Bush at The Wall Street Journal: Frames and Counter-Frames

Not a lot of commentary so far about Bush's visit to The Wall Street Journal (subscription required).  That's not surprising -- there wasn't anything particularly new in the interview, in which he floated a customary set of trial balloons on the way to the inaugural address and the State of the Union.

But reading it did get me thinking -- again -- about framing, and whether to frame, and how to frame.

Submitted for your consideration: the strength of Republican frames -- their breadth -- is also their weakness.  If so, that suggests a different Democratic response than the one proposed by George Lakoff.  Instead of creating a new frame, it will be more effective to expose the gap between the Republican frame and the policy behind it, then propose a different policy.

Examples: 

[Bush] said a big theme of his State of the Union address would be how to make sure the U.S. remains the world's best place to do business. Initiatives will include his efforts to accomplish litigation reform on a number of fronts, including asbestos liability, medical malpractice and class-action reform.

Mr. Bush said he believes that keeping the U.S. business climate healthy is the best way to solve the troubling trade deficit, which has helped sink the value of the dollar versus other major currencies in recent months. "It's a competitive world," Mr. Bush said.

Emphasis mine.  The frame -- making sure the U.S. is the best place to do business -- surrounds a set of proposals for regulatory rollbacks, which are then made urgent because they're presented as a way to solve the trade deficit and stop the fall of the dollar. 

There's also the matter of enforcement:

He praised the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for tough policing of misdeeds in corporate America, but warned of a danger of squelching investments by going too far. "We've been through a very difficult period, and the Justice Department and SEC have been doing a very good job of sending a clear signal that if you break the law there will be consequences," he said.

But he also called for "balance," saying: "At the same time we are mindful that a system that can become too onerous is one that makes America not the best place in the world to do business." He said of SEC Chairman William Donaldson, criticized by some in the business community for being too harsh in regulating corporate behavior: "I think he's doing a fine job."

Again, emphasis mine.  Best place to do business = balance = calling off the regulatory dogs.

Now, this is the point at which the framing mavens would want to re-frame -- talk about, say, "the public protection society," or otherwise set business interests against the people's interest.

But let's think about that for a moment.  Doesn't the goal -- making America the best place to do business -- actually justify regulation?  The theoretical point of regulation -- of all government intervention in the private sector -- is to level the playing field and maintain transparency, in cases where an unbridled market would stray toward cronyism and back-room dealing.  If you accept that it's possible for a regulated market to function better than an unregulated one, then regulation would be a significant aspect of making America the best place to do business.

Now, image what that frame would look like in the hands of, say, Eliot Spitzer.  Democratic counter-message: "Yes, we agree that America needs to be the best place to do business. And to make sure it is, we need to protect the business environment from unscrupulous people and from the system's own worst tendencies.  We need to protect the system from itself, because any unregulated system gets out of balance.  The goals of businesses and investors will only be met if the government -- which is really nothing other than all the people together -- takes smart steps and enacts smart policies to keep the playing field level.  The President is absolutely right about the goal -- and wrong about the policies."

So there we have Eliot Spitzer, promoter of economic development.  Which, by the way, he's going to have to be if he wants to be elected Governor of New York.  But that's a topic for a different time.  The point here is that the Democrats can use exactly the same frame to promote an entirely different set of actions.  They can establish that they're friends of such Republican goals as economic development -- but have a better way to get there.

Other examples: Bush says we need alternative energy sources -- and proposes that we reduce restrictions on the use of coal and nuclear power.  Democratic response: of course we need alternative energy sources -- real ones, new ones, of the kind that can best be jump-started by government investment.

Or: Bush says that that the peoples of the Middle East yearn for democracy.  Democratic response: yes, and the best way to help them is to engage them culturally, economically and diplomatically, not just through sloganeering and military intervention.

Bottom line -- Republicans are good at frames, and bad at policies.  So don't attack the frame.  Use it to get at the policies.  Exploit the gaps between frame and policy, to illuminate real programmatic differences.  At the same time, agreement on the frame might enable you to be better aligned with the electorate on issues and values.    Split the difference between means and ends.

It's not a new technique.  It's an old one (which I might reframe as "proven").

Any takers?