All legislative action on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote.
What a concept! Majority rule! Here's how the segment with Amy began, where he lays out the basic background:
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to the budget crisis here in California. The state faces a projected deficit of $21 billion, according to a new report from the state's budget analyst. The prospect for further cuts loom.
I'm joined now from Berkeley, California by a man who says the real cause of the state's fiscal problems is its "dysfunctional system of government." George Lakoff, an author, progressive activist, professor of cognitive science and linguistics at University of California, Berkeley, he has sent the attorney general a ballot proposition for the 2010 ballot that he says can end the gridlock in the state legislature. It's called the California Democracy Act and reads, quote, "All legislative action on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote." It changes two words in the state's constitution, turning "two-thirds" to "majority" in two places. It would roll back the two-thirds majority needed to pass a budget and, Lakoff argues, end the gridlock created by minority rule in the state.
George Lakoff, joining us now from the University of California, Berkeley, I welcome you to Democracy Now! Lay out what your proposal is, Professor Lakoff.
GEORGE LAKOFF: It's a pleasure to be here, Amy.
The proposal is very simple: namely, end minority rule by simply having the majority decide on economic-day-to-day economic issues. That's what this says. It says, on revenue and budget, let the majority in the legislature, you know, decide these things, just as happens in forty-seven other states. California is the only state in the union that is completely-that has minority rule in the legislature on both issues.
AMY GOODMAN: How did it happen? What is the history of this?
GEORGE LAKOFF: The history was, back in the '30s there was a two-thirds rule on the budget put in. And then in Prop 13 back in the 1970s, over thirty years ago, there was a hidden part of Prop 13. Most people thought Prop 13 was primarily about, and only about, property taxes. And that said that you needed a two-thirds rule locally to raise property taxes. And what was hidden in there was the idea that you needed two-thirds rule to raise any taxes in the entire state. And that meant that the legislature was basically under minority rule, that one-third plus one, 34 percent, could thwart the majority on any major economic issue simply by saying no until the majority gave in.
AS far as the UC system is concerned, the result has been that as funding has been cut back in tough times, fees have increased. Then when the economy recovers, the fees stay in place, and public funding is never restored. There are multiple causes for this, but clearly a major factor is that even a majority of the state legislature can't easily act effectively--which means that people aren't even inclined to try lobbying them. And thus the rot of anti-democratic politics spreads throughout the system. A brief rundown of how that has played out from a diary at "Remaking the Univeristy", "Doomsday Medicine"
On Friday, Max Blumenthal was on Democracy Now! to talk about his new book, Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party. I haven't seen a copy, much less read his book, but at first listen, it sounds like he has done an excellent job of hitting the bulls-eye of target that others--in books that were already excellent in their own rights--have only clipped before, without quite realizing that the bull's-eye even existed.
This passage from the publisher's description (link above) describes that bull's-eye:
more that just an expose, Republican Gomorrah shows that many of the movement's leading figures have more in common than just the power they command within conservative ranks. Their personal lives have been stained by crisis and scandal: depression, mental illness, extra-marital affairs, struggles with homosexual urges, heavy medication, addiction to pornography, serial domestic abuse, and even murder. Inspired by the work of psychologists Erich Fromm, who asserted that the fear of freedom propels anxiety-ridden people into authoritarian settings, Blumenthal explains in a compelling narrative how a culture of personal crisis has defined the radical right, transforming the nature of the Republican Party for the next generation and setting the stage for the future of American politics.
Numerous other writers have noted how frequently religious right figures get into trouble with sex scandals. I mean, you've got to work pretty damn hard not to notice it. And in Great American Hypocrites, Glenn Greenwald went one step further, describing how conservative political heroes, not specifically religious figures, have repeatedly turned out to be the polar opposite of the images of the rectitude that they project, but here, Blumenthal is examining this phenomena not simply as hypocrisy on a grand scale, or a grand deception, but as the inexorable workings of natural laws, taking Fromm's insights and applying them systematically to a history that has been staring us in the face now for decades.
What's more, when Blumenthal includes James Dobson in this pattern, he (perhaps inadvertently) outflanks George Lakoff as well. In Moral Politics, Lakoff discussed Dobson's work in Dare To Discipline as exemplifying what he called the "Strict Father" model of childrearing on which American conservatism is based. However, in retrospect Blumenthal's approach reveals how Lakoff seemingly downplayed the more disturbing implications of what he had uncovered.
Some excerpts from the interview, and further explanation of what I mean on the flip.
(Please note: This originally posted on http://www.stevesword.com/ and will be cross-posted on MyDD too.)
"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near." - SunTzu The Art of War
So those of you who read this site regularly probably know that I like to spout off at length about the linguistics of our political culture. But there are times when actions truly do speak much, much louder than words. Let me begin at the beginning.
Even before Obama began running for President, cognitive linguist George Lakoff had proclaimed him both a natural master of framing and a progressive. While I deeply respect Lakoff's work, not just in regard to politics or his pathbreaking work as one of the founders of cognitive linguistics, but also for his collaborations with philosopher Mark Johnson, particularly Philosophy in the Flesh, I think his reading of Obama-while accurate in some respects-has been dangerously off the mark. In this diary, I try to explain why. And to frame that explanation, I want to begin with the work of a couple of other cognitive scientists-- Mark Turner and Gilles Fauconnier, which I first learned about directly from Turner's own lips when I was helping to produce a public lecture series on cognitive linguistics at the late lamented Midnight Special Bookstore in Santa Monica back around 1994 or so.
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson virtually invented the field of cognitive linguistics with their 1980 book, Metaphors We Live By. Their fundamental insight was simple: metaphors are not a decorative addendum to language, they are a central feature of it, that structures our shared understanding of the world in myriad ways. The basic structure of the metaphor is the mapping of a structure of entailments from what's known as the "source domain" to the "target domain". One example is "Love Is A Journey". An examples of entailments are that it could be a journey by land ("we've hit a rough patch"), air ("fly me to the moon"), or sea ("love on the rocks").
I could say a whole lot more about cognitive metaphor, but that's just stage setting for where I'm going with this. What I learned from Turner was that he and Gilles Fauconnier-who had also been a part of the same series-had come up with a new model of cognitive mapping that involved not one source domain, but two. This would become known as the model or theory of conceptual blends. At my request he later sent me the first paper they wrote on the subject, "Conceptual Projection and Middle Spaces" (pdf) (Goggle-generated HTML version, in case of loading problems). In their model, there are actually four spaces-the two input spaces, an abstract generic space and a richer blended middle space that inherits structure from both input spaces, as well as adding structure of its own. They argued that this model was broadly applicable to a wide range of cognitive processes at virtually every level of abstraction. While the work they were doing was up-to-date in connecting with then-current research, they were quite straightforward in connecting with earlier work making similar arguments, most notably Arthur Koestler's Act of Creation, which argued that creativity (as well as humor) was largely based on the bringing together of two different frameworks of thought.
A very simple example of a blended space cited in that paper is that of an imaginary race between two ships ages apart in time:
Consider the following excerpt from a report in the sailing magazine Latitude 38:
As we went to press, Rich Wilson and Bill Biewenga were barely maintaining a 4.5 day lead over the ghost of the clipper Northern Light, whose record run from San Francisco to Boston they're trying to beat. In 1853, the clipper made the passage in 76 days, 8 hours. -"Great America II," Latitude 38, volume 190, April 1993, page 100
But the Senate Democrats already knew all they needed about such mendacious methods: Luntz himself had briefed them at a Democratic retreat earlier this year. His co-panelist: Paul Begala.
Since that January retreat, he has also briefed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) personally, a Reid aide confirmed. The message to the leader and to the Senate Democratic caucus was the same: Words matter.
.... The Luntz-Reid meeting was also about messaging. The majority leader and the Republican pollster had met several times over the previous several years, although only met once this year, other than the retreat....
Then she says:
There you have it. The GOP messaging expert is advising both parties. No wonder everyone is selling conservative tropes and propaganda and nobody even knows what liberalism really is.
Ask yourself why in the world the Democrats would be interested in Frank Luntz's advice now of all times. Do they really think he is better at this than say ... the Obama campaign? That the Republican success of the past four years is so impressive that they need to emulate it?
Excellent points--and she adds a few more. But the problem isn't just what the Dems are doing. The problem is also what they aren't. And what they aren't doing is listening to George Lakoff. There's one good reason for this--he's not the best at the soundbite crafting. But that's really not the rarest skill out there. And where Lakoff does excell is precisely where Democrats are weakest--in understanding the logic of their own positions, which is the absolutely essential precursor to crafting those precious little soundbites--and a whole lot more besides.
In Part 1, I took on the problem of defining what a progressive foreign policy might look like in terms of military policy and responding to the ongoing threat of terrorism. In this diary, I want to take on the broader issue of defining what a comprehensive progressive foreign policy might look like. Fortunately, I don't have to do that, though. I can not only crib the contents of the policy from others, I can crib the logic that explains the contents as well--from a 2001 paper by George Lakoff, "The Mind and The World: Changing the Very Idea of American Foreign Policy" (PDF) which I've written about before here.
In the paper, Lakoff starts off by observing that since the end of the Cold War, a broad range of international issues have emerged that don't don't fit into the traditional "foreign policy" framework, and could appear to be nothing more than a laundry list of unrelated issues--things like global warming, women's rights, global public health, etc. However, he goes on to argue that there is a very natural framework that encompases them all: the framework of moral norms. These are all issues that involve how a community of nations ought to conduct itself. Furthermore, Lakoff argues, the moral norms framework produces a better global neighborhood or environment than the traditional self-interest framework that foreign policy has traditionally used, the same way that an ordinary neighborhood is a better place to live when the people there treat each other according to a shared set of norms, rather than only looking out for their own self-interest.
The idea of operating within a framework of moral norms was present throughout Obama's Cairo speech, and indeed has long been a part of America's foreign policy outlook, though it has rarely been clearly articulated as such. Individual norms have been invoked often enough, but all too often there's been an ulterior motive, which only serves to build suspicion. But when a wide range of normative statements are made, as Obama did in his Cairo speech, there is a clear implication that something very different is afoot. Whether or not that comes to pass depends on many different things, not the least of which is developing a more broadly shared understanding of just what that means.
Earlier in the week, in Quick Hits, Mark Matson drew attention to George Lakoff's recommended diary at DKos, "The Obama Code", presented in advance of Obama's address to Congress and the nation by way of an exlanation of how Obama approaches politics generally, and political communications in particular, in a distinctive manner.
In my view, Lakoff makes the best case for Obama of anyone I have read-far superior to the secret plan variants. And yet, I think his account falls short. But it does so in a way that nonetheless sheds a great deal of light. Lakoff's approach to analyzing Obama is based on his analysis of liberalism and conservatism in terms of contrasting family models-Strict Father and Nurturant Parent (SF/NP for short)-which he first described and explained in Moral Politics in 1996. While I believe this is an extremely important insight into the organizing structure of American politics, I do not see it as the whole story. Instead, I see Lakoff as providing one extremely important perspective which needs to be complimented with other perspectives, combined into a comprehensive model.
In this diary, I want to look at "The Obama Code" in terms of where some crucial problems emerge in terms of Lakoff's explanation, viewing them not as refutations of Lakoff's general theory, but as points where other explanatory mechanisms come into play, altering or mitigating the impact of the causal factors in Lakoff's theory. I will also point out an example where other explanatory mechanisms reinforce Lakoff's theory. I hope to have time to follow up with another diary describing the outlines of the more general structure. For now, I will simply reintroduce a key aspect of that more extensive model, which I have described before, the template provided by Sidanius and Pratto's Social Dominance Theory (SDT) the macro-structure of which can be seen in the chart that appears below the flip:
that there's a cautiousness bordering on paranoia in the Obama camp. Unsettled by the he's a Muslim emails campaign, Jeremiah Wright, the attacks on his patriotism, they place debunking these attacks above all else.
I hope he's right, and that I'm just being paranoid, too. But I think it's important to attempt a theoretical understanding of why Obama might be really committed to a path that repeatedly puts him sharply at odds with us. No one would be happier than me to discover that this analysis is not necessary. But the past two weeks argue fairly strongly that it is.
To that end, here I want to tighten up the analytical foundation behind an important link in this argument. In that diary, I quoted approvingly from a column by Arianna Huffington, on the practical folly of the direction that Obama was taking--a column that was attacked by one commentator, kanzeon, starting here with an ad hominem attack on her:
Obama hasn't shifted his strategy. Arianna is smart enough to understand that.
She's an old Republican who hated Clinton and wanted to exert her power. So she played along with Obama's game.
Despite his hamfisted approach, kanzeon is taking on a soft target, since Arriana is not fully articulating the background of her argument. Rather than get into an argument about she wrote, I want to go back to the underlying source, which I know that Huffington knows well, and that is the work of George Lakoff.
While Lakoff has repeatedly praised Obama for his intuitive understanding of framing, he has written analyses that can enable us to make our own judgments and analyses of how Obama may be failing in particular ways--particularly right now. That, in turn can help us refine our understanding of how Lakoff's analysis can both be refined and integrated into a broader framework of political analysis. All this I explain and explore on the flip....
Rockridge Nation is departing
by don mikulecky
(Cross posted from daily Kos for your information.)
I just recieved notice by e-mail that the Rockridge Nation is shutting down at the end of the month and also see that the same notice is posted at their website. This is a sad event and raises questions about how seriously the progressive movement (whatever that is) takes the development of the kind of strategies they are noted for. I don't know the reason for this sudden end to what has been a source of interesting ideas for the way we engage our opponents in trying to win "the hearts and minds" of the voters. If you look below the fold I'll post their explanation so we can discuss what it means. I have the feeling it is much more than a trivial event coming at this time.
Body
Here is their farewell notice (Rockridge Nation Blog):
An important announcement from the Rockridge Institute
First, a big Thank You!
The Rockridge Institute was founded with a mission: to teach Americans about the role of values and framing in political debate, and to help progressives equalize the framing advantages enjoyed by conservatives. With your help, Rockridge has done more than any small think tank could be expected to do. About 1,000 of you have donated to support our efforts. More than 8,000 have registered as members of Rockridge Nation to engage actively with us. And hundreds of thousands, both in the US and abroad, have bought our books and used our materials. If you are one of those hundreds of thousands, political discourse will now look different to you. As you read the newspapers and the blogs and watch TV, you can see the effects of our work everywhere. Your support has made that possible. For this and so much more, you have our complete admiration and gratitude.
Nonetheless, the Rockridge era will come to an end on April 30.
What we have written will remain as archives on our websites www.rockridgeinstitute.org and www.rockridgenation.org.
The end of any organization, even a small one, is a complex matter, and an emotional one for those who have invested themselves in its life. In important ways, Rockridge's triumphs and its limitations reflect the state of the progressive community and point to what the progressive future needs to be. Let's begin at the beginning.
The Rockridge Institute was formed to address a set of challenges: The right-wing think tanks, after spending 35 years and 4 billion dollars, had come to dominate public debate. They had done this by framing Big Ideas their way: the nature of government, the market, taxation, security, morality, responsibility, accountability, character, nature, even life. This allowed them to then frame lower-level issues, special cases like terrorism, Iraq, education, health care, retirement, stem-cell research, the death penalty, affirmative action, and on and on.
Our challenge was to figure out exactly how they had achieved such dominance over the minds of Americans and what progressives could do-not just how to respond case by special case, but how to do the Big Job: to reframe the Big Ideas governing our politics.
How could a tiny institute in Northern California hope to make any progress on such a large task? Our strategy was to use the tools of the cognitive and brain sciences, and to address not just one or two issues, but the full range.
In the last five years, and on a shoe-string budget, Rockridge has achieved more than we could have dreamed of:
Theoretical achievements: We worked out the theory of conceptual structure in politics, including how framing works; value-based modes of reasoning for conservatives and progressives; biconceptualism; top-to-bottom issue-based framing; neo-liberalism; contested concepts; elementary and complex cultural narratives as they apply in politics; and the idea of cognitive policy.
Applications: We have applied top-to-bottom issue framing and other theoretical results to many issue areas, most recently, health care, immigration, and climate change policy. And we have applied other of our theoretical results to such issues as the war on terror, tort reform, popular democracy, education, religion, and so on.
Popularizations: We popularized the understanding of framing and values in political discourse, and have produced a progressive handbook-Thinking Points-and other useful materials, all free online. As a result, political advocates all over America have become far more sophisticated about framing and values than they were five years ago.
Community Creation: We have created and maintained a busy, interactive and sophisticated on-line community, Rockridge Nation, with features like question-answering, a weekly workgroup, and a blog. And we have aligned with key influencers to turn our ideas into action on health care, climate policy, and more.
Trainings: We have done successful trainings and workshops on a small scale.
Political effectiveness: We have helped get progressive candidates elected across this country at all levels, and even in Spain. Various observers, upon reading Thinking Points, have seen in it many elements of the Obama campaign and a new politics.
Most important to us has been how our work has resonated with you. We are proud of what we have done together. In short, with your support and participation, we have had more of an effect than any tiny Northern California nonprofit think tank had any right to expect.
But... we have not done the Big Job, not even close. The conservatives' Big Ideas about government, taxes, security, the market, and the rest still dominate political discourse. Democrats in Congress still cringe at attacks based on these Big Ideas, and many have been intimidated into voting for conservative policies-on funding for Iraq, on government spying without a warrant, on taxes, on bankruptcy, and on and on. The Big Idea intimidation is still working. Changing that is the Big Job.
We at Rockridge have used the physical think tank form to get us this far. We've made important advances in understanding and articulating political cognition. We have done more in-depth studies than most people have the time to read, and we know what has to be done to tackle the Big Job. But we also realize that no small non-profit think tank can do significantly more of the Big Job than we have already done. That will take a large-scale, well-funded progressive cognitive infrastructure.
The progressive infrastructure built so far does not include a cognitive infrastructure. It has not tackled the Big Job-reversing the dominance of conservative Big Ideas in public life. Policy institutes do not address cognitive policy-the ideas and values that have to structure the public mind in order for nuts-and-bolts progressive policy to be accepted as just common sense.
When Rockridge started on its mission, we knew there were huge hurdles - not just from the Right, but within the progressive community itself.
The Progressive Funding Problem: The 1997 Covington Report [Sally Covington, Moving a Public Policy Agenda: The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations] observed that conservative foundations tend to give large, multi-year block grants to promote conservatism in general. By contrast, progressive foundations tend to give small grants for a short time over a short list of specific issue areas. This results in small nonprofits having to constantly spend a lot of time and effort raising money, and all too often failing to raise enough.
The Cognitive Science Problem: Few people are aware of the results in cognitive science and neuroscience and the techniques of analysis developed in cognitive linguistics. Progressives tend to view research in terms of polls, surveys, and focus groups, rather than the methods for understanding human cognition.
The Enlightenment Reason Problem: Progressives commonly believe in some version of Enlightenment Reason, which says that reason is conscious, dispassionate, logical, universal, literal (it directly fits the world), and interest-based. The cognitive and brain sciences have shown this is false in every respect. But if you aren't aware that we normally think unconsciously in terms of frames and metaphors, then framing would seem like deception, spin, or propaganda.
The Material Policy Problem: Unlike conservatives, progressives tend to think of policy as material policy alone-the nuts and bolts-and not cognitive policy: the ideas that must be in the brains of the public for policies to be seen as common sense. There is thus little or no understanding of the importance of cognitive policy.
The Framing-as-Messaging Problem: If you don't know that framing is the study of thought, then you would naturally but incorrectly think of framing as messaging. This is reinforced by the fact that understanding framing does, in fact, help with effective messaging.
The Training Problem: Framing research can't be done by just anyone. It takes training. And since staff members have lives and need financial security, it is hard to maintain a highly-trained staff without sufficient and stable funding.
In the end, we encountered all these problems. They are endemic to progressive advocacy and politics. We weathered them for years and accomplished a huge amount. Eventually-even with a thousand donors-the funding problem caught up with us.
Thank you for all your support.
Together, we will keep the Rockridge spirit alive and together we will continue to build a strong progressive movement with a sustainable infrastructure and a vital understanding of the cognitive dimension of politics, policy and governance.
-The Rockridge Staff
Joe Brewer
Bruce Budner
Evan Frisch
Eric Haas
George Lakoff
Sherry Reson
Glenn W. Smith
There is a lot here to talk about, but since I was engaged in some of their discussions and have read and used George Lakoff's writing a lot in my own work, I'll start the discussion on that more personal theme.
Is there a need for this sort of probing into the underlying reasons for our political behavior?
Is it true that the right wing has been very successful in framing the political debate in this country?
If we do not do our job in reframing the debate can we expect our anticipated successes in this election to continue after the Bush backlash has fadded into the past?
Is politics merely a process of manipulating voters or is it an educational endeavor as well?
Does trying to solve the political problems we have from an academic's approach simply smack of elitism?
These are but a few of the things that cross my mind as I try to comprehend the sudden end to Rockridge. This diary is long enough and I hope it generates discussion about something that may be very critical to our future progress. Please comment.
The following is a letter that the Rockridge Institute sent to its community this morning announcing its closure.
First, a big Thank You!
The Rockridge Institute was founded with a mission: to teach Americans about the role of values and framing in political debate, and to help progressives equalize the framing advantages enjoyed by conservatives. With your help, Rockridge has done more than any small think tank could be expected to do. About 1,000 of you have donated to support our efforts. More than 8,000 have registered as members of Rockridge Nation to engage actively with us. And hundreds of thousands, both in the US and abroad, have bought our books and used our materials. If you are one of those hundreds of thousands, political discourse will now look different to you. As you read the newspapers and the blogs and watch TV, you can see the effects of our work everywhere. Your support has made that possible. For this and so much more, you have our complete admiration and gratitude.
Nonetheless, the Rockridge era will come to an end on April 30.
I have a great deal of respect for George Lakoff. More than I do for just about any politician I can think of. It's not just due to his work related to politics, either. I first read Metaphors We Live By in 1989, and I helped produce a lecture/discussion series on cognitive linguistics as Midnight Special Bookstore in Santa Monica with him as the lead attraction back in 1994. Moral Politics did not come out until 1996, and when it did, I reviewed it for the Christian Science Monitor. But I also reviewed Philosophy in the Flesh and Where Mathematics Comes From, as well later books on politics. So I'm very familiar with his work, not just as it applies to politics, but in terms of how it relates to the larger currents of Western thought.
But I have to say that I'm still a bit puzzled by his recent post, "What Counts as an "Issue" In the Clinton-Obama Race?" at the Huffington Post. I'm not puzzled by the points he is making-they are quite familiar to me. But I'm puzzled about the supporting evidence, which is a repeated problem with Obama. (As I pointed out in a diary yesterday, "Rankism--An Issue Custom-Made For Obama", I think Obama could easily add significant substance to his campaign.) I want to take this opportunity to use Lakoff's piece to clarify my concerns, since this still seems to be something people have a hard time figuring out-not just about me, but about lots of people who remain skeptical, when they'd much rather not. Because, you see, if I saw Obama the way that Lakoff does, I would not be having such doubts.
Among other things, the discussion thread of my diary "Obama Praising Reagan--An Echo, Not A Choice???", again surfaced the confusion that falsely jumbles together framing, spinning and lying. Because framing is so fundamental, so important, and still so badly misunderstood, I felt compelled to address it, with yet another attempt to set the record straight.
Here's the basic picture:
Framing:
A: "The glass is half full."
B: "The glass is half empty."
Both are objectively true, but represent different views.
Spinning:
A: "The glass is half empty."
B: "Why didn't you say it was half full?"
A: "But that's what I DID say! They're both the same, you know."
Objective truth is involved, but it's being played with. You don't lie outright, but you clearly mislead. The sense in which what you say is true is not the sense in which you intend and expect to be taken.
Lying:
A: "The glass is half full."
B: "Why are you saying it's half empty? You're such a pessimist! Liberals are all pessimists!"
B is simply lying, and then generalizing from the lie.
The false equation of framing, spinning and lying comes in two particularly pernicious forms-those who make the false equation in order to attack framing, and those who make the false equation in order to support spinning and lying. A couple of years back, I stopped posting at Booman Tribune, because Booman dogmatically insisted on this false equation, irrationally rejecting repeated solid arguments, not just from me, but also from a number of other diarists and commentators.
Now, here at OpenLeft, I'm getting it from the other side, from folks who are defending Obama's parroting of rightwing lies about Ronald Reagan as simple acts of "reframing." Well, yes, technically, that's true, since lying is a form of framing, and recasting a lie in a somewhat different form is a form of reframing.
But there are important differences between the essence of lying and framing, and when you obscure those differences, what you're doing is spinning. The best way I can think of to defend framing, and distinguish it from lying and spinning, is talk about where it comes from, and what it's all about-and then to show how deeply contradictory the arguments against it generally are, once you understand what it really is.
