All posts by Curtis

Framing the Political Spectrum

January 9, 2014 Curtis 3 Comments

Framing political opinion as either left or right puts people into boxes that often don’t fit them. George Lakoff identifies basic two systems of moral reasoning, which he calls the “strict-father model” and the “nurturant-parent model.” His books about politics and many of his blog posts describe these, and I strongly recommend reading Lakoff. So far this seems to support the left-right political spectrum, right?

Ah, but Dr. Lakoff’s research has found that many–if not most–Americans use both systems of moral reasoning on different political issues. For example, I want government to be a nurturant parent toward citizens most of the time but a strict father toward misbehaving corporations. All of a sudden, we’re not just one or the other.

I think a better metaphor than the left-right political spectrum is the Political Compass. This makes left and right one axis and authoritarian-libertarian a second axis. Take its test and see what you think!

A potential problem for this system in America is that the term libertarian refers to a specific set of ideologies and even a political party. I do think that progressives should talk about authoritarianism when appropriate. But if we don’t want to advertise the libertarian movement, what term should we use as the opposite of authoritarian?

Framing Political Correctness

January 8, 2014 Curtis Leave a comment

I first heard the phrase political correctness (PC) in the early 1990s. Do you know its origin?

It refers to using language to emphasize people as human beings that have certain characteristics rather than defining them by their characteristics. I’ve heard it called “person-first” language, and that’s how I’ll call it. Here are some examples of obsolete terms from my childhood with their person-first replacements:

Obsolete Term	New, Better, Person-first Term
Colored	Person of color or African-American
Retard	Person with mental retardation
Cripple	Person with a disability
Schizophrenic	Person with schizophrenia

I see the adoption of person-first language as an important advance in American culture. It’s a way to show that we appreciate our fellow Americans as human beings.

So why do some deride it as political correctness? This phrase invokes a worldview of elites imposing an orthodoxy on people that don’t want it. There may just be some of this until person-first language becomes accepted everywhere.

The truth is that these groups and others often insist on person-first language for themselves. They don’t want to be called by the old terms that defined them as different from others and perhaps less of a person. It’s sad to think that courtesy could be so politically charged.

I think that when others talk about political correctness, progressives should talk about person-first language and putting people first. This is still a new idea to many, so please do so with kindness.

How do you think political correctness should be reframed? What have I missed?

P.S. One the tags that my blogging platform recommended for this post was “Geraldo Rivera!” How about that? Also “Georgia.” I’m scratching my head.

Framing Workers

January 7, 2014 Curtis 1 Comment

While extreme conservatives frame business owners and the 1% as job creators, George Lakoff makes an important point about the role of workers in business. Chapter 14 of his excellent Little Blue Book is titled “Workers Are Profit Creators.” And so we are!

Here’s what he recommends saying (emphasis in original, p. 85):

Workers are profit creators. Corporations can profit only if people work for them.

Health care benefits and pensions are part of the pay earned by workers. They are deferred payments for work done.

Health care benefits and pensions benefit the workers and the companies that provide them.

Health care benefits and pensions add to profits. They buy loyalty so that companies can avoid the costs of recruiting and training new employees as well as the costs of operating with untrained employees.

Corporations have an ethical responsibility to pay in full for work done. That includes benefits and pensions.

Corporations are ethically responsible for setting aside funds for workers’ deferred payments and not using them for anything else. Spending those funds–on capital investment, stockholder dividends, or payments and bonuses to top managers–is unethical.

I strongly recommend the book. But how do you think workers should be talked about?

Framing Unemployment Insurance

January 6, 2014 Curtis 1 Comment

In media reports that I’ve heard, defenders of unemployment insurance have emphasized the economic importance of continuing long-term unemployment insurance. While this fact matters, unemployment insurance requires defense on moral grounds also.

Here’s an attempt:

America is a nation composed not only of individuals but also of families, communities, cities, and states. Americans care about each other, and our wellbeing and suffering affect us all. Understanding this, during the Great Depression, the government wisely responded to mass unemployment, the collapse of the middle class, and rising poverty in part by establishing social insurance such Social Security and unemployment insurance.

In unemployment insurance, employers pay into state insurance trusts that pay benefits when workers lose their jobs, typically due to termination or layoff. It’s right that employers should pay the premiums because they decide who is fired and laid off and therefore are responsible for the worker’s unemployment.

Unemployed workers deserve our support not only because they need it to support their families while finding their next job but also because America is a country that values hard work and the people who do it. America is the Land of Opportunity and wants unemployment to be an opportunity for new work. We don’t accept that an employer’s decision to let someone go should mean that family should starve. We want to help make that next opportunity possible.

When Congress cancels long-term unemployment insurance, it sends the opposite message. That’s wrong.

What do you think the moral case for unemployment insurance should be?

Unemployment Insurance Recipients

January 3, 2014 Curtis 2 Comments

With federal unemployment insurance currently cancelled for unemployed Americans, it’s important to talk about the topic carefully. As insurance, it pays benefit checks when Americans file eligible claims. Therefore, these checks are unemployment insurance benefits.

While this phrase is accurate, journalists and others sometimes abbreviate it to unemployment benefits or jobless benefits. This sounds as if the checks were a benefit of unemployment instead of a benefit of unemployment insurance. It therefore unconsciously and misleadingly advances the conservative view that cash benefits discourage individual initiative and employment. Unemployment benefits and jobless benefits should be avoided.

The truth is that the checks are benefits of insurance for which their employers have paid taxes while the beneficiaries were employed. The amounts paid are typically far less than people earned while working but provide critical support to families in crisis. The unemployment insurance program typically also requires beneficiaries to apply for jobs every week.

I’ve also sometimes (e.g. this NPR story) heard beneficiaries of unemployment insurance called recipients. This word connotes welfare instead of insurance and should be avoided–even for those in a welfare program.

I think progressives should use the phrase unemployment insurance beneficiaries or Americans seeking to end their unemployment.

What do you think?

Another Way to Frame Gun Control

January 2, 2014 Curtis 6 Comments

Why do we require deadly weapons to be registered? It’s the same reason that we require motor vehicles to be registered: they impose costs on society.

While most people most of the time drive safely and lawfully, motor vehicles are dangerous. They kill thousands every year. Every year, law enforcement must solve countless crimes that involve motor vehicles. We require drivers:

to be at least a certain age,
to pass an exam about the rules of the road,
to demonstrate skill in driving,
to present a drivers license and proof of liability insurance, and
to pay taxes to pay for the maintenance of the streets and highways on which we drive.

While most people most of the time use deadly weapons safely and lawfully, weapons injure and kill thousands accidentally or on purpose. They are involved in countless crimes that police must try to solve. Because of these costs and devastating losses, it’s completely appropriate that the authorities:

require registration of weapons,
charge fees that are commensurate with the costs imposed on society by weapons, and
require that the owners demonstrate knowledge of their safe use and storage.

Doing so is in everyone’s interest, and failing to do so would be irresponsible.

The only one I know of that wouldn’t see it in their interest are criminals and those few extremists that want to own weapons without any accountability to their neighbors. That’s shirking responsibility, and it’s wrong.

Therefore, I propose reframing what is now framed as gun control as registration of deadly weapons and its opponents as the irresponsible few that want to own deadly weapons without accountability.

What do you think they should be called? Does anyone know if owners of deadly weapons are required to carry liability insurance and register annually like owners of cars and trucks? If they aren’t, they should be because the danger the weapons pose persists from year to year.

Framing Climate Change

December 20, 2013 Curtis Leave a comment

As with global warming, the phrase climate change fails to convey the urgency of the situation. Although it might be appropriate in scientific descriptions of climate, when used in politics, it sounds as if there’s nothing to be done except prepare for it. That false and morally wrong because we can respond more effectively to the climate crisis, and failing to do so would be irresponsible.

As discussed in the global warming post, two possible alternatives are to frame the issue as the climate crisis and the planet having a fever that we must treat.

What do you think? Is climate change a good phrase for progressives that want to protect ourselves and future generations? Or should we use a different one?

Framing Global Warming

December 19, 2013 Curtis 2 Comments

In The Political Brain, Drew Westen correctly points out that the phrase global warming does not convey the urgency of the problem:

“Warming” has positive connotation, suggesting, at worst, the need for a little extra sub block. “Greenhouse gases” sound like a problem a florist might worry about as Valentine’s Day approaches or something generated by tainted spinach. And for most people, dire warnings about the ocean getting a degree or two warmer let to little more than the thought, “Good, maybe the ocean won’t be so cold on Memorial Day weekend.”

But two features of [Al] Gore’s presentation [An Inconvenient Truth] changed all that. The first was his evocative choice of words. He talked about a “climate crisis”–a phrase with very different connotations than “global warming”–and he ended the film with stirring words about the earth that were anything but abstract: “This is our only home.“

The climate crisis is an emergency that demands swift action. As Grist.org reported in 2009, the scientific journal Nature specified a “safe operating space for humanity” with indicators estimating how close to Earth’s boundaries for supporting life we are.

Check out the thermometers in the Grist article! They show that Earth is already past the tipping points for “climate change” (another phrase to avoid), biodiversity loss, and the nitrogen cycle and have reached tipping points for ozone depletion and ocean acidification.

In addition to talking about climate crisis, progressives should use the title of the thermometer graphic: “The planet has a fever.” When someone has a fever, he or she needs care and needs it now, not when we can fit it into our schedule.

A great thing about the fever metaphor is that it doesn’t matter who caused the fever; what counts is accurate diagnosis and prompt treatment. When denialists claim, , progressives could reply,

What do you think? Does global warming need a reframe? What do you think of “climate crisis” and the fever metaphor? What would you suggest?

Framing Taxpayers

December 18, 2013 Curtis 1 Comment

Because we have responsibilities in many areas of life, Americans perform many roles. One of life’s complexities is that sometimes these roles have interests that conflict with one another. For example, as a taxpayer, our desire is for the lowest possible tax bill. However, as motorists, we want our streets and highways in good repair, which could mean higher taxes.

When extreme conservatives try to minimize the public sector, partly by emphasizing government debt, they exalt Americans’ taxpayer role above the others. We should remember that taxpayers include corporations as well as human beings, so it’s important to clarify who extreme conservatives are talking about when they talk about taxpayers.

But even more important, progressives should reframe the debate by talking about the other roles we perform and how they could be harmed by maximizing the taxpayer’s desire for minimum taxation.

For example:

Americans perform many roles. In politics at least, the role of citizen can encompass roles such as parent, neighbor, taxpayer, consumer, employer, worker, investor, and volunteer.

As parents and others that love children, will our public schools have the funding they need?
As citizens, will we be able to participate in elections and public meetings, visit public parks, drive on safe streets, enjoy police and fire protection, and benefit from wise urban planning and transportation systems, or will tax cuts be used to reduce our access to these public goods?
As workers, will the government protect our rights if we suffer discrimination or unacceptable working conditions, or will tax cuts have left the government too weak to help?
As employers, will the police and fire departments protect our property, or will we have to hire our own security?
As consumers, will we enjoy safe food and other products, or will tax cuts mean that corporations can sell us dangerous stuff?
As investors, will we have accurate information about where we’re putting our money, or will tax cuts mean that banks and other companies can deceive us?

Of these roles, I consider that of citizen as including all the others. Therefore, when extreme conservatives talk about us as if we were one of the smaller roles, we should reframe the debate to the rights, responsibilities, and privileges of citizenship and how easily they could be lost.

What do you think? Am I overreacting about talk of taxpayers? What roles have I left out?

Framing Homeland Security

December 17, 2013 Curtis 1 Comment

Empires tend to view their homelands as the privileged center and other territories as less privileged.

If I could, I would rename the Department of Homeland Security. To my mind at least, the word homeland belongs to the vocabulary of empire, not democracy. For example, Hitler considered Germany to be his nation’s “fatherland” and therefore the center of his empire, not the limit of his empire. After World War II, Stalin created the Eastern Bloc in part to protect the Russian “motherland.” The name Department of Homeland Security implies that the United States is a global empire that distinguishes between its “homeland” and countries outside the “homeland” but that nonetheless it rules.

This thinking privileges the “homeland” over other areas that the government sees as within its jurisdiction. While US government generally must give its citizens (i.e. people born or naturalized in the “homeland”) due process when suspected of crimes, laws now allow Uncle Sam to execute foreigners (and sometimes citizens) that he suspects of terrorist crimes with drones without due process when they are outside the “homeland.” This double standard denies the idea of universal human rights. (See, e.g., Article 3 and Articles 5-10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.)

I’d like DHS renamed as the Department of Public Safety. This name removes the hint of imperialism while asserting the responsibility and ability to protect the public.

What do you think? Should DHS get a new name? If so, what should it be?

Framology