Luntz of the Left?

In a preview of a piece set to appear in the New York Times Magazine on Sunday, we see that Democrats have recognized the value of language and its ability to favorably frame political debate. George Lakoff, the subject of the article, is compared with Frank Luntz, whose methodology, impact, and results we have read about and discussed in class.

Luntz' value to Republicans has been demonstrated time and again. The rhetorical upper hand can make a huge difference in how Americans respond to issues. Despite Luntz' success, the Democrats have not to-date countered with a language guru of their own. As a result, they frequently find themselves pinned in by the words that frame the debate.

As one example, look at the hot button issue of abortion. The act of aborting a fetus is an act nearly impossible to advocate, no matter ones position on the issue. Despite polls showing that a majority of Americans support a woman's ability to choose this course, Democrats lose on the issue because they cannot help but be on the defensive. Pro-choice candidates are characterized as favoring "abortion on demand" or worse. Anti-abortion candidates, meanwhile, run under the mantel of "pro-life", a vastly superior rhetorical position. If you follow DNC Chairman Howard Dean's statements, he has made a concerted effort to re-cast the language of the abortion debate. Hillary Clinton is attempting to position herself similarly.

In the end, language can't trump the actual positions being staked out, but it is a crucial feature in effectively communicating with voters. Beyond simple words, the work of Luntz and Lakoff is geared toward the context or framing of debate. This is their real impact on political messaging, as it defines how voters perceive issues. If Lakoff can match the work of Luntz, the subsequent rhetorical posturing of both sides will be dizzying. The risk is that such activity will ultimately put the public in a spot where reality is shielded by the nuance of language and metaphor.

Strategic Plan

Looking at the Virginia Family Values PAC, you see a group that has really failed to leverage the web to impact debate on the issues. This failure is occurring despite the large amount of public attention and debate focused on issues important to them. Below are some highlights of VFVPAC's strengths and weaknesses.

Strengths:

The Virginia Family Values PAC is well positioned to impact debate in the Commonwealth of Virginia on social issues, particularly as these issues relate to the subjects of gay rights and sex education. VFVPAC has co-opted the "family values" label long used by their philosophical opponents. This bit of irony serves their message properly, as it demonstrates that not everyone agrees on the best definition for family values. It also dilutes the ability of its ideological opponents to monopolize favorable language on the issue.

Effectively neutralizing the social conservative block would go a long way in turning around the fortunes of Democrats in Virginia. In this way, VFVPAC is well positioned to serve as an organizing force, and could leverage its influence to gain financial or other (more tacit) support from the Democratic Party and progressive organizations. As a state-level organization, VFVPAC should be able to more effectively communicate with Virginians than a national organization that does not understand the political nuances of the Commonwealth. It is thus important that VFVPAC strive to be the public face on one side of these issues for Virginians.

It must be recognized, however, that this is an uphill climb. Demographic trends in Northern Virginia benefit VFVPAC by increasing the number of sympathetic Virginia voters, but the rural base of social conservatives is larger and more cohesive. VFVPAC faces the challenge of solidifying their base of support while not alienating mainstream Virginians by adopting too narrow a focus on divisive issues.

The fact that VFVPAC recognizes the need for an internet presence is a strength, but this isn't 1996, so it's not that much of a strength. Its quick and easy means for donating money or forwarding the URL to a friend are strong and should be better integrated. Just being online and taking donations is not enough to create a successful advocacy movement. The VFVPAC's online operation has much to improve upon.

Weaknesses:

Lack of clear, unmistakable, and understandable organizational objectives. The VFVPAC seems to focus its online efforts on the defeat of a handful of Delegates, but does not have a clear theme to any of its other activities and positions. You never want potential donors or volunteers to question what it is they are donating to, or why they would be needed to volunteer. It should be perfectly clear within seconds what the organizational objectives of VFVPAC are, but in its current state, discerning that is simply not possible.

The structural weakness detailed above leads to other weaknesses. The layout of the site is as aimless as the undefined organizational objectives. The layout is sloppy and ineffective, and does nothing to lead a visitor to crucial site areas that best align with the organization's strategic objectives.

The Blog is the primary content driver, and though a Blog is very important to this site, it should be only one component of fresh site content, and a component that highlights developments in other frequently updated content areas such as legislative action and news.

The site should be positioned for the long haul. It should focus more on maintaining registrants and volunteers. Now, only a newsletter option is offered, and that does nothing to foster the community atmosphere that is necessary to achieving coherent and lasting advocacy. VFVPAC should be the tool by which volunteer action is initiated, and there is currently no opportunity to volunteer. It should also prominently display features that allow visitors to forward the site or specific site content to sympathetic friends.

Digital Divide

The Economist has it right in its identification of the mobile phone as the best near term option for addressing the digital deficit.

One key obstacle to successful spread of mobile phone technology is the lack of markets without moats. The U.N. should focus its services on creating market conditions that welcome private investment, and should work with developing countries to break through neglected and state-owned telecom systems and cushion their transition to the free market.

Sounds like the U.N. would prefer to dump loads of money into an inefficient set of programs with no real means to measure success or assign accountablity. Not shocking.

Mobile technology can be a transformational societal force. There is a real threat that transformative technology can destablize established order and the construct of power. This dynamic is critical to bear in mind in today's global threat environment, particularly as the fate of the developing world tracks much closer to the fate of our own.