GunnyFreedom
11-21-2012, 02:44 AM
Very often, the context in which a question or a challenge is delivered, is more important than the question or the challenge itself. The left is masterful at framing, and often use it to destroy the right or to make them look foolish. Both the left and the right also use framing to make it difficult for libertarians and constitutionalists to answer. Therefore one of the key competencies for people in the liberty movement is reframing the debate.
"Mr. Liberty, considering the millions of elderly in America who even now struggle to survive, how do you justify cutting Social Security?"
"Mr. Statist, it seems to me that keeping millions of seniors struggling to survive is a bad way for a country to do business, and the real question is not about making them struggle more, but how do we put them in a position to struggle less. Social Security cannot even keep up with the heavily underreported inflation numbers of the CPI much less the real inflation felt by the people on the street every day. Mismanagement, fraud, bureaucratic bloat, and outright waste consume 20 cents out of every dollar put into Social Security, and transitioning to more efficient and reliable retirement systems in the free market will allow seniors to not only keep up with inflation, but to surpass it allowing everyone to live more comfortably in their retirement. You do want our seniors to live more comfortably, don't you Mr. Statist?"
See, in the initial question, the problem was framed as though any kind of Social Security reform necessarily means that the elderly (who are already eating dog food) will have less money to live on. Mr. Liberty took three steps back, examined the context of the question, and re-set the question into a new context, that the whole reason the elderly are struggling is because they are trapped in government incompetence. Therefore, here is a plan to provide seniors with MORE money in their retirement.
This is a single, simple example. Right now we are fighting a war of ideas, and our ideas are the correct ones. More often than not, if we get backed into a corner it's because we have been framed. Learning to take a few steps back, examine the context in which a debate question point or attack is given, and then reframe it into a new context can mean the difference between victory and defeat.
This is especially important for prospects for public office, as this technique is used heavily in debates and by the media.
Let's talk about how the statist left and the statist right like to frame given issues in their own context, and how we can go about re-framing them to blunt their attacks. I think one of the more important areas will be in foreign policy specifically as it relates to Syria and Iran, but I will also be interested in discussing the whole spectrum of issues likely to come up in a US Senate Primary. ;)
"Mr. Liberty, considering the millions of elderly in America who even now struggle to survive, how do you justify cutting Social Security?"
"Mr. Statist, it seems to me that keeping millions of seniors struggling to survive is a bad way for a country to do business, and the real question is not about making them struggle more, but how do we put them in a position to struggle less. Social Security cannot even keep up with the heavily underreported inflation numbers of the CPI much less the real inflation felt by the people on the street every day. Mismanagement, fraud, bureaucratic bloat, and outright waste consume 20 cents out of every dollar put into Social Security, and transitioning to more efficient and reliable retirement systems in the free market will allow seniors to not only keep up with inflation, but to surpass it allowing everyone to live more comfortably in their retirement. You do want our seniors to live more comfortably, don't you Mr. Statist?"
See, in the initial question, the problem was framed as though any kind of Social Security reform necessarily means that the elderly (who are already eating dog food) will have less money to live on. Mr. Liberty took three steps back, examined the context of the question, and re-set the question into a new context, that the whole reason the elderly are struggling is because they are trapped in government incompetence. Therefore, here is a plan to provide seniors with MORE money in their retirement.
This is a single, simple example. Right now we are fighting a war of ideas, and our ideas are the correct ones. More often than not, if we get backed into a corner it's because we have been framed. Learning to take a few steps back, examine the context in which a debate question point or attack is given, and then reframe it into a new context can mean the difference between victory and defeat.
This is especially important for prospects for public office, as this technique is used heavily in debates and by the media.
Let's talk about how the statist left and the statist right like to frame given issues in their own context, and how we can go about re-framing them to blunt their attacks. I think one of the more important areas will be in foreign policy specifically as it relates to Syria and Iran, but I will also be interested in discussing the whole spectrum of issues likely to come up in a US Senate Primary. ;)