Framing Social Security

Janet Hook of the Los Angeles Times discusses the media-political battle for framing the emerging battle for Social Security "reform". The article includes a report of a House Democrats' "closed-door session to discuss strategy," where they

heard George Lakoff, an expert on political communication at UC Berkeley, give a sober assessment of how Democrats were at a disadvantage because Republicans had successfully set the framework for the debate. For years, conservatives have been broadcasting messages that lay the groundwork for revamping the program, relentlessly arguing that Social Security is unsustainable. Democrats have not successfully countered with the view that the program is in good health and sustainable for decades to come with relatively minor modifications. The result: Polls show that huge majorities of Americans lack confidence that Social Security will meet their needs in retirement. An often-cited 1994 survey found that more people between the ages of 18 and 34 believed in UFOs than believed Social Security would exist by the time they retired.

George Lakoff is a linguistics professor at UC Berkeley, and an expert in language and framing in politics. He has assumed a higher media profile of late, esepcially as he has become more closely identified with the Democratic Party. For example, back in July, he appeared on NOW With Bill Moyers, arguing that the Republicans have won the battle of framing public issues with terms such as “tax relief,” “common sense forest management,” etc. – plus of course “death tax,” “pro-life” etc. Lakoff is very effective at making an argument I agree with: That the battle for political supremacy in this country is a battle for media agenda-setting and framing, and for a long time the conservatives have been doing this far far better, while the liberals have sat on their laurels. That has to end. I hope more and more people on the left are listening closely to Lakoff.