[Paleopsych] framing

[Michael Christopher]

Lynn says:
>>What the Left fails to see is that there needs to be
some value and truth underlying the branding or the
effort will fail. The Right currently argues that the
Left has lost its way and is mindless and reactive.<<

--Right. You have to hijack REAL values in order to
make all that branding and framing seem moral and
honest. Then you can say out of one side of your mouth
"I have Christian values" and out of the other side of
your mouth call your opponent names and trash their
reputation. A real Christian would put an end to such
tactics before they started. A phony one would use
them covertly while appearing untainted in public.
I.E. never call anyone a four letter word when you
know the mic is on.

As long as you have a golden tongue, nobody bothers to
look at what your priorities actually are. Rhetoric
becomes reality, while reality becomes a distraction.
In the case of really good bipolar framing, any truth
that makes you look bad is dismissed as propaganda by
the other side. Ideally, your opponent will sink to
your level and get caught calling you names and using
fuzzy logic with polished rhetorical ornamentation. If
Democrats use the techniques used in this cycle by
Republicans, I truly hope they show genuinely
Christlike behavior, and take the moral high ground.
If they engage in the same machine-like lockstep
namecalling and distortion, I'll feel even more
alienated from the two party system.

What I really want is something other than liberals
and conservatives. People who have some values on each
side of the fence and are willing to hammer out
agreements so that everyone's core concerns are met.
It would help a great deal if people had more direct
input as to where their tax money goes, since the
bipolar cycle is fuelled by resentment against
taxation and government intrusion. Whichever side is
angry, it's angry because it feels forced to
contribute its money to a system which they feel
doesn't have their interests at heart. And it becomes
dangerous when that resentment against taxation bleeds
over into other issues and colors them, prevents them
from being made clear in discussion. When someone
resents paying taxes, their views on social security
might be just a little bit biased in the direction of
ending rather than reforming it, and then rhetoric has
to be "cleaned up" so it sounds like reform. Views on
military strategy might be biased by an unacknowledged
resentment over paying taxes to support military
contractors. The issue of resentment over taxation
should be illuminated and not used to fuel bias in
other contexts, so that other issues can be dealt with
on a more honest plane.

Michael



	
		
__________________________________ 
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/