyer beware. This same logic applies to this latest scandal – are the Congressman or lobbyists the focus of these events?
