Log In | Register
These days there are three words used by politicians and those discussing politics that are abused perhaps more than any others. These words are "the American people."
Try writing down the amount of times you hear these three words on the television any given night as you surf back and forth between our major news sources. Actually, I don't want you to focus so much on how many times they are used, but more on just how. The most common exploitation that you can listen for is: "What the American people want is..." You know the phrase I'm talking about. You hear it all the time in speeches, and on the radio and television in interviews. Everyone these days is suddenly an authority on what you and I want with regard to Iraq, National Security, or the War on Terror (pick your own favorite!). This is a symptom of a practice that has crept into our discourse so quietly and so silently, that it nearly no longer matters what the American people want, just that you tell us you know what we want.
How does someone know what all of us want? That is truly amazing. I would give anything to know even what my girlfriend wants, let alone the remaining other Americans. What is really going on is called Strategic Framing. It's not new, and it's just technical jargon for the practice of taking an issue and wrapping it in some sort of packaging to "frame" how an audience should perceive it or digest it. Frames are used to help shape what people think about social and political issues, and even which social and political issues matter to them. Increasingly the tool is used by politicians to try to direct the overall thinking of "the American people" on a pet issue.
Not long ago, I watched on CSPAN as Republican Senators Rick Santorum (R., Pennsylvania) and Jim DeMint (R., South Carolina) raised the Social Security issue again in the Senate through a proposed bill originally brought before the House, known as the Social Security Guarantee Act of 2005. An objection to Santorum and DeMint's bill was promptly raised by Max Baucus (D., Montana). No matter what you think of the issue or the bill, what is interesting is the dialogue that took place between Democratic and Republican Senators. Baucus characterized the bill as "…not a serious effort… a phony gimmick..." DeMint, in turn, characterized Baucus' view by saying Democrats are using "…misinformation… untruths…" and that they "…oppose ownership…" Both sides claim to have the truth. That seems then to be a losing strategy for both, so politicians move to frame the issue publicly, rather than debate its complexities. If you are a Democrat, you should feel toyed with; that your future is someone else's gamble. If you are a Republican, you should feel you're not smart enough to control your own future.
Both Senators referred to each other's arguments as "disingenuous." You mean lying? What exactly should we do with such riddles, and most importantly where is the debate and what are the facts? And please, don't start out by saying, "Well, Mr. Miller, what the American people want is…", because nobody knows what we all want. The truth is we want different things, but what we deserve is clear, concise definitions of the details of the issues. If someone tells me something is too complicated, and summarizes by telling me how I should feel about an issue, I can bet they just don't want me to have all the details. Our debates have escalated to levels of visceral unpleasantry not seen since this country's formative days, and the actual details of these debates are increasingly bypassed for the framing our political leaders wish us to use. Apparently, both sides are bad guys, and neither speaks the truth. Yikes.
Now would be a great time for straight talk to come back into vogue.
