In his book Don’t Think of an Elephant, George Lakoff discusses the importance of “framing” a political debate. He notes that conservatives have become very good at defining issues using their terms. Here’s an example. Late term abortions are described as “partial birth abortions.” It sounds as though the woman is being aborted while giving birth. That is not how late term abortions work, but that is now how they are now defined in the public mind.
Sometimes the framing device doesn’t quite succeed. Calling the rich people who are getting tax cuts “jobs creators” was an attempt at framing the debate which, I believe, backfired. At least I’ve heard it used sarcastically on a number of occasions.
On the other hand, the phrase “right to work laws” performed beautifully. I always call them “right to work for less laws,” but that hasn’t caught on. The laws that Michigan and Indiana recently adopted are couched in the language of “freedom” from “mandatory dues” and from “coercive union bosses.” The laws will bring in “new jobs” and “increase economic activity.”
Lost in the debate is that over time those laws will lower wages and decrease the power of employees to stand up to their corporate bosses. The debate has already been framed in those three words--”right to work.”
One of the things that I dislike about right to work states is that the union must protect those who are not members of the union. To me this is dead wrong. If a person doesn't choose to belong to the union, he should also have the testicular fortitude to stand on his own and not rely on a union steward. If I were the steward I would defend him but I wouldn't do a good job of it.
ReplyDeleteI just hope that working people come to their senses and see what is happening to them. Do you want to work two or three part time jobs just to live on the low level wages they will wind up getting? Believe me it will happen sooner than you think. I have worked in both union and non union shops. Believe me, a union shop is far better.