Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports:
"We had not built enough of the case" for the sweeping plan, Walker said...
"What I should have done, from a political standpoint, was build that case sooner"....
"They defined it as a rights issue," Walker said. "It's not a rights issue. It's an expensive entitlement."
He's saying he let the other side frame the issue, and he should have gotten out in front with his framing. I know conservatives love to read Saul Alinsky and appropriate advice that was originally written to further lefty causes. Now, it sounds like Walker has been reading
George Lakoff stuff about "framing":
[T[he progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.
The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline - physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.
Lakoff pushes liberals to get their "frame" into the public's head. Walker is saying he wishes he'd pushed the conservative frame. Walker seemed to assume that people understood the problem the way he did and would — after the election — trust him to do what he thought was needed. He wasn't sufficiently into propaganda, he's essentially saying. To say that, of course, is a form of propaganda (because he's subtly flattering himself). But if the other side is aggressively propagandizing, don't you have to enter the fray and counterpropagandize? You have to keep talking to people, even when you have the power to act quietly and industriously, getting things done.
पोस्ट्स
७७ टिप्पण्या:
The conservative worldview....blah blah blah
Complete and utter bullshit.
You can undermine the lefty frame with a few words.
You've got a media problem, however; those words must not confuse soap opera women.
His propaganda bucks up against the propaganda encountered in 8 years of grade school, 4 years of high school, college, left-dominated TV news and newspapers, lefty religious leaders, etc.
It isn't reframing like a picture, but like a car, as in rebuilding one after a a bad wreck.
Not unlike our economy.
Yes, you do have to keep talking to the people. It's a mystery to me why, up until now, conservatives did not do more of this. Perhaps because they are a newer movement, and began in response to progressivism? Because they think that electoral politics is all? That's not enough.
Progressives own the culture; conservatives or centrists need to participate or be left behind in the "grand march through the institutions."
you can't just make a speech or two and expect people to pick up the message you're trying to deliver. you have to go out of your way to engage the populace and convince them your policy/plan/course of action/reading of the situation/whatever is correct.
bush was spectacularly bad at that; reagan was very good.
Why would you allow your basis to be the liberal frame for themselves and for the conservative views? Either allow the liberals to define their "frame" and the conservatives to do the same, or allow them to take the opposite side and frame each other.
In my opinion you set this discussion up on a false platform. I don't know any conservatives that would read that description of their views and agree.
Walker is stating that those open to information would have benefited more from more discussion and explanation, that is not propaganda. Factual discussion of the math is not propaganda. Lying about the math and attaching your own agenda to manipulation of the math is propaganda.
Propaganda is the quoted position you just used to frame this discussion.
Thus whole topic has really become such a bore. Wake me up when there is something new or we talk about boobies.
Lakoff is into metaphor.
Life is a metaphor, he thinks, not seeing that that's a metaphor.
Finding the right words is the problem; once the right words are found, they'll make their own way around the world.
Check out Empson's "The Structure of Complex Words" for a better aspect of propaganda, and for that matter of metaphor.
A metaphor is an equation with a pregnancy.
"Mistakes were made."
Forgiven.
Bullshit. He wanted to be the next Reagan, by announcing he had the National Guard on standby. His budget is the same wingnut think tank written pay to play crap that's being introduced around the country. And roundly hated.
(The Crypto Jew)
He’s probably right, HOWEVER, a few more speeches wouldn’t have made the protests, the flee-bagging, the law suits, the judicial election, and now the “Covert Action” against Prosser any less likely or loud….
It depends on what Walker is trying to say:
1) IF he’s trying to say that better “messaging” would have meant less unpleasantness; he’s dead wrong. The PEU’s and their allies would have continued on with each and everything they have tired. Look at the Civil Rights Movement, did good messaging or good “optics” make the Klan any less likely to be violent or did it make “Bull” Connor any less likely to turn the fire hoses and dogs on the marchers? No.
2) IF, he means, that better messaging would make the revolution more likely to “stick” then yes, he has a point. Public Opinion would sustain the Revolution, IN SPITE of the antics of its opponents.
As Limbaugh says, the problem with the Class of 1994 was that they thought, “Hey we won the Election, the Nation agrees with us.” You can NEVER quit “educating” the public.
lewsar scores a direct hit with the Regan-Bush analogy!
What a skewed view of the conservative worldview...big surprise.
What I've always been satisfied with is that liberalism and conservatism start at opposite ends of the spectrum. Liberals think, deep down, that other people will always act to support the group and put others ahead of themselves. Conservatives, on the other hand, realize that the reality of human nature is toward self-preservation in all its many facets. This isn't to say that conservatism celebrates one over the many, but that we realize it's what actually drives most human behavior and that public policy must be structured to account for this.
The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline - physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline.
That's about 600 acres' alfalfa worth of straw men right there.
Lakoff is a frightful sophist: superficially clever but oh so shallow.
He gives progressives the "cover" to stoop to sheer manipulation, all the while flattering their own vanity that they are the true heirs of Enlightenment rationalism.
At bottom, he's abusing 'science' in the service of an unoriginal political narrative-- giving a hoity-toity "neuro" spin on "false consciousness"
That is the definition liberals use to denigrate conservatives. My own children heard it in high school.
Offering a satisfactory description has little effect on the indoctrinated.
Walker seemed to assume that people understood the problem the way he did
I understood the problem, and I'd like to think that a lot of your commenters also understood.
No matter what Walker does, or tries to explain, people like garage will never catch on.
I dunno. The lines are drawn, and while they have been for awhile, they really solidified under Bush, when partisan anti-Bush hatred became totally untethered from reality. There wasn't anything Walker could've said or done to ease the reaction. These people would've squealed at the loss of their entitlements no matter what he might've said beforehand. But, rather than mewling about what he should've done, there's a lot he can say now, and ongoing, to explain to everybody else why his actions were a necessary thing to do. Snap out of it!
And Joe (TCJ) hits it bang in the nuts about the fact that the "education" PR effort needs--DEMANDS--a 24/7/365 effort.
BTW, there are PLENTY of academic studies to support the view that proper "framing" makes ALL the difference in the world insofar as the general public's take on the subject under discussion/debate. (e.g., look at immigration--illegal OR legal--as viewed thru either the a) national security lens, or b) the "human rights" or, c) the "economic" "human capital" lens.)
Forget framing. "Framing" assumes you'll be given enough leeway to frame by a media that doesn't do whatever it can to torpedo it. Like that's gonna happen.
Lakoff makes the same mistake Thomas Frank makes in "What's the Matter with Kansas." It's all about propaganda, there is no underlying reality. If people don't vote the way I want them to, it's because they've been tricked into voting against their interests.
Too bad if Walker falls for that BS. It speaks poorly of his intelligence and his faith in his own ideas.
Conservatives don't believe people are evil, conservatives believe that people will act in their own interests as they see them and the greater good is served by the "crowd logic" that arises from what appears superficially to be chaotic greed. A successful economy will be based on that truism.
I understood the problem, and I'd like to think that a lot of your commenters also understood.
No matter what Walker does, or tries to explain, people like garage will never catch on.
The "solution" to the "problem" saves the state no money. In Walker's own words. So why do it?
Agreed, that the lines were drawn. As an instructor and union member I saw the inside emails and newsletters and Walker was literally referred to as "Hitler" from the get go, a full year before the election...just got another one last week and he's still literally "Hitler". The powers that be knew exactly what was coming and were talking up and generating the inside demonization throughout the year prior to the election. When they actually lost the election, that's when they started acting surprised.
I'm with Hoosier, it just gets old. And with others that "framing" works and the left has been allowed to do the framing, just like what was used in this article to frame the liberal/conservatives.
But what about the Unions? They protect hard workers in industrial jobs from unsafe work places and poverty wages...right? Scott Walker destroyed them...right? The Rosanna Rosanna Danna act is alive and well in Wisconsin's version of SNL.
I think the real question is: What is it about Wisconsin that restraining public employees' ability to extort higher pay and benefits caused such hysteria?
Other states have done the same thing, absent the hysteria.
Democratic governors of other states have done the same thing, absent the hysteria.
What in the fuck is wrong with Wisconsin?
(The Crypto Jew)
Conservatives don't believe people are evil, conservatives believe that people will act in their own interests as they see them and the greater good is served by the "crowd logic" that arises from what appears superficially to be chaotic greed. A successful economy will be based on that truism.
To parse words with you, YES , Conservatives DO believe people are “evil.” You confuse libertarian conservatism with older conservatism…the Founders were NOT “libertarian conservatives” they saw that people were flawed…that the People of Today/Then were just as fallible, weak, greedy, and banal as the People of Rome and Greece, in their heydays. What they sought to create was a system that would limit the ability of the demagogue and clique to damage the Republic. So no, Conservatives DO see people as “evil.” They were limited, fallible, evil, and weak when they crucified Christ, when they wrote the Constitution, and when they voted for Obama….no different THEN, than today.
Libertarians believe in the “rationality” of people, and hence-some strains, of the perfectibility of People. It is one of the in-built tensions in “Fusion Conservatism”, that at one level Conservatives and Libertarians have a fundamentally different view of people.
I, myself, am a “Utilitarian”…I like Privatized Social Security because I believe it will work better than today’s Social Security. I think many Conservatives are like that, we accept the idea of the marketplace, because it works, in that area, not because we believe in the market place per se.
The word isn't "evil."
People are "sinners."
And, yes, that is the most sensible way to view people.
(The Crypto Jew)
The word isn't "evil."
People are "sinners."
EXACTLY, “Spot On”…You hit it on the head.
+1 to Dad29. There was so much wrong with that description of "conservative framing", I'm amazed that the Professor even attempted to use it as a base for her argument. I agree to some extent that Walker is saying he should have put out more of his own propaganda, but not in the way described.
Personally, I think Walker did just fine. It's a debate, and normally you have one side say their view and then the other respond. However, the protestors and fleeing legislators made such asses of themselves; there was no need for rebuttal. To suggest Walker could have done more is only to assuage the media's meme, "don't you think you could have handled things better".
The whole point of the protestors was to make Walker look like a bad guy. That was their frame.
Walker ought to understand by now if you are going to do the time you might as well commit the crime. Help the WI economy by passing a right to work act (NLRB/Unions vs Boeing as a cautionary tale) and go for broke and get the legislature to ban outright all civil service unions and collective bargaining in WI. Its not like they are going to hate him anymore if he were to accomplish this.
Democratic governors of other states have done the same thing, absent the hysteria.
What in the fuck is wrong with Wisconsin?
Maybe it's the historical context - this is where public unions first began.
As for Walker's "framing"...how does he square that idea with "dropping the bomb" in the faux Koch phone call?...been nice if the paper had asked him that.
(The Crypto Jew)
and go for broke and get the legislature to ban outright all civil service unions and collective bargaining in WI. Its not like they are going to hate him anymore if he were to accomplish this.
Gently, gently, one step at a time…dare I use them as examples, Stalin and Hitler moved against one group at a time…first this group then the next…not all at once….In a few years move to limit the “millicents” and the fire fighters, after all if your teacher can’t agitate why should the Peace Officer or the Fire Fighter? And then become a more right to work state….Revolutions aren’t made in a day.
Look at the Greens, they will ally with anyone to advance their cause, and then move to whittle down their coalition to only they remain, in charge. As an example, in my state Greens, Hunters, Fishermen all aligned against loggers…THEN the Greens and the fisherman turned on the hunters….I’m not sure if the Greens then turned on the Fishermen….a Recession intervened. But the Greens could NEVER have taken on Hunters, Loggers, and Fishermen….but they culd pick them off, one at a time.
When people were protesting about Walker's drastic changes in regard to unions, his supporters said that the Governor's actions should not be a surprise to anyone 'cause he made these promises while running for office. But now Walker is saying that nobody really saw these proposals coming because he didn't explain himself and what he wants to do well enough.
So which is it?
The "solution" to the "problem" saves the state no money. In Walker's own words. So why do it?
right back at ya. if it isn't going to cost you, why all the wailing?
right back at ya. if it isn't going to cost you, why all the wailing?
You first.
When it comes to governing, liberals are much better at framing. Because their sales pitch is so much easier to communicate: "Here is a problem. Here is the government solution."
I actually do Republican communications for a living. This is my ongoing lament/challenge.
It's harder to run for office (or govern) by promising to do...less. At least, it's harder to make that sound appealing to generally apolitical citizens.
So, for the right, it is even MORE important to get out front and frame the issue. In Washington, the debate is, for once, framed well for the right: How can we cut spending. Not SHOULD we, but how. This is a rare opportunity. If the economy picks up and revenue comes in again...back to the free money mindset.
I believe it will cost you. so do you. so your question was really concern troll bullshit.
The "solution" to the "problem" saves the state no money. In Walker's own words. So why do it?
Shame on you. You were shown to be a liar the last time you trotted this out, and now you're back again with the exact same lie as though that never happened? If anyone had any lingering doubts as to your integrity or sincerity, this should seal it. You are a proven liar who willingly and maliciously tries to spread faslehood and ignorance. You have no honor, and you have no integrity.
To put it into terms you will understand: you have less credibility than Andrew Breitbart.
Good day.
It is good that he recognized this early leadership failure. I hope he can do a better job going forward.
"Framing" nonsense. Doesn't amount to bupkis.
Walker is trying to get to "framing." Because we had "framers" who framed the US Constitution.
What Walker saw, though, was that his stock price rose! He came near getting the headline space usually reserved for Chris Christie.
While Walker is hiding from view what the crossing and double-crossing really looks like over at the Supreme's jungle. Where it will fall into his hands ... to replace "somebody."
Oddly,enough, I think that somebody will be Bradley. Of the crooked neck.
Walker can't talk about his real options, though. That would be a spoiler.
Spoilers ruin political shows.
"Framing" nonsense. Doesn't amount to bupkis.
I think the director of the unions' multimillion media effort would disagree.
"Framing" nonsense. Doesn't amount to bupkis.
The American dustbin is full of electoral losers that would probably agree with you.
The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good.
What utter rot.
The world is dangerous. If it wasn't how come they keep pointing out everything is going to kill U and their policies try to mitigate that as much as possible?
Can't run on the playground, can't play dodgeball, etc.
Pampered prisses protected: "Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready
to do violence on their behalf."
Their attitude just goes to prove that they don't understand the nature of man.
domoe
purplepenquin said...
"But now Walker is saying that nobody really saw these proposals coming because he didn't explain himself and what he wants to do well enough.
So which is it?"
Wow, compelling argument there. Except he said no such thing. You do this a lot. Are you stupid, or just a liar?
Now for the facts...he reiterated that his plan shouldn't have been a surprise. His point that is either lost on you (stupid) or ignored by you (liar) is that he should have made a better case for his plans. To simplify, he wasn't short on the "what" but the "why".
Liberals think, deep down, that other people will always act to support the group and put others ahead of themselves.
But they don't act like it.
Limo liberals come to mind.
But they don't act like it.
Limo liberals come to mind.
Which is why I am a conservative. While laudable in theory, they're practices don't jive with reality and their policies require coercion to the point it becomes insufferable. The problem is, there's a very real danger that by the time it becomes insufferable, it may also be irreversible without drastic measures. This has been borne out by history in a number of instances.
Here is a single graphic that shows the kind of nonsense liberals believe:
The Spiral of Empowerment.
And this is the nonsense liberals believe that conservatives believe:
The Spiral of powerlessness.
No, I'm not kidding.
You were shown to be a liar the last time you trotted this out, and now you're back again with the exact same lie as though that never happened?
Walker was asked under oath about provisions in the collective bargaining bill. He said under grilling from Kucinich that it didn't save any money. He was also asked point blank if he campaigned on stripping bargaining rights, and he said he didn't. Furthermore, the document Kucinich had from WI Legislative Bureau concluded the bragaining rights provision wasn't a fiscal issue.
Walker seems to me to be helping the Dems to save face. He says mea culpa, I should have done better. Humility is a very good tactic. What grief would he stirr up if he crowed like the LeBron James of politics. He wants to come across as the Bill Belichick of politics.
I agree that Gov. Walker has not done adequate PR here, but, I don't see any need to bring out high-concept theory here. The only argument Gov. Walker has really made is, "We're broke. We don't have the money."
A better argument would be a longer-term view. If the power of public-sector unions in Wisconsin continues to grow, then Wisconsin will become like New York or Califormia- high tax states with poor public services. This is the end game because increasing pension and retiree benefit costs will crowd out spending for current services, even as the cost of additional hiring becomes (when one considers the pension obligation) prohibitive.
Another argument is that union work rules dilute authority that rightfully belongs to the People. For example, who should decide what is acceptable behavior for an on-duty police officer- the union, or the People, through their elected representatives? Who should decide how many police are needed on each shift- the union, or the People? (This is essentially FDR's agument against public-sector unions).
And let's not even start on the effect of teachers unions on public education.
Fixing the state budget is important, but reducing the power of public-sector unions is also important, and very defensible.
What the public has heard is the unions' claim that he's taking away their [fundamental] rights. It hasn't heard any counter-argument except, "We can't afford this." That's an incomplete argument, and one that just might lose the PR war- with considerable political consequences.
King Richard II's pension after all his time spent in "public service" is almost $184k/yr.
He put in a grand sum of around $400K total over the course of his "public servanthood."
Da former mayor.
Children are born good?? Children are self-conceited, calculating little monsters.
I want liberals to keep listening to Lakoff, though. He could well be their one-way ticket to Palookaville.
Seeing Red said...Liberals think, deep down, that other people will always act to support the group and put others ahead of themselves.
I don't think they really think that deep down or otherwise. I think they think that particular morality needs to be legislated.
But if the other side is aggressively propagandizing, don't you have to enter the fray and counterpropagandize? You have to keep talking to people, even when you have the power to act quietly and industriously, getting things done.
Clearly you don't have to, because Walker succeeded at making all his changes without doing so. When you are able to "get things done", your need to propagandize goes down dramatically. You don't have to engage on the other side's uneven playing field when you are already sitting in the goal.
Would it have been good to more clearly spell out his case? Probably so... but he was guaranteed media that would twist and demonize his message. And he was virtually guaranteed not to change the mind of anyone who was complaining/protesting. The target audience that would actually listen to and consider what he had to say was small, and the effort needed to straighten out the media spin would have been huge.
It's always good for government to explain their goals and actions - but in this case not doing more to explain it probably had very little effect.
I noticed "bullshit" is garage's favorite word.
Well, for Walker to have built support for the idea, he would have had to tell someone about it before he sprung it on the public.
Also, framing is entirely politically neutral. It is just the understanding that organizing information in different ways, or using different words, determines how messages are received. It is put to political ends, but what isn't?
CJinPA: I think the director of the unions' multimillion media effort would disagree.
Really? You see the unions as winning this argument, do you?
In Bizarro World, Walker did more to prepare the public. Or, rather, he tried to prepare the public, but that extra time was used by the unions to better organize them and fill their heads with propaganda.
wv: retros
While the topic is Walker and framing, I feel like digressing. This item from Lakoff, I feel, is flawed:
"[T]he progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family... Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics."
There's a subtle, mistaken backgrounding for the picture being drawn here: It's that the entire goal of nurturing is to continue the infantalization of the individual into adulthood via dependence on government as the proxy for and driving force of "society" (as opposed to being the servant and facilitator of it).
This is a mistaken narrative to build. It sets up a worldview that falsely assigns positive characteristics only to liberal worldviews while misrepresenting conservative philosophies and mistakenly positing them as an opposing pole.
As one example out of that paragraph: The reality is that youth and family nurture is an essential conservative philosophy. Nurture is both empathy with the child, positive reinforcement of the child's good behavior, and practical positive role-modeling for the child in conjunction with the inculcation of discipline, some of it taking the form of negative reinforcement (punishment) and some of it not. They are both components of overall nurture, yet for some odd reason, conservative worldviews are presented as if they're an opposing pole to it.
Furthermore, the end goal of nurture is not to condition into fully grown adults an infatilistic reliance society at large. Rather, it's to enable them to act freely and individually as adult contributors to society, as positive driving forces within it. Not dependent cogs of it.
There's more, but this is already getting to tl;dr length. Others can add on if they feel like it. But the point is that the initial presentation of the starting points - the "framing" (heh!) - is deliberately manipulative. That bothers me.
Getting back on topic:
""What I should have done, from a political standpoint, was build that case sooner"....
"They defined it as a rights issue," Walker said. "It's not a rights issue. It's an expensive entitlement.""
I thought this was already understood from the beginning. But given the tone of the protests, I was obviously wrong. So it looks like he's got a point that he should've evangelized more.
What in the fuck is wrong with Wisconsin?
Wisconsin appears to be ground zero of this cultural revolution, emanating from the right.
Wisconsin appears to be ground zero of this cultural revolution, emanating from the right.
Is it arguably beating back the counter-revolution? The one that tried to unseat the original Revolution?
So, for the right, it is even MORE important to get out front and frame the issue.
I don't think we need to "frame" anything. We need to talk bluntly about the realities of our situation. The facts themselves have framed the issue.
Perhaps Republicans would do better is they spent more time doing that and less time with the framing experts.
Lakoff's view of framing is, itself, framed for liberals who want to believe they lose debates because Republicans are twisting facts.
Walker's problem isn't that he didn't try to frame the issue. That's absolutely preposterous. He tried to frame destroying collective bargaining rights as an economic necessity, which was undermined by the $137M in tax cuts he gave out in January and his own admission that the collective bargaining provisions in his bill didn't actually save any money. Framing research has found that people are basically loss averse. So in a political debate, the side that wants to take things away from people is usually going to suffer.
Lakoff's view of framing is, itself, framed for liberals who want to believe they lose debates because Republicans are twisting facts.
Walker's problem isn't that he didn't try to frame the issue. That's absolutely preposterous. He tried to frame destroying collective bargaining rights as an economic necessity, which was undermined by the $137M in tax cuts he gave out in January and his own admission that the collective bargaining provisions in his bill didn't actually save any money. Framing research has found that people are basically loss averse. So in a political debate, the side that wants to take things away from people is usually going to suffer.
"Would it have been good to more clearly spell out his case? Probably so... but he was guaranteed media that would twist and demonize his message. And he was virtually guaranteed not to change the mind of anyone who was complaining/protesting. The target audience that would actually listen to and consider what he had to say was small, and the effort needed to straighten out the media spin would have been huge."
yes, the effort would be huge. but it is his job to educate the public not only what he is doing but why he is doing it. as was said above, this necessitates a 24/7/365 effort. if may suck, and it may be hard, but it is necessary.
people like garage are never going to listen no matter what is said, but you're not talking to people like him. the true believers/fellow travelers (like nevadabob) will believe you no matter what you say, but you're not talking to them, either.
you're talking to those people in the middle, that listen, that aren't politically wedded to a position or a cause or a political party.
you know, the people that decide elections.
so how about republicans just shut up about how hard it it and go on and do it?
CJinPA,
I actually do Republican communications for a living. This is my ongoing lament/challenge.
Do you buy your whisky by the pallet?
Just wondering. ;)
This is something the media types and the consultants all say is necessary.
The (inset elective office) must explain to the people the reasons for (insert policy), as if everyone were so many idiots.
(Hmmm...)
Anyone paying attention usually knows whether they like the idea or not and the rest will roll over and go back to DWTS anyway.
Of course, after years of Lefty propaganda where even otherwise intelligent Conservatives have been gulled into buying nonsense like, "Willie left with a budget surplus", or "We're lousy at nation-building", sometimes the dead wood has to be cleared away.
In this case, it was unnecessary. "We're broke" pretty much explains itself.
Walker was asked under oath about provisions in the collective bargaining bill. He said under grilling from Kucinich that one particular provision didn't save any money.
Fixed for truth.
But you knew that, because it was pointed out to you in the previous discussion, and you as much as acknowledged that you were wrong.
And what do we call someone who says something they know to be wrong? That's right. A liar.
This:
Bullshit. He wanted to be the next Reagan, by announcing he had the National Guard on standby. His budget is the same wingnut think tank written pay to play crap that's being introduced around the country. And roundly hated.
demonstrates why framing would not have been helpful.
At the core of Gov. Walker is one essential evil aspect:
he's a REPUBLICAN
Is it arguably beating back the counter-revolution? The one that tried to unseat the original Revolution?
The cultural revolution I mark is the one when boomers came of age. With Reagan there was a mini cultural revolution to counter it, but GHWB was not able to sustain it, and in fact undermined it.
What we are seeing now is (hopefully) the beginning of a permanent correction at last to the excesses of the 1960s.
@Pogo
The kind of nonsense that liberals think conservatives believe about liberals is that Democrats are godless.
The cultural revolution I mark is the one when boomers came of age. With Reagan there was a mini cultural revolution to counter it
My point was that the revolution of the Founders stood until the Boomers and their counter-revolution. If Reagan was pushing back against that, I'm not sure what the correct term is (counter-counter-revolution seems cumbersome), but I would suggest we're still fighting their counter-revolution to begin with.
In the aggregate, weighing all the good and bad things that arose from Boomerisms, I doubt history is going to judge them well.
lol...WV - "farce"
Governor Walker, after that one incident, has at least admitted his failure to counter the 'narrative' that the press aided his political enemies in foisting on the public. Hopefully he'll find effective tactics for use in future battles.
President GW Bush never learned that lesson. Had he done so, and made effective efforts to keep up his end of the arguments over those tortured eight years, nature (and the perversity of public opinion) would not have allowed the vacuum, formed by his failure to keep the initiative on dozens of such events, to be filled by the glib, shallow, unqualified anti-Bush Obama.
Walker does not have the right kind of personality to do himself good in media appearances. He's a dour, confrontational wonk and he spends no time trying to sell his policies except to those who voted for him.
It's instructive to see how Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie have done as much or more to rein in public unions and spending, and gotten nowhere near the flak that Walker has gotten.
Imagine that Walker had barnstormed the state, conveying in a warm, open, and friendly manner the simple message that "I'm doing this for you and your kids' future."
Maybe all I'm saying is that in his first weeks, Walker could have used some savvy media-spin advice. Not that this would have changed the media's attitude, but it could have limited the damage somewhat, and positioned him and his policies as being on the side of the people, not the bullying unions.
I think — and hope — that the recall elections will show that people really are on Walker's side. But it sure wouldn't hurt if he learned how to warm up a crowd and get them to share in what he's trying to do.
The dirty little secret is, most people know that this is not only the right thing to do, but a fiscal necessity.
Its just that not everyone is willing to admit being on the dole from the public trough. Or admit they can pull more of their own weight.
Because there isn't anyone that doesn't like a discount.
In the current economic environment isn't the "framing" pretty straight forward? The government is prospering while millions of people are doing poorly. There is nothing about that that is difficult to understand. Unless you work for the government.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा