In my previous entry I explained a bit of the obvious, namely the nature of the health care scam and how it came about. Today I’m going to begin my series on what we can do to dismantle that operation, and replace it with something that works for all Americans. Much of what I am about to write has been explained before, by far more learned and eloquent persons such as myself, but it helps to stay up-to-date on ideas.
Before we can even begin to replace the existing system, we must understand why this task is so difficult to accomplish. It is not enough, as George Lakoff pointed out, to have truth and facts on our side; we have to be able to present them in such a way as to make people accept our argument. In this area we on the left have been unforgivably negligent, allowing movement conservatives to frame and control the national dialog. We can turn this around, but in order to do so we must first understand how and why the opposition has enjoyed so much success.
Let’s take a hot-button issue, say, family values. A recent online acquaintance helped me by providing a solid argument for why this can be used to take back control of the dialog. Preachers and conservative politicians rail on about protecting “family” values, but what are they and from what do they need to be protected?
Usually these so-called values include the following: a husband and wife, living together in a marital situation; a couple of children, maybe more; Father goes off to work while Mother stays home and runs the household chores (though this role has changed over time so that now Mother works as well); the children are obedient, don’t have sex until they’re safely married, and don’t do drugs; and the family has a strong religious morality-usually Christian.
Where do threats come from? The removal of religion from public institutes of learning; homosexuals marrying, thereby challenging the conventional tradition of marriage in America that is define as one man, one woman; perceived permissiveness in the culture, usually sexual in nature; disobedience and defiance of authority; and the intermingling of groups previously considered segregated by necessity. Challenges to religious authority take the form of tolerance of other religious beliefs, and accommodations thereto. Threats also come from the exertion of rights by other groups, such as women, Blacks and other racial minorities, and homosexuals.
Conservatives narrowly define so-called family values, and then frame the question in terms that force ideological opponents to accept their definitions, or else appear to devalue or disregard the value of traditional family structures and beliefs. By forcing us to accept their definitions, we cede the argument that not only might there be different sets of values, but that the question itself is the wrong one to ask.
If you support family values, the far right demands, then it follows that you must support what we tell you to. This means no taxes for the wealthy (who are always labeled-falsely-as average Americans, middle class folk); strong moral grounding (nearly always framed in Christian values, albeit Old testament ones); opposing “challenges” to traditional family units (gay marriage); and so forth. If you don’t, the argument goes, then you don’t really support “traditional” family values.
My online acquaintance urges us to frame the debate as follows: instead of accepting the rhetoric of the far right, we challenge it by posing a different question: valuing families. This includes ensuring decent jobs and wages; good, adequately funded schools; adequate health care for all; and so on. This is an excellent idea, but executing it is not nearly so easy as it might seem.
For instance, it’s one thing to ask your opponent, “Do you value families?” But can you explain to him the how’s and why’s of it? Do you understand them? What does valuing families entail? Can you ask the question in such a way as to put your opponent on guard and always on the defensive, thus taking control of the debate? Can you, if called upon, become confrontational with your adversary? These and related questions must be answered before we can take the next step.
As an experiment, jot down what you think are good ways to value families. Include such things as access to good health care, a good education, clean air, water and food, adequate wages, and so on. Then sit down with a friend and roleplay scenarios. Be sure to take notes, and be prepared to make mistakes, especially early on (errors are surprisingly effective teachers).
The first step is to learn how and why the far right is able to seize control of the discussion, and keep it. The second is to learn how to mount an effective counterargument that allows you to reshape the tone and take back control. Once you’ve mastered that, then you’ll be ready to take the next step.
Good evening, and welcome to a semi-retro version of the EENR: the Edwards Evening News Round-up. 
This morning I watched This Week as John McCain was being interviewed. It was clear many times that McCain was very uncomfortable with Georgie’s questions, most of which were legitimate about McCain’s policies and agenda. He squirmed in his chair, dodged most of the answers. In particular, the one about health care seemed to have gotten his hackles up when Elizabeth Edwards’ criticism was displayed on the screen.