Don’t Think LIKE an Elephant

I was working on the Hill when George Lakoff’s book, Don’t Think of an Elephant, came out.  Within a week, I had five different people tell me I should read it, and it soon became a Democratic cult favorite.  For anyone not familiar with the book, it focuses on the importance of framing a debate (there is a summary in the hyperlink above), and it is well-worth the read.  But truth be told, most of what Lakoff says is just basic common sense.  His most basic point was, “don’t fight on the other guy’s turf.”  Republicans have long been experts at framing debates, picking the turf to fight on, and choosing terms and sound bite arguments that most Americans agree with.  Democrats on the other hand…well, let’s just say we haven’t been as effective (although we are getting better).

Because Democrats have spent so long thinking of things in Republican terms and arguing from that perspective, it is not easy to change our mindset and stop thinking like they do.  It may not be easy, but we must do it for both political and policy reasons.  We won’t win if we allow Republicans to frame the debate (barring a complete melt-down on their part).  So we have to change for political power reasons.  But we also have to reframe the discussion so that we can talk about the issues we care most about and present policy solutions that will actually help move things forward.

I’ve written in more detail about abortion before, but as a Party we must absolutely reject the Republican alternatives of being for abortion on demand or for protecting babies.  Rather, we need should talk solely about the true alternatives:  are you for criminalization or for actually tackling the problem and working to reduce the need for and number of abortions?

On the environment, it’s not a question of whether science has proven without a shadow of a doubt that humans are responsible for global warming, and it’s not a choice between protecting human life and the poor and helping spotted owls.  The question is whether or not we have a moral responsibility to care for God’s Creation and what the vast preponderance of the evidence says.

On gun control, can we please stop allowing it to be a choice between outlawing all firearms or protecting second amendment rights?   Whenever the other side tries to frame it like that (and they ALWAYS do), we should refuse to answer the question without addressing the framing.  The alternatives are not zero regulation of weapons designed solely to kill people and forbidding hunting.  Rather, the question is are we going to allow automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds, and violent criminals to purchase a gun at a moment’s notice or are we going to put reasonable restrictions on the weapons and ammunition whose sole purpose is to kill humans?

And on family values and marriage, can we please stop walking into the Republican trap of spending all our time arguing over those terms in the context of gay marriage?  There are a lot more effective ways to protect families than by passing another law defining the term.  But rather than arguing that gay marriage is ok because Jesus didn’t talk about it (a really bad argument since basically every Christian denomination considers the entire New Testament as authoritative) and because people are getting divorced anyway, our response to anyone from the religious right who starts having a conniption about gay marriage should be to simply insist that they tell us what they are doing about divorce and adultery first…not because we’re arguing that gay marriage is ok or that divorced people are the ones really going to Hell, but simply and solely because pretty much by definition, divorce and adultery are clearly the greatest threat to traditional marriage.  So before we’re even willing to talk about how society will deal with the “threat” of gay marriage, we should insist that we first talk about divorce and adultery.

As I’ve said in previous posts (and where I disagree with some of the other writers on this site), when Jesus told the mob not to cast the first stone and when he said that “we should not judge,” he did not stop there.  After clearing the mob, he told the woman to go and sin no more.  And after telling people not to judge in the Sermon on the Mount, he went on to explain his point by saying that in the ways we judge others, we too will be judged.  Jesus had no problem “judging” right from wrong and calling a sin a sin, but woe to those who take it upon themselves to act as God’s judge on the sinner.

Jesus’ message was not a Gnostic one meant to create a relativistic, “anything-goes” society.  And there is no reason to frame our arguments in such a way as to imply that we support one.  The fact that Democrats continue to give that impression is why we often lose (especially with religious audiences) in our arguments against the Pharisaical judgments made by the religious right and Republican strategists trying to mobilize their base through fear.  Rather than choosing the opposite position of theirs to argue, we should respond to them as Jesus did.  Jesus didn’t counter the Pharisees by saying that their laws were wrong or outdated, and Jesus REFUSED to argue on their terms.  Instead, he simply used their own arguments and purported motives to call them to a higher purpose and truer service to God.  Jesus didn’t think in their terms or accept their framing of the argument.  Instead, he thought in God’s terms.

I’m not saying we can quite achieve that level of thinking.  And I sure don’t mean that our reframing of the issues means that finally someone is speaking for God.

But I do believe that it is possible to believe in right and wrong and still sit down with the tax collectors and prostitutes.  It is possible to be firm while still making our primary characteristic and witness to the world one of compassion.  It is still possible to believe that we can know God’s will and to be assured of his existence and plan for the world while also being religiously humble.  It is possible to judge acts and say that sin does exist without throwing stones and being a hypocrite.  In short, it is possible to start changing the religious and political debate in this country if we start thinking in different terms and refusing to allow the other side to pick the topic and set the rules for debate.