Daily Kos :: Frameshop: The Blame Frame

"When Blame is the Frame

One of the biggest problems Democrats face is the blame frame. On talk shows,
in Congressional hearings, in conversation--in all the paces that politics happ
ens, Republicans have become expert at luring Democrats into the blame frame as
a way of scoring political points. And Democrats fall for it every time.
In addition to the challenge of finding the right words to talk about American v
alues, Democrats also need to understand--and stop getting caught in--the blame
frame.
What is it? How to avoid it? What's the alternative?
What is the Blame Frame?
Everyone has experienced the blame frame in one way or another.
The blame frame is what we are in whenever we argue that we are right and "they"
are wrong. The blame frame is very common in personal relationships. One of th
e best discussions of it can be found in a little book published by the Harvard
Negotiation Project called Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters
Most (Penguin Books, 1999) by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen. Ac
cording to negotiation experts, a key element of personal conflict between indiv
iduals involves a "What happened?" conversation that takes place in our own head
s even before we talk to the other person. When we find ourselves in a difficul
t situation, we focus significant attention on first explaining to ourselves why
the other person got us into the big mess in the first place. The next thing w
e do is vocalize that,"The problem here is that you didn't tell me exactly what
to do!" and so forth.
We are already in the blame frame at the moment we decide to seek a solution by
pinning responsibility solely on the other person's actions. The blame frame in
volves a certain fantasy of resolution: if we convincingly tell the other perso
n why they were wrong and we were right, then they will accept our reasoning and
the problem will be solved.
It never, ever works.
The solution is to stop blaming and lead the discussion towards talking through
each person's contributions to the situation. Once we are talking about contrib
ution rather than blame, we are out of the blame frame. Resolution often follow
s. This is because the blame frame tends to exacerbate bad feelings and our own
personal identity issues. The blame frame presents the blamed with no way out
other than shame. When we talk about contributions to a crisis, then both parti
es are rewarded by understanding.
But wait a minute--this doesn't sound like the same "framing" that we've been ta
lking about since the Democrats first read George Lakoff's ideas a few months ba
ck.
Indeed, to understand the blame frame it is vital that we start to think about f
raming not just in terms of cognitive linguistics (Lakoff), but also into terms
of conflict resolution.
In conflict resolution, the central challenge is to find a way of understanding
the crisis that will bring both parties to the table to start the discussion tha
t leads towards a solution. So long as both parties are in the blame frame--no
discussion, no resolution.
The blame frame makes things worse and getting people past it is the key to gett
ing the ball rolling.
A Second Way of Thinking About Frames
Framing has long been a topic of interest in conflict resolution. A brief exami
nation of Difficult Conversations reveals entire sections about framing and refr
aming, although their idea is very different from the cognitive idea of framing
discussed by Lakoff.
Developing some skill with the conflict resolution view of framing is important
because of the aggressive way that the GOP uses the media to assault Democratic
candidates and ideas.
The problem of how the GOP repeats and repeats certain magic words that conditio
n the American public to think of Democrats as "weak" or "elitist" or "pro-death
"--this is still a problem. But another, equally important issue is the way the
se assaults throw Democrats off their game by luring them into the blame frame.
How many times have we seen this: Ann Coulter calls Democrats "treasonous" and
a Democrat responds by saying that Republicans are really the one's committing t
reason.
Or Rick Santorum accuses Democrats of promoting a "culture of death" and Democra
ts respond by saying that Republicans are really the ones killing people.
It feels like the right response, but it's not. It just traps us in the blame f
rame.
But there's another problem: Democrats trap other Democrats in the blame frame
all the time.
For example, Democrats who self-identify as "progressive" often lash out at Joe
Lieberman (D-CT) for abandoning party principles. "We lost because of Lieberman
and the DLC." Then a Democrat local to the DLC responds by saying that the Demo
crats really lost because of the radical wing of the party.
Every Democrat and every Republican in this country is so trapped in the blame f
rame that most of the time we end up accomplishing nothing.
What gets lost when Democrats focus on blame is that great American ability to s
olve problems.
For example, President Bush's Social Security proposal is so problematic and so
financially irresponsible that most Americans disagree with it even after months
and months of the President touring around to sell it. In Lakoff's terms, the
GOP has rolled out the terms "crisis" and "accounts" to frame Social Security s
o that Americans see it as a threat to their livelihoods.
But as those Social Security frames have failed for the President, he has turned
to the blame frame. He does this by blaming Democrats for being too scared to
deal with Social Security. We got into this mess with Social Security, accordin
g to the President, because Democrats are too scared to do something.
How do Democrats respond? More often than not, we respond by saying that the re
al blame lies with the Republicans. After all, we got into this mess because of
the huge deficits of the Bush administration. And that is true. But somehow,
deep down, Democrats know that we don't fully win the debate until we get out of
the blame frame, until we start problem solving.
How the GOP Beats Democrats with the Blame Frame
Time and time again, the GOP has beaten the Democrats when they successfully lur
e them into the blame frame, and the GOP has lost to the Democrats when blame fr
ame tactics are fended off.
How does this work, exactly?
The answer is to translate the dynamic of a difficult conversation between two p
eople into a national political debate between two parties and a third, silent p
arty to the debate: the American public.
When the Swift Boat ads ran during the 2004 presidential campaign, for example,
at first the damage done was that John Kerry's character was besmirched. That w
as a real problem because Kerry, wanting to be the leader of the armed forces, c
ould not seem to get a way from the image of a man who undermined the armed forc
es.
But the real damage came from Kerry not understanding how to handle the blame fr
ame.
Kerry's first instinct was to just avoid the issue altogether. Rather than allo
wing himself to be blamed, he just didn't respond. Bad choice. When blame is u
nanswered, it sticks.
On the other side were the Democrats who countered the swift ads with their own
attack ads against George W. Bush. Those didn't work either because the American
public was then deprived of reasonable, problem-solving ideas from the Democrat
s.
The solution would have been for Kerry to take control of the debate about war b
y turning the discussion from blame to contribution.
Switching from Blame to Contribution
Putting aside blame to discuss contribution is fundamental act of crisis managem
ent leadership and it is a role that Democrats need to take up in every debate i
f they want to stay ahead of the GOP. The contribution frame is reached by intr
oducing a very basic dynamic into an exchange. Rather than blaming the other pe
rson or party at the table, the goal is to lead both parties to an understanding
of the crisis, and then take the lead in proposing a solution.
How has each party contributed to this situation and why? What else is involved
?
Once Democrats answer those questions, the next step is simply to take responsib
ility for their own contributions and then push hard towards proposing a solutio
n.
Take the Swift Boat case.
John Kerry should have immediate stepped up and taken responsibility for contrib
uting his own contribution to a contentious time in American history. He should
have said that he contributed both to the war in Vietnam and to the efforts to
undermine the war in Vietnam. If he had done this, he could have then talked ab
out how the unique issue of the war in Vietnam was not just who was fighting ver
sus who was protesting, but the issue of soldiers who were now disillusioned wit
h the war such that they turned to protest. That was the anguish of the Vietnam
era--a generation inspired to answer the call to fight for their country, who w
ere subsequently disillusioned by what they saw, learned and experienced. "I fo
ught the war and I fought against the war. I answered the call of the my countr
y and I called my country out to answer for what it had done."
The next step is to clarify how things could have been done differently from th
e Democratic perspective.
Kerry could then have said, "Sure I made a mistake throwing a few medals over a
fence. But I was young, and when you're young in America you're allowed to make
a few mistakes. Some of the mistakes we make as young people involve having to
o much fun and some of the mistakes we make as young people involve overstated p
olitical gestures."
And all that would have remained at that point would have been to connect Kerry'
s contribution to his leadership as a Senator. "Were it not for my contribution
as a soldier in Vietnam, I would not have become a protester in Washington. We
re it not for my contribution to those protests, I would never have dedicated my
life to public service."
The rhetorical possibilities are endless at this point because the blame frame h
as been controlled and dismantled by switching focus to contribution.
The Bolton Affair: The Power of the Contribution Frame
The contribution frame is so much stronger than the blame frame, that to simply
understand it is to take a giant step towards more effective Democratic politics
.
Of late, Senator Boxer has become a master at leading national debate away from
blame and towards contribution. Specifically, the candidacy of John Bolton was
derailed by Boxer's ability to focus the country on Bolton's contributions rathe
r than Bolton's blame (although he may still be confirmed as of the writing of t
his column).
What was the big victory of Senator Boxer in the Bolton affair? She was able to
convince Republican Senators to break ranks with their party and vote against t
he President's nomination for ambassador to the United Nations.
The issue that Boxer focused on was not Bolton's blame for having done X, Y or Z
, but how his temperament contributed to the mess that our intelligence communit
y finds itself in. The mess is an intelligence community that is ineffective.
Boxer could have gone back to the Iraq war and blamed Bolton for that, as she di
d with Rice's nomination. She could have blamed Bolton for deceiving the countr
y on weapons of mass destruction. But instead, she talked about how his behavio
r contributed to the disfunction of a branch of our government, and how that con
tribution would also cause problems for us in the UN.
And my goodness it worked. Boy, oh boy, did it work.
The Republicans were forced to respond because once the blame frame is gone, the
re are suddenly real problems and real issues to solve. And what's even more im
portant: the public sees those real problems, understands them, and gets very i
mpatient if they are not addressed.
The blame frame casts a huge cloud of issues and the contribution frame clears t
hat cloud up.
How To Avoid Blame?
We can never avoid blame, and we should not.
Real leadership is not about avoiding blame or assigning it to someone else. Le
adership is about helping both parties to understand what has happened, and then
stepping out in front with a solution.
In the short run, Democrats would be well-served to stop luring themselves into
the blame frame. The mess Democrats are in is not the fault of one faction of t
he party of another. Everyone has contributed to the mess and the party will on
ly start to win elections again if everyone contributes to the solution. The bl
ame frame can be a very powerful enemy, or it can be the stepping stone to an un
beatable solution: unity.
In the long run, the more Democrats learn to dismantle the blame frame when it i
s thrust upon them by Republicans, the more powerful they will become at leading
national debate.
Right now, the blame frame is being pushed with herculean force by the GOP again
st Hilary Clinton. They are running ads and raising money that will blame Hilla
ry for every national problem since the colonists first stepped foot on this con
tinent four hundred years ago. The GOP effort against Hilary Clinton will be th
e Spanish Armada of blame.
How should she defend herself?
Hilary needs to get very good, very fast, at reframing blame in terms of contrib
ution. She cannot be lured into the blame frame.
The other issue on the blame front is the filibuster or so called "nuclear optio
n." What Bill Frist and the Republicans are doing by trying to change the rules
in Congress is launching a huge blame frame right at the Democrats in the Senat
e and the House. Will it work?
It will work if House and Senate Democrats keep blaming the Republicans for dest
roying congress. Democrats and Republicans have always used floor tactics to de
lay votes and the public knows it. The Republicans have contributed to this pr
oblem in Congress, but so have the Democrats.
The problem is that if Democrats get drawn into a squabble about blame, then the
public will not her their important solutions to the real problems at hand. "
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/22/145750/151