Key competency - reframing the debate

[GunnyFreedom]

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. ;)

[tangent4ronpaul]

It's more basic than that. We need to call them out on all of their assumptions. ie: Obamacare

"How do we pay for it?" is the wrong question!

"Why is it so expensive?" is the correct question.

And the answer is largely because of gvmt regulations and a broken legal system.

-t

[ghengis86]

Ron Paul was really good at this. Never answered the way they wanted; he always brought the issue back to liberty.

Tangentially, framing the answer to a question occurs all the time. There is usually two equally bad options that are presented or allowed to be discussed. Like with Gunny's example, the solution to SS is either cut benefits or raise taxes. That's bullshit and they know it, but such is the game of the false left/right dichotomy.

[lx43]

Gunny, you could give an example of the municipalities in Texas that opt-ed out of SS/Medicare 30 years ago to show how they are much better off with the private pension plan they have in comparison to what seniors on SS have today. The contribution the county employees made are identical to those made by those who are on SS except they have better benefits.

Now, 30 years on, county workers in those three jurisdictions retire with more money and have better death and disability supplemental benefits. And those three counties—unlike almost all others in the United States—face no long-term unfunded pension liabilities.



Those who retire under the Texas counties’ Alternate Plan do much better than those on Social Security. According to First Financial’s calculations, based on 40 years of contributions:

• A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan.

• A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.

• And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security versus $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.

[Aratus]

gunny is correct... BHO framed the fall election

last May when we first see the polysci equation

potusCare = obamaCare and not romneyCare!

[CaptUSA]

"Mr. Liberty, how can we not raise taxes on the rich when they are doing fine while the middle and lower classes are struggling so much?"

"Mr. Statist, taking more money out of a struggling economy and giving it to the government will do nothing to help the middle and lower classes. Allowing them to find jobs will. And if the rich begin taking their money out of their investments in order to pay higher taxes, the companies that use that capital to hire the middle and lower class workers won't have the investment capital to keep them employed. If you really care about the middle and lower class, the last thing you want to do is to take more money out of the economy!"


(BTW, Gunny, I really like this thread!)

[acptulsa]

It isn't a question of whether or not we should have this program at all, it's a question of whether the federal government should interfere at all. A county government generally gets the money ultimately, and the county government is the one with the boots on the ground to see that it gets done. All we're going by getting the federal government out of it is cutting out the middleman--and getting rid of a layer of inefficiency and waste. The county taxpayer pays for it directly, and the federal government stops charging for it and butts out.

How many things will this one fit?

[Cleaner44]

I agree 100% with you on this Gunny. Think about how effective we could be if we created a database of common subjects and the typical false framing, and then crafted reframed rebuttals. Think in terms of product branding. A big part of selling any product or idea is repetition. The more often an idea is repeated the more it sinks in. The repetition enforces the concept and allows it to sink into the mind. Just look at how many times I have repeated this point right here.

Imagine our honed and reframed answers to common subjects being repeated over and over. Over time the new message will sink in and we would own the debate. Organization would be the key.


Bart: It's my job to be repetitive. My job. My job. Repetitiveness is my job! I am going to go out there tonight and give the best performance of my life.
Marge: The best performance of your life?
Bart: The best performance of my life.

[BAllen]

Funny thing that was never mentioned by the msm is that Ron Paul's trillion dollar budget cut proposal did not reduce s.s. or medicare. They conveniently left that part out when discussing it. Only thing they covered was the fact that he wanted to eliminate the Dept. of Education and Energy.