Framed

Kevin Drum quotes Andrew Sullivan about what the Democrats message should be (Short form: homeland security, winning back our allies, taking on the Iranian dictatorship, energy independence, universal healthcare and balancing the budget) and asks why we don't hear this from Dems.

A related topic over at AlterNet talks about Democrats fear of framing, ascribing it to:

1. Our insistence that the Facts Alone Will Set Us Free.

2. Our resistance to ideas that feel like marketing and "selling."

3. The challenge that we might be fundamentally mistaken about how things operate.

4. The idea that framing is some kind of "magic bullet" to fix our problems. (Though no one is suggesting that it is.)

Having watched the Republican Party get sucked down the maw of its own spin machine, I think Dems are justifiably wary of the slippery slope. Sadly, elections are won on simple themes and positive visions -- not lists of comparative statistics or unpleasant truths. Democrats have too many planks and no frame to hang it on.

Campaigning on honesty and good government is consistent with the idea that the Federal government matters, that it can have a profoundly positive impact on people's lives. This is turn is perfectly matched by the principles of fairness and helping those less fortunate. People who don't agree with these principles are NOT fellow travelers. Write them off.

Once there are a few principles in place -- two or three, no more -- then it is possible to frame issues in terms of these core values. There is a tendency for liberals to create laundry lists, so the urge will be to add tolerance or social justice or multiculturalism.

I think there is still room for marketing even once the principles and frames are in place. This is just practicality. Take Sullivan's list he has "Universal Healthcare" as one of the items. While there are a lot of perfectly rational reasons based on efficiency to go with a single-payer system, using the phrase Universal Heathcare is daft. It plays into the conservative talking points of Big Government and Evil Bureaucracy and Socialism, too.

People will have a justifiable fear of losing what they have now. Plus it is a red flag for those who make billions off the inefficiency we're seeking to fix. Going straight from what we have to a single-payer system is a pipe dream and probably bad policy. It would be better to ramp up to such a system. So I'd ban Universal Heathcare as a phrase. The better phrase is Guaranteed Heathcare. Everyone who cannot get healthcare through their employer is eligible and not for some punitive welfare-like benefit, but something close to VA benefits. The goals are 1) to split off the insurers and pharmaceutical companies from the bulk of the business community and 2) reassure voters that there is a safety net, but they are not going to be forced into the federal plan. Once there an even remotely viable alternative in place, the problem will be preventing employers from dumping their employees into it wholesale. It may be possible, by picking the right incentives, to even buy off some of the initial resistance by the insurance and pharmaceutical players. There's no need to telegraph the end game.

It this devious? Does it sound creepily Republican? Yes. Is there a moral hazard involved? Again, yes. But smugly assuming that single-payer is inevitable and letting the conservatives and healthcare industry own the terms of discussion can push off this outcome for decades.