Washblog

The only reason that people will tolerate a military establishment with a minimum of 700 military bases all over the world that have diddlysquat to do with actually defending American citizens is that scaring the bejeezus out of said citizens has been the policy of the haves and have mores since the end of WW II, so that they can use our military establishment to make the whole "free" world safe for 50 cents a day labor. In the past one could justify using a significant fraction of our total resources to counteract the (strictly regional, though large) Soviet empire, but in reality most of our military capability during the cold war era was used to bully poor countries into serving transnational corporations.

Since 1989, when the Soviets realized that they could no longer afford to be an empire, the haves and have mores have tried to reinvent a military mission to justify the massive imperial investment. The Somalia intervention by Bush the 1st was an attempt at positioning our military mission as social workers with tanks and cluster bombs. Ended badly, and the public didn't buy it. Then it was boogaboogabooga! Drug lords are stealing your children! That worked for awhile, but then it wore thin. Then we had boogaboogabooga! Terraists will kill you in your bed! Leaving aside the question of whether 9/11 was allowed to happen (at a bare minimum, the Bushies knew something was up and did not care to know anything about the details, being far too busy poring over maps of Iraq's oil fields), the fear meme was ramped up to an extent that we haven't ever seen in our society.

Given a world in which resource wars are becoming the norm and a population that is moving toward unsustainable numbers, peak oil and global warming, terrorism and general random outbursts of violence are definitely problems. Those problems have no military solutions, though, and wasting our resources on world domination is preventing us from solving them. Given that such a large percentage of our population derives their paychecks from the military-prison-industrial complex (only a small percentage of whom actually have their own lives at risk) this frame is not easy to break.

But one thing we should jolly well demand of all our candidates is that they quit using the fear frame. Clinton has been absolutely vile in this respect, from the 3am ad to the obliteration of Iran statement. Obama has not and most likely will not break the imperialism frame (our real elite will not allow anyone who does that to be nominated), but he at least has submitted to the public the frame of "good judgment" as an alternative to "toughness". That's a start. If we are stuck temporarily with imperialism as our default foreign policy, smart imperialism at least gets fewer people killed than the stupid variety the neocons are implementing right now.

And may I remind everyone that the majority of Dems in 2004 usec exactly the same frame? Remember the Gephardt Osama ad used against Dean? The "For a Stronger America" Kerry/Edwards tshirts and bumperstickers? "Reporting for duty"? Not in any way denigrating his many good qualities, but the very choice of Kerry as the candidate was based on Democratic fear and acceptance of the meme that fighting terror requires military experience because it is a job that requires a traditional military army, navy and air force. Why couldn't we have done some frame-shifting by breaking the association of military power with strength? As in just using the terms TRUE strength, strong enough to do the right thing, strength where it counts, etc.

Closely related meme "we are at war"

Well, no "we" aren't, at least not the country as a whole. Our soldiers and their families are at war, but nobody else is. And the people who started the war with Iraq now treat its injured veterans like disposable human garbage. Going shopping is what the Bushies think that having the rest of the country be "at war" means. If our candidates won't ask why, if we are supposed to be "at war," there are no ration cards or 90% top tax rates like there were when we were really at war in the 40s, then the voting public damned well ought to.

Another related frame "commander in chief"

That is among a president's duties, but that is not what we are electing. Again, Obama with his emphasis on "good judgment" as the prime qualifier for the presidency breaks the frame. Clinton just reinforces it, and therefore continues to trash the general election prospects of both candidates.  Per George Lakoff et al--

www.rockridgenation.org
Though the words themselves are neutral, they have been used within a right-wing frame that is not obvious. The frame includes the following:

--The overriding challenge facing our country is military in nature.
--The military role of the president is therefore far more important than all of the other jobs he or she performs.
--Military experience, or direct experience with military affairs (e.g., the Armed Services Committee) is the single most important experience needed for the presidency.
--The country should be governed on a military basis. The state should first and foremost be a security state.
--The temperament needed for a president is martial; the president should be a fighter and should be engaged in fighting.
--The governing style for a president should be giving orders and making sure they are carried out. Others in public service should be obedient to the president's orders.

That is what it means to make the "commander-in-chief" question the main issue in a campaign. The commander-in-chief frame shifts the role of the president away from governing our nation and into the more limited scope of managing military affairs. It takes us away from domestic questions, including other questions of protection and leadership.

That frame is not what America is about. It does not embody fundamental American values. Nor does it portray what the role of the government is in our democracy. The dual roles of government are protection and empowerment, as we have written elsewhere. Protection is not just military or police protection, but a wide range: consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, social security, protection from natural disasters and disease, and protection from economic devastation.

The kind of military chain of command and absolute authority in wartime does not apply to most functions of the president. The president is not supposed to be commander-in-chief of Congress, nor commander-in-chief of the FBI or the Justice Department, nor commander-in-chief of the American people. Right now he isn't even Commander-in-Chief of Blackwater, a private army.

See also http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com

The very destructive "elitist" frame

This particular frame that Clinton is promoting makes Scaife, Murdoch, and Buchanan wet themselves with joy. Their frame is that the haves and have mores are not our elite---our real elite is educated technocrats. You know, those snotty effeminate bureaucrats who tell real he-men that it's illegal to shit in the reservoir. Over-educated sorts who read and do math and who are trying to fool the salt of the earth with nonsense about global warming and peak oil. It's pretty hard to add anything to what Thomas Frank said on the subject in What's the Matter with Kansas.

I've gotten into it with more than one fellow lefty who thinks that because the two most corporate-friendly candidates are the finalists, and neither is offering a populist program that would make every working class person instantly forget about the Repub cultural definition of "elitism," it's therefore OK to use that Repub elitist meme on either of our candidates. Fine, if you think that McCain and his plan of stripping away employer-provided health care and replacing it with nothing is an acceptable alternative to either Democrat.

The Repubs have all the advantages here. The MSM constantly recycled the Kerry windsurfing photo, the Gore "earth tones" anecdote, the Dukakis tank picture, etc. Edwards was far more populist than either Clinton or Obama, and before he dropped out we were treated to sneers about the too-pretty Breck Boy expensive haircuts and the big house. His populism did not exempt him from that crap. If we could get into a time machine and bring back FDR, they'd use this "elitist" nonsense on him too, ferchrissakes! There is NO good reason for any Democrat to go along with it under any circumstances.

If Clinton thinks that Repubs would never run the "elitist" frame on her in a general election, she's totally delusional. We'd get the Tuzla video 24/7, and that idiotic Annie Oakley pose would be constantly ridiculed. We never get any constant repetition of the real backstory on the Repub stage sets, the totally fake Bush "ranch" whose owner drives a truck to "clear brush" because he's terrified of horses. Or constant shots of Fred Thompson's fake red pickup truck.
http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com

Even though the Dem base despises the real elitists of the DLC, any Dem, no matter how populist, gets stuck with the "elitist" label because you see the windsurfing shot 24/7 and never see the phony pickup truck at all. Clinton is despicable for deliberately contributing to this MSM-generated problem.

Obama has so far done the right thing by refusing to use the "elitist" frame against Clinton (despite the obvious fact that she has ten times his net worth), and by directing his counterattack solely at McSame. Good move to brush off as trivial and funny an accusation of "elitism" from an owner of eight mansions directed toward a guy who had just paid off his student loans a few years ago.

The related "activist" frame

So, what's wrong with a term that quite a few progressives use to describe themselves? The problem is that the Repubs and Clinton link it with "elitist." If you are an activist, the fact that you even have time and energy for doing anything besides vegetating in front of American Idol after a day's work makes you an "elitist." Never mind that you have to fight for scraps of time with all the survival demands you are also dealing with. The problem with the term is that it makes what should be everyone's concern with the basic duties of citizenship seem weird and abnormal.

http://prorev.com/shilling.htm
'Customer' and 'consumer' were not the only words being used to change the nature of citizenship. Daniel Kemmis, the mayor of Missoula, MT, pointed out that the word 'taxpayer' now "regularly holds the place which in a true democracy would be occupied by 'citizen.' Taxpayers bear a dual relationship to government, neither half of which has anything at all to do with democracy. Taxpayers pay tribute to the government and they receive services from it. So does every subject of a totalitarian regime. What taxpayers do not do, and what people who call themselves taxpayers have long since stopped even imagining themselves doing, is governing."

Then there was growing use of the term "stakeholder" that covertly diminished the citizens' role to that of a minor participant. Ironically, 'stakeholder' literally means a person who holds the money while two other people bet. Whoever wins, the stakeholder gets nothing.

Another phrase that started cropping up was 'civil society,' a patronizing description of people who, in a democracy, are meant to be running the place. The term has come to used in elite circles with roughly the same condescension of a bishop talking about a church altar guild.

Personally, I now try to avoid using "activist" where "citizen" or "active citizen" would work better. Ditto "taxpayer" and "customer". Obama has not only broken this frame into small pieces but smashed it clear out of the park as well. Far from being the "messiah" that Clinton seems to think he is presenting himself as, he says as often as possible that he isn't going to change diddlysquat unless his supporters stay organized and involved after the election. He's put his money where is mouth is and spent it on organizing and training. After 9/11, there was a great upwelling of an urge to do something for America from people of all political stripes, answered by the Repubs with a call to go shopping and to be afraid, very afraid. Finally we have a call to common citizenship from a presidential primary finalist.

In contrast, Clinton has stated that she loses so many caucus states because of contemptible "activists," and thereby expressses contempt for the very notion that average people should spend any time at all seeking to influence the direction of public affairs. Her "experience" and her policies and programs will save us, not our own actions. Surely there are people who doorbell and phonebank for her, but clearly they are not "activists," presumably in the same sense that users of alcohol and nicotine don't do "drugs."

The "blame America first" meme

I don't think that we can count on either candidate to brak this frame yet, even though it would be great from the standpoint of the Dem populist base if they did. It fits in with the "elitist" framing, and it is really easy to reframe. The original frame is that the true "America" is the haves and have mores who dictate American foreign policy. The corollary is that the rest of us poor saps who just live here are not qualified to be "America."

All we have to do to change the frame is to say that the corporate elites who want to sell our port security to Dubai (home to the banks that finance quite a few terrorists) are the same people who decide we have to attack countries that never attacked us. Corporate "persons" demand that we physically threaten other countries who won't go along with having "free" trade imposed on them, but they incorporate in Bermuda so as to avoid paying taxes for this service. When Repubs (or any Dems that buy into the Repub framing) say that "we" have to defend "our" interests, the only appropriate response is "Whatchu mean WE, Kemosabe?" Of course Clinton can't possibly do that since Bill is shilling for Dubai and the Columbia "free" trade agreement. Obama could do it but has not done it so far, and may well be too afraid to break this particular frame and go that openly against our real elite. That makes this one, again, up to the rest of us.

Standing up for Democrats

Obama seems to have a hands off approach here, which is completely inadequate, but still better than people who really ought to know better and just pile on when Dems get publicly attacked. Not just Clinton is at fault here, but also people like Pelosi and Elizabeth Edwards, and all too many others.

It turned my stomach when Pete Stark apologized. Ditto Kerry. And I really hope that EE took Jane Hamsher's advice to heart.

http://www.voanews.com/
In arguing in favor of their measure, Democrats asserted that President Bush and Republicans were unable to find the funds for medical insurance for children while spending tens of billions of dollars on the war in Iraq.

At one point in the debate, Congressman Stark came to the floor and made these remarks. "You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it, to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq, to get their heads blown off, for the president's amusement."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
I can see we're going to have to set up some sort of "Democratic PR school" soon. They've become so accustomed to being George Bush's whipping posts they no longer recognize it when they have the advantage, and as the John Kerry incident demonstrates they are in sore need of a few remedial lessons on how to press it when they do.

First of all -- I don't care if John Kerry was eating live babies on TV, one week out from an election you do not repeat GOP talking points. Ever. It makes you look like a big wuss who can't stand up to the Republicans, even when they're playing from an exceptionally weak hand on an issue you own. For all those anxious to be seen as the tough defenders of national security, huddling in a crouch position while they pummel you about the head and bleating "yes, yes, we deserve this" does not have the best optics.

[snip]

Secondly -- did I mention that the Democrats own the issue of Iraq? Even the WSJ acknowledges it is the #1 factor influencing people's votes this election. If the Republicans want to bring it up, that's a perfect opportunity to pivot and attack:

Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton seems to be taking her political cues from Rush Limbaugh at a wholly inopportune time. You expect Rush, who evaded military service thanks to a large boil on his butt, to defend fellow draft dodger George Bush by castigating Viet Nam war hero Kerry. But why does Hillary Clinton have to jump into the Sista Souljah business?

http://firedoglake.com/
You're a smart woman. You of all people should know about the asymmetrical intimidation problem that Paul Krugman talks about -- the one where the media is afraid to go after Rudy Guiliani for claiming he's a rescue worker, but they'll try to demolish your husband over a haircut because they know that they'll get swarmed by the right wing noise machine for the former and pay no price for the latter. That's how it works.

So I was really disappointed today to read at Taylor Marsh's place that you had joined with Diaper Dave Vitter and John "McCarthy" McCain to attack MoveOn. We (and by that I mean the netroots) defend you when the MSM try to make your campaign a pinata over stupid, insignificant stuff. When they try to say your race should end because of your illness, but don't say squat about Fred Thompson's lymphoma. We're your first line of defense, the only messaging machine that progressives have.

So here's the rule. You never repeat right wing talking points to attack your own, ever. You never enter that echo chamber as a participant. Ever. You never give them a hammer to beat the left with. Just. Don't. Do. It.

The war is a desperate mess. When offered the opportunity to cudgel your own side, you pivot and attack. How about, "glad you mentioned that...I think an ad is about as relevant to George Bush's growing collection of toe tags as a haircut is to the problems facing this country." Or, "thanks for the opportunity to discuss this, Chris. I personally would not choose the word "betrayal" to characterize General Petraeus's lack of judgment or skewing of the facts to perpetuate the war, but I do think we should be looking at the fact that this was the bloodiest summer ever in Iraq and asking ourselves if the assessment we're being given about the situation is realistic..."

There are any number of ways you can answer that question well and none of them involve attacking MoveOn.

The pivot and attack technique demands reframing of Repub talking points. It would be nice if Clinton started doing it, and even though Obama is off to a good start, he needs to do it a lot more. End of story.