Values in Action

Reclaiming ‘Freedom’

Featured at TomPaine.com on July 11, 2006
by Bernie Horn, Senior Director, Policy & Communications

Freedom is the cornerstone of America’s value system. One poll found that Americans believe—by a margin of 73 to 15—that “freedom” is more important than “equality.” And yet, progressives shy away from the word freedom, allowing the right wing to abuse the term as a justification for preemptive war, extrajudicial imprisonment, warrantless searches, corporate giveaways and environmental devastation.

Freedom—an idea that is crucial to any coherent description of progressive philosophy—is in danger of becoming a meaningless platitude. It’s time to stage a rescue.

That’s why I looked forward to Whose Freedom? the latest book by linguistics professor George Lakoff. By now, most progressive activists are familiar with Lakoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant!, which persuasively explained the insidious impact of right-wing message framing. I am sorry to report that if you’ve read the first chapter of Don’t Think of an Elephant! you won’t learn anything useful from the new book.

If anything, Whose Freedom? will leave progressives confused. Lakoff defines freedom as if it describes every progressive cause, including:

...expanding civil rights, voting rights, property rights, tolerance, education, science, public health, workers’ rights, protected parkland, and the infrastructure for progressive freedom—the banking system, court system, transportation system, scientific research system, social services system, and all the other aspects of the common good that we use our common wealth for.

Whoa! I was hoping the book would give sound advice that could help progressives win the next election. Wading through 266 pages of text in search of practical message framing suggestions, I found none. Lakoff’s general advice is to use freedom to describe nearly everything. The only specific advice about message framing in the entire book is to respond to the right wing’s “activist judges” with the term “freedom judges.”

I respectfully disagree. We cannot criticize the right wing for abusing the word freedom if we misuse it ourselves. We cannot ridicule “freedom fries,” if we invent the term “freedom judges.” Instead of further muddying the linguistic waters, let’s adopt a messaging framework that progressive candidates can understand and use.

In American public policy, progressives should use “freedom” to describe the absence of government restraint on fundamental individual rights such as free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom from warrantless searches and seizures and the right to personal privacy. If we use freedom to describe economic or security concerns, we fall into the right wing’s messaging trap.

The Bush administration has consistently proclaimed to Americans that both the war in Iraq and the “war on terrorism” are in defense of our freedom. Lakoff swallows it, saying “a terrorist attack” is an abridgement of our freedom. Reject that frame! Our freedom is not in jeopardy—neither the Iraqis nor al-Qaida are attempting to invade America and control our government. U.S. military and police actions might be said to protect our security, but not our freedom. Right wingers don’t want to speak of “security” because it leaves them vulnerable to the argument that the Iraq invasion, and many “anti-terror” measures, have made America less secure. So, when we want government to protect us, let’s describe our policies using the values of security, safety or health, not freedom.

Furthermore, conservatives have always equated freedom with capitalism. Even Lakoff embraces the term “free markets.” Reject that frame! Our nation’s market economy is not “free” from government control—nor do progressives think it should be—the market is dominated by federal and state laws and regulations. The terms free market, free enterprise and free trade all support right-wing policies. So, when we need government to act as a referee to level the economic playing field, let’s describe our policies using the values of opportunity, equity and fairness, not freedom. To wit, we favor fair markets—free markets don’t exist.

Most astonishing, I think, is the way the religious right uses the word freedom to mean the very opposite. When they tell school boards to mandate the teaching of “intelligent design” in schools, when they erect monuments to the Ten Commandments in courthouses, when they work to ban all abortions, when they refuse to fill prescriptions for contraception, when they seek to require prayer in public schools, the religious right asserts it’s an exercise in religious freedom. Please, reject that frame!

Use freedom as your bulwark when arguing that government has no proper role. Point out that freedom is one of our most cherished values. Persuade Americans that Clarence Darrow was right when he said: “You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can only be free if I am free.” Religious extremists may never understand this kind of political freedom, but persuadable voters will.

The message framing practiced by the right is designed to attach populist values to their elitist policies. It’s a cynical kind of salesmanship. And the only way to fight back is for progressives to talk about our values, framing our proposals in language that resonates with persuadable voters. Let us restore freedom to its proper place of honor in the progressive lexicon, alongside other powerful political values like opportunity, security and responsibility.

This article can be found on the web at:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/07/11/reclaiming_freedom.php

Ethics and Marriage

February 1, 2006
Tim McFeeley

In his meandering, theme-less State of the Union Address last night, near the conclusion Bush declared:

They [the American people] are concerned about unethical conduct by public officials and discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage.

In 8 seconds, the president dismissed the corruption scandals gripping Congress and his Administration and equated these in the American mind with judges who have applied state constitutional precepts on equality to lesbian and gay couples. The reaction? Applause from both sides of the proverbial aisle – Democrats want to underscore the unethical conduct reference and Republicans want to take another swing at scapegoating homosexuals for the moral decline of America.

It’s yet another example of the way conservative wordsmiths “frame” and mischaracterize events and issues. This simple sentence conjoins public officials who pervert their duties by accepting bribes from the Abramoff crowd with state judges who see unlawful discrimination in denying marriage rights to same-sex couples. Corrupt congressmen and courageous jurists are framed in the same photo and filed under “bad characters” that Americans don’t like. Instead of seeing the real photo of Abramoff gripping Bush, we get a contrived portrait of Randy Cunningham hugging Margaret Marshall (now that’s a mind-bender!)

What’s the answer? At a minimum media commentators need to WAKE UP and deconstruct these faulty frames. And all of us need to watch our backs and fight back every time this word-poison is injected into the public discourse.

Washington Post Spun to the right in "Health Workers' Choice Debated"

February 30, 2006
Bernie Horn

To the Washington Post Ombudsman—

The top story in today’s Washington Post is entitled “Health Workers’ Choice Debated: Proposals Back Right Not to Treat.” All of the text on the front page, including the headline, accepts the conservatives’ message framing strategy. The issue is presented as a question of whether state law should “protect health workers” and their “rights.” I don’t know if you have read much about political message framing (e.g. George Lakoff), but this wording plays into the hands of conservative advocates. This is the language they’re trying to get newspapers to use—because it slants the issue toward their side.

What conservatives want is to deny patients’ rights. They want to enable medical professionals to ignore the Hippocratic oath. In the case of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control—which is the major issue in this subject area right now—the conservatives want to allow pharmacists to overrule the medical judgment of doctors.

Further, the story is entirely about conservative legislation in the states and ignores progressive legislation on the same subject. For example, a law that requires pharmacists to dispense birth control pills was enacted in California in 2005, and similar requirements were imposed on pharmacists by regulation in Illinois, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. Progressives have at least as many victories in the states as conservatives on this subject.

It is awful that reaction from Planned Parenthood and similar organizations is buried. But that’s not the offense. The journalistic error is to turn over the front page of a major newspaper to right-wingers to disseminate their spin. It’s not the lack of balance in quote placement, it is the lack of balance in message framing.