Houston Democrats

krazypuppy demolished this poll here over at TexasKos. The heart of krazypuppy's takedown was that every key question used in the survey was proceeded by a reference to the "war on terror". Thus the skewed outcome . That is called "framing" and in manipulating the average apolitical citizen, it is very powerful tool. It is why progressive's who ram blindly ahead using Repug words are their own worst enemies. It is why you don't use the word 'illegal' in reference to undocumented immigrants.

It ain't about PC, it is about being heard, being an effective voice for Progressive ideas and positions.

The problem with "illegal" is that it talks their langague, it calls forth their ideas, and we lose. You try to think about comprehensive , fair and compassionate reform when your starting point is crime , illegals and criminals. Am I wrong?

So, we end up playing in their ballpark, using their words, reinforcing their ideas, even if it is to say no to them. Almost to the person, friends and acquintances who have spoken to me on this topic have used the word illegal. To a person , the next word out of their mouth was law and laws and enforcement. This is Republican ground. They have owned "law and order" every since Nixon.

Think of it this way, if we are discussing how many troops we should use and how strongly we should punish these "criminals" and never re-frame the issue, at the end of the day we get to influence how hard we punish, They have won the debate. We get no credit at all and we still end up with a system which punishes first and helps a little if at all. That will be calld "compromise" .

Here is how it will play out. At some point they will call us obstructionist, the apolitical onlookers will be inclined to agree. We stand for No, they stand for law and order . The onlookers will want some resolution of the issue. They will offer a "compromise". They will agree to only punish the illegal law breakers a moderate amount, instead of sending them all back as they originally proposed .

From our point of view, what has to happen is 'reframing' of the debate. What do you say about immigration? You should talk of immigration reform framed in terms of fixing , comprehensively, a broken system, not of imposing "law and order" on the illegals. Thus:

"The immigration system is broken and we need to fix it. A bandaide won't do. I believe in an immigration system that provides better security through law enforcement and a fair chance to immigrants. They are seeking the same thing our forefathers were seeking - a way up. Their only offense is trying to provide a better life for themselves and their families through hard work . It is not enough to restore the rule of law, we must also do justice and justice knows no borderline."

We are now talking about Democratic ideas - law, security and compassion. We have now staked out our ground in the debate. Now it is possible the policy we adopt will make us proud, be fairer and more balanced. That is not true as long as all we say is "yes, me too, I want to punish them!" When we say what we believe, to the onlookers, we are not nihilistic obstructionist; we stand FOR something, as much as the Repugs do.

Notice, I didn't even use the word illegal in my statement. I did not reinforce their "frame" by using their language. I used my language, I put forth positive , value based reasons for my choice. I , in other words, changed the conversation , shifting it to my ground and injecting my language .

Even if my ideas are not accepted, the playing field is more level than before. My language and my ideas are out there. People have a choice. At the very least, they will walk away with questions, with a broader vocabulary for thinking about the issue. That is good for us, always good for us. The prevailing frames reinforced in the MSM tend to be Republican because their mighty noise machine has roared unchecked for the last decade or so and been ramping up for at least 40 years on top of that.

The key to all this framing stuff is a lot of theory, but a simple enough formula. Open with statements about what you believe, appeal to solid wholesome American values. Then you add some content. Once the conversation is started, you can talk policy wank if you want, but always contact it back to your values. Life is complicated enough. People want first to know what you stand for, and only then do the detials matter.