|
Skip to comments |
Skip to comment form |
 Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
3 June 06
Capturing
the Language
Printer
friendly version (PDF) 
View >>>
“Framing”
is the political left’s new buzzword for what used to be
called brainwashing. It has been developed into an art form by
George Lakoff, Professor of Linguistics at
Berkley
University
and forms the basis of a paper prepared by communications
consultant Claire Curran for last month’s Labour Party’s
Southland Regional Conference. Called “Language Matters:
Setting agendas - taking charge of the debate”, the
paper describes the necessity of capturing the language for
the center-left if Labour is to win the next election. It
provides an insight into their communication strategy.
The
key message delivered in the paper is that Labour must take
control of the language: “This paper is about Labour taking greater charge of the language of
debate and discussion in
New Zealand
. It is called ‘re-framing’ and it means gaining (or
regaining) the use of concepts and phrases that spark public
and media interest. If you control the language, you control
the message. The media doesn’t create the message, they run
with it”.
This
concept is, of course, the central tenet of political
correctness, a mechanism developed in the 1920s to help
advance communism. Writer and long-time commentator on
communism in Cuba, Agustin Blazquez, in an article
“Political Correctness: the scourge of our times”,
describes it this way: “Political Correctness remains just
what it was intended to be: a sophisticated and dangerous form
of censorship and oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with
the ultimate goal of manipulating, brainwashing and destroying
our society” (click here to view>>>).
The
Curran paper explains: “Despite being in power for more than
six years, Labour’s framework is not clearly understood by a
confused and sometimes unhappy electorate.
In
the 2005 election, Labour’s main opponent National was very
close to victory and by many accounts could/should have won.
The vast majority of public attention during the 2005 election
focused on National’s agenda, NOT Labour’s. It’s message
and framework was more coherent and struck a chord with those
in the electorate who had been disenchanted with Labour. Why
National failed can be endlessly debated but the signals are
that (unless National Implodes) Labour needs to set a much
clearer agenda to win next time”.
The
paper advises Labour that it needs to develop some new ideas
– a fresh approach - that will excite the voters and
commentators and re-capture the debate from National. That is
undoubtedly the reason why Labour used the Budget to promote
three new key themes: economic transformation, family security
and national identity.
Curran
explains: “It’s all about Labour Party members
understanding how to frame a discussion and debate and how to
take charge of the language we use. Labour’s ideas are the
ones that should shape the nation’s future. One of
Labour’s key goals should be to define the public debate in
our terms. We need to be able to explain the moral and value
system of
New Zealand
’s social progressives in our terms. The political
programme should be based on those values”.
She
goes on to advise against using expressions that opposition
parties use: “Learn how to use Labour language. Don’t
mention their terms; rephrase the questions asked to allow you
to answer in your terms. Every time you say the words PC,
tax cuts, welfare dependency, racially-based policies the
framework of the opposition is invoked and your framework is
so much harder to introduce or discuss. We need to find other
words than theirs to describe National’s policies”.
She
gives some examples: “When we talk about tax what is the
framework that most people draw upon? Let’s look at two
frameworks:
1.
Where tax
is something we pay too much of, especially in times of
economic prosperity. Instead of paying tax to promote ‘big
government’ we should pay less tax and share the benefits
among the people who made the economic prosperity happen.
2.
Where tax
is an investment in the future …. through the highways
systems, scientific and medical establishments and research,
the communications system, the airline system, the education
system. Taxes result in assets for all of us – schools,
hospitals, airlines, highways etc that come from wise tax
investments.
“In the first framework, tax is generally bad, we pay too
much of it, it bolsters ‘big government’ and it should be
distributed back among the people who originally paid it. In
the second framework tax is wise; it is an investment for the
future; results in infrastructure and is an essential
component of our society; it is a glue that holds us
together”.
To
re-frame the debate about tax, Curran advises: “Develop a
new economic language targeting middle
New Zealand
householders. Talk about the economic impact on their ordinary
lives. Talk about the common financial decisions and tasks
that people confront such as paying their bills, buying
groceries, whether you can afford to take your child to the
doctor again…” and so on.
The
Prime Minister can be seen to be using this approach in
Parliament. During question time on May 23rd, in
response to a question from Don Brash asking why tax
cuts are unaffordable when we are running massive tax
surpluses, she answered: “Family tax relief is indeed
affordable, and it is much appreciated. I have a letter from a
woman who writes: Today, I received confirmation we’re
entitled to family assistance of $85 a week. Now we can go to
the doctor when we need to, get a haircut when needed, and
don’t have to go without meat and the groceries. Thank you
for Working for Families”.
Also
mentioned in the paper is the suggestion that
New Zealand
should be presented “as a role model for the world”, and
promoted as “a country that stops talking itself down”.
This concept of course has lead to the attack on Don Brash for
his slogan: the
Labour Government believes there is a place for tax cuts -
it's called
Australia
.
Clark
called him unpatriotic and accused him of talking the country
down.
Brash
responded with his “Proud to be a Kiwi” speech (click here
to view>>).
But whether it is wise to have moved the tax cut battle on
Labours’ ground is another matter!
What
we can expect in the months to come from Labour is a
‘makeover’ – a different style and approach complete
with a persuasive new vocabulary. Thanks to Clare Curran, at
least we will know what to be watching out for!
The
poll this week asks, Do
you think Labour is running an orchestrated campaign to
control the language of politics?
To take part in our online poll
>>>
Printer
friendly version (PDF)
View >>>
Skip to top |
Skip to comment form |
Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
Your
Comments:
Reader's
comments will be posted on the NZCPD Forum page click
to view >>>.
Skip to top |
Skip to comments | Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
To
leave a comment:
NOTE: The forum moderator
reserves the right to edit material that may be objectionable
or offensive.
Skip to top |
Skip to comments | Skip
to this weeks poll
Skip to comment form
Send this
page to a friend:
|
