I’d been thinking about posting the link to George Lakoff’s take on frames for OWS for some time, but I think it’s especially good now, when the movement is not only changing but gaining momentum.
I’ve been a student of Lakoff for awhile now, and he’s someone to pay attention to if you haven’t. He’s a master communicator, and has explained the processes by which we talk about politics in this country very well.
Definition of Frames: Frames are part of competing moral systems that are used in political discourse and in charting political action.
He understands that the Right has done a freaking fantastic job of framing their positions over the past 30 years. Their authoritarian reason for being lends itself to this – i.e., the strong “father leader” dictates from the top down, and there’s no room for argument. The Left, on the other hand, is collaborative, democratic and encourages dissent – making for a much rougher road in hammering out positions everyone can agree on.
First of all, Lakoff says, Wall Street is the appropriate place to focus the Occupy efforts, since that is the place in the U.S. that funds overwhelming corporate influence in elections, the right-wing media and policy institutions.
“It appears to me that OWS has a progressive moral vision and view of democracy, and that what it is protesting is the disastrous effects that have come from operating with a conservative moral, economic, and political worldview.”
He reminds us, once again (a la Elizabeth Warren) that nobody makes it on their own. Success in the private sphere is due to the support of The Public – education, justice, transportation, resources, regulations, safety nets, arts and culture, trade policies, etc. This is the “frame” from which all OWS policy might follow.
Possible Moral Frames for OWS Include:
- Democracy should be about the 99% – therefore, no corporate money should be in politics. We need publicly funded elections, however we can do it.
- Strong Wages Make a Strong America – money spurs growth and makes individual lives better
- Global Citizenship – America was the moral beacon of the world. It can be that way again.
- Nature – we are destroying the planet through activities that spur global warming and pollution. It is our duty as The Public to preserve nature for the future.
I urge you to read and process Lakoff’s thoughts and consider them in your own thinking about OWS and what it all should mean.
Well, we’ve suggested a great deal of problem, we start with the cultural restrictions of our childhood, we deduced that that masturbation, nocturnal emissions and erections may be perverted by misbelieves of different kind (cultural, buy viagra pills religious, individual). They are appointed for the live promotion to the medicine then you will not viagra no prescription face these side effects. The pill increases your sex drive and helps have commander cialis http://www.donssite.com/steertech/freightliner-chrome-exhaust-steering-repair.htm multiple orgasms. All these herbs are blended in right combination and processed further in the decoction of Musli Semal, Musli Sya and Gokhru to increase semen volume and sperm count, include oysters, chicken, white beans and walnuts in your viagra generika mastercard daily diet.
I read Lakoff’s piece with interest. I think that the OWS and its multitudinous offspring should read it and take it to heart before they lose the support of 98% of the 99% they claim to represent. From my perspective, they are focusing (in SF and Oakland anyway) on all the wrong things and alienating potential allies (like me). This guy seems to grasp that in order to succeed, in order to become a moral force for change, they have to sway voters and win “hearts and minds.”
Right now, too many seem to be focused only on preserving messy encampments and treating the dwindling middle class as the enemy. Neither I nor anyone I know will ever be anywhere NEAR the 1%–but I also do not identify with any of the local OWS activity (what is the point of breaking the windows of small businesses? of intimidating cafe customers? etc.) If they don’t the seize opportunity to issue some positive message, support of the people they most need is going to erode in the face of outrageous bad behavior with no apparent thoughtful message worth hearing. I live in what is arguably the most “liberal-progressive” urban area in the United States. Almost everyone I know is an Obama lovin’ hard-core Democrat, and virtually none of them have any respect left for (at least our local versions of) OWS.
I have hope for the movement. Yes, it is inchoate and messy right now. But it’s also exciting and truly, I believe, grassroots. There are those outliers who will take advantage of any situation – someone sent me a video of someone demanding free college tuition, for instance – which even I think is too out there (though they have it places in Europe, though the cherished welfare states of those nations lookin kinda shaky). I predict the OWS will die down a bit in the worst of the winter and come back strong in the Spring, hopefully with a clearer focus. And I agree, the fringe element helps no one – but you also have to ask the question about the MSM coverage of those parts of it, and the masters they are required to serve. Not to be paranoid, but… it’s there.
It’s mostly been a gigantic mess up here-kinda like some dirty concrete version of Burning Man. I don’t think OWS is about pitching tents and partying. There was one sizable and pretty effective march in Oakland a few weeks ago which could have begun to sway larger numbers to the cause, but then it all devolved into squabbling and skirmishes. I hope you are right that wiser heads will prevail soon, and that they can start putting out clear messages to counter the right, or the 2012 elections won’t be pretty. Not that anyone expected anything else, but the failure of the budget “supercommittee” seems to me to leave BOTH sides very vulnerable to an angry electorate. If OWS is going to be the driving force against the right, spring is probably too late.
Here’s a weird random thing (nothing to do with OWS). SF approved public funding for the mayoral election. Once a candidate raised $25K, each additional dollar raised from an SF resident earned $4 in public funding. A candidate could get a max of $900K from public funds. There were 16 candidates and most took the help (I think Ed Lee–the eventual winner–did not). But there was a crazy unintended consequence: If a candidate dropped out of the race, he or she was obligated to pay the public money back. So, even though by election time, there were probably 10 of the 16 who had zero chance, they more or less HAD to continue to compaign and divert attention and resources from the viable candidates just so they wouldn’t have “dropped out” and thus had to repay the money.
Crazy eh? I support public funding of elections but hope that smarter people write the laws so that this doesn’t happen on a larger scale (or even small scale–I think the SF law will be rewritten before the next election–I hope so anyway!)
Agree, the SF funding scheme doesn’t seem to be very well thought out… hopefully they can figure out a better way to do it. Seems like an enormous waste of money.