Thinking Pts Discussion: Chpt 1 Winning and Losing

Wow this discussion went over well.
Hopefully Chapter 2 will generate more interest. Chapt 1 was pretty thin :)

Many apologies for my tardy appearance in this discussion. I have been overwhelmed with other duties of late.

In Bush's speech he says:
"The times in which we work and live are changing dramatically. The workers of our parents' generation typically had one job, one skill, one career, often with one company that provided health care and a pension. And most of those workers were men. Today, workers change jobs, even careers, many times during their lives. And in one of the most dramatic shifts our society has seen, two-thirds of all moms also work outside the home."

Not only does Bush use values, rather than issues, to present his message but he also tells a powerful story of American progress that conceals key truths about the state of the union. In this passage, we are told the story of Liberal Progress which states that human societies evolve toward greater levels of equality, justice, peace, prosperity, and so on. Bush tells us that two-thirds of moms now work outside the home.

Contrast this with Kerry's speech, where he says:
"Here at home, wages are falling, health-care costs are rising, and our great middle class is shrinking. People are working weekends

two jobs, three jobs -- and they're still not getting ahead."

He tells a very different story, one where basic quality of life is deteriorating and the economy is becoming less fair. This is not the Liberal Progress story. It is, however, based on facts and reflects the actual trends in the United States. Despite the accuracy of Kerry's message it is of secondary importance because he falls into the Reactive Trap by responding to current conditions instead of projecting a coherent and inspiring vision. The general tone of his speech is reactive while Bush's speech is both self-congratulatory (look at all the great things I've done) and looking forward (there are more great things like this to come!).

We progressives definitely need to avoid this trap, which is so easy for us to get wrapped up in!

Agreed. Progressives need to be the party of ideas, not critics. And this is part of why I think we really need to think through the ideas put forth by Rockridge and other progressives. Our world view is so different from what is often thrown around in the mainstream (when is the last time you heard sweatshop debated by politicians, yet to any progressive they're a big deal espescially when U.S. apparel is made in them).
We have to positively and proactively think and argue our beliefs and values.
By this I mean-- rather than saying, government is corrupt, and strangled by corporations, we need to articulate our vision for a world free of corporate domination.

I like the idea of considering how we would reframe Kerry’s speech to articulate progressive values or even better taking a crack at rewriting his entire speech as if George Lakoff was running for president.. How do we frame a true story articulating traditional progressive American values that inspire the progressive base and touch partial progressive biconceptuals. I know in my gut that teaching people to nurture is the right thing to do but like many others I have a hard time expressing those ideas at the water cooler. I plan to follow this Blog with interest as I gain confidence in shouting a progressive vision from the roof tops.

I'm just about 3 chapters into Thinking Points and looking forward to these conversations. Here's a first attempt to contribute something of value.

I think about these three points in a slightly different way than they are presented here.
"1) Break out of short-term thinking. We must all communicate progressive frames and values, spreading these ideas so that politicians will know they have progressive backing. So that they can get off the defense and go on the offense.
2) Get out of our issue-silos and begin to articulate coherent progressive visions/agendas and values. Politics are about values. Issues arise from values. Values motivate people.
3) Traps to avoice (sic)-- Issue, Laundry List, No Framing, Centrist etc."

It seems to me that issue-silos can be seen as opportunities to communicate progressive frames and values. Further that those issue-silos are deeply inter-related - at the deep framing level. Then, the message shifts from breaking-out, getting out and avoiding traps to recognizing that each issue is related to a common cluster of principles and values. By shifting our focus and reinforcing those principles and values, we promote sets of ideas rather than single issues.

The silo image bothers me, too. What if we take an organic metaphor; something related to agriculture or gardening. The deep frames are about understanding and nurturing the ground, the soil. In a garden or agriculture metaphor, all issues are connected at the roots. Does this shift do violence to the core ideas?

The term "issue silos" immediately registered with me, because I'd spent 25 years working in the Information Technology industry, and thought leaders in the industry exhorted us to get away from "application silos" and get with the new model, which is sharing information across the enterprise. In this context it means connecting our values to all these issues instead of working on the issues in isolation. I think that if you were talking to a true blue (or should it be red?) W supporter you could list 20 things that Bush has done wrong and the person would just shrug, because they believe in their gut that Bush is on their side. Instead you'd have to get the person talking about their values, and if they are somewhat progressive you could try to lead them towards a progressive position if you could show them that conservatives aren't what they claim to be. Obviously it doesn't happen overnight.