CHAPTER 6
How Values Work

When the second Bush won his second term, progressives were, quite understandably, apoplectic. “How could we lose to this guy?” we asked. And the media answered, “moral values.” Dick Meyer, editorial director of CBSNews.com, recalls the conventional wisdom that prevailed in the weeks following that election: “The Big Political Idea of the 2004 election goes something like this: ‘Moral values’ turned out to be the most important issue to voters, not the economy or the Iraq war or terrorism. President Bush won because a legion of ‘values voters’—whose growing numbers escaped the attention of an inattentive media—preferred him. The Democrats are doomed until they can woo the voters who belong to this new political force.”

But the conventional wisdom was wrong. It was based on a single exit poll which asked, “Which one issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president?” Given only seven choices, 22 percent chose “moral values,” and of those, four out of five voted for Bush. The other answers were “economy/jobs” (which was selected by 20 percent); “terrorism” (19 percent); “Iraq” (15 percent); and then “health care,” “taxes,” and “education” (all in single digits). So terrorism and Iraq together were actually far more important than moral values, and economy/jobs was nearly as important. In addition, moral values voters were already part of the Republican base—which means that moral values didn’t persuade, it was just the answer that felt most comfortable to stalwart conservatives.

As is too often the case in politics, truth was irrelevant. The media’s perception became our reality. In this instance it was a lucky break, because it focused our attention on two very important questions. What are our progressive values, and how can we use them to win the next election?

What Are Values?

The right wing wants Americans to think that values are personal traits derived from a religious code of conduct. Fortunately, most voters aren’t buying what the conservatives are selling. Americans believe that values are broader than conservative religious principles—values have to do with knowing right from wrong, being fair with others, telling the truth, and living up to one’s personal philosophy.

Consider the ways people answered an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that asked an open-ended question about values (Figure 6.1).

Only 16 percent of Americans connected the phrase moral values to religion or opposition to same-sex marriage. So are progressives for moral values? You bet we are. We know that moral values need not be the anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-science mores of the right wing. But let’s move beyond the conservative spin to a real understanding of the concept.

Values are the simplest kind of frames. They contain verbal cues that tell you whether the thing being described is good or bad. It’s a tip-off about what you’re supposed to think or feel. Values judge how fabrics feel (silky), how foods taste (savory), how flowers smell (sweet). Values measure the quality of an athletic performance (agile), the mood of a nightclub (lively), the success of a vacation (relaxing), the appearance of a building (ornate). Courage is a value. Health is a value. Strength is a value. But none of these are moral values.

In politics, values are ideals that describe the kind of society we are trying to build. But even there, conservative policies have nothing to do with morality. Think about it. Do moral values explain why they oppose a higher minimum wage, favor lowering taxes for the rich, or attempt to block the exercise of free speech? And how can anyone reconcile the most basic Judeo-Christian moral value, love thy neighbor, with discrimination?

Figure 6.1

How Americans Define “Moral Values” (percentages)

Question: When you hear the phrase “moral values,” what does it mean to you?

In fact, the supposed link between right wing politics and “morality” is a cynical perversion of the English language. So, how do they get away with it? To answer that, think about the difference between public and private values.

The term private values identifies commonly accepted measurements of a good person, like fidelity, honesty, and respect for others. The Boy Scout Law (Figure 6.2) is a terrific list of widely admired private values.

The term public values means commonly-accepted measurements of good public policy, like freedom, opportunity, and security (Figure 6.3).

Here is the right wing’s message framing trick: their “moral values” refer to private, not public policy values. That’s why they claim values to argue for laws that supposedly promote “self-reliance” and “reverence to [their] God.” And that’s why a president who has inappropriate sex must be impeached while a president whose policies kill thousands of people is exalted.

Figure 6.2

Private Values

Figure 6.3

Public Values

The private value most commonly wielded by conservatives is responsibility. But they misuse the term. Unemployment, hunger, discrimination are the individual’s responsibility, they say. They’re not a societal problem. In other words, conservatives twist the language of responsibility to shirk responsibility. It’s downright Orwellian.

Conservatives don’t even have to say responsibility to get this point across. They just use the framework of private values to present their messages. Studies consistently show that when news stories involving social issues are framed to focus on individuals’ misfortunes, the public tends to place responsibility on the individual. When similar stories are framed to focus on the conditions and policies that cause individuals’ misfortunes, the public tends to hold government policies responsible. For the same reason, presenting an issue in terms of private values suggests individual responsibility, the conservative position. In contrast, highlighting public values suggests society’s responsibility, the progressive argument.

Aha! That explains both Bush senior’s “thousand points of light” and Bush junior’s “faith-based initiatives.” Those PR projects were intentionally designed to create recurrent opportunities for the Bushes to praise private values—to shift the focus from society’s responsibility to personal responsibility, from progressive solutions to conservative business as usual.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that progressives should never espouse private values. The personal attributes of individual candidates for office are properly evaluated in such terms. But progressives gain the upper hand when we move the policy debate from private to public values, because we’re the only ones who favor freedom, opportunity, and security for all. Let’s use private values to talk about individuals, and stick to public values when we argue for our policies.

Figure 6.4

Importance of Specific Values Among Persuadables

Question: For each one I’d like you to tell me how important [each] value is for our country on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all important and 10 is extremely important.

Progressive Values Work

Freedom, opportunity, and security are what linguists call deep frames, fundamental frames, or Level One frames. According to the experts at FrameWorks, Level One frames deal with “big ideas, like freedom, justice, community, success, prevention, responsibility.” (Level Two frames deal with “issue-types, like the environment or child care,” and Level Three frames deal with “specific issues, like rainforests or earned income tax credits.”)

Virtually everyone agrees with Level One values. Who is against freedom in the abstract? The question is not whether people agree, it is how strongly they agree. A section of our Celinda Lake poll was devoted to this query (Figure 6.4).

Figure 6.5

Economic Freedom Versus Economic Fairness (percentages)

Question: Which is more important to you personally—economic fairness or economic freedom.

Before we start splitting hairs, let’s remember that all of these are extremely popular values. The most compelling, however, is freedom—and liberty is not far behind. That points to our biggest message framing problem. As Celinda Lake says, “If we want to compete on values, we have to find a way to use freedom.”

Freedom

I’ve already demonstrated that “free markets” and “free competition” are powerful messages. Figure 6.5 presents another example of the political strength of freedom.

Freedom is the cornerstone of America’s value system. It is the most sacred word in our civic religion. It’s the battle cry that best sums up the reason for our nation’s founding. And it’s a major stumbling block for progressives, because this word is barely on the fringe of our vocabulary. When we shy away from saying freedom, we allow the right wing to abuse the term as a justification for preemptive war, extrajudicial imprisonment, warrantless searches, corporate giveaways, and environmental devastation.

I’m not the only one to raise this alarm. Whose Freedom? by George Lakoff, makes the same point. But Lakoff counsels us to use a “dynamic” definition of “expandable freedoms” that can be stretched to describe just about every progressive cause. For example, he proposes that we respond to the right wing’s activist judges with the term freedom judges.

I respectfully disagree. We cannot criticize the right wing for abusing the word freedom if we misuse it ourselves. How can we ridicule freedom fries if we say freedom judges? When we describe economic or security concerns in terms of freedom, we fall into the right-wing’s messaging trap by reinforcing their frame—and we lose the debate.

Instead of further muddying the linguistic waters, let’s adopt a messaging framework that progressive candidates can follow. Progressives should use freedom to describe the absence of government restraint on fundamental individual rights. But if we limit our use of freedom to a defense of basic rights, does that mean we give up hope of defeating the free competition frame? No, it can be beaten. Figure 6.6 provides an example.

Even Republicans have become afraid of the term free trade and prefer fair trade by a margin of almost two to one. Fair trade wins for two reasons: First, the phrase has been popularized—not everybody knows what the idea means (least of all, persuadable voters)—but they know the term. Second, Americans have come to understand that trade is a matter of security, not freedom—and free trade makes them insecure.

The same could happen with the terms free markets and fair markets. With some effort, progressives could turn fair markets into a commonly heard phrase, and with a little more effort we could frame markets as a question of equal opportunity instead of freedom. Even if this seems a tall order, we really have no choice. Arguing against the concept of free markets without an alternative concept is like trying to fight a tank with a peashooter. (I hate to resort to a battlefield analogy, but as Chairman Mao said, “Politics is war without bloodshed.”) So let’s say fair markets over and over, until Americans understand it as the authentic American economic philosophy.

Figure 6.6

Ensure That Trade Is Fair Versus Promote Free Trade (percentages)

Question: Tell me whether the first statement or the second statement comes closer to your own view, even if neither is exactly right: The government should act to protect jobs and ensure that trade is fair, or, The government should promote free trade to expand exports and import cheaper goods.

Opportunity

During the Clinton administration, opportunity was a top-tier value. But its power has diminished in recent years for two reasons. First, 9/11 and the frenzied focus on international terrorism have shifted attention away from this rather optimistic concept. Physical security is perceived as a greater concern than economic opportunity. More important, Americans have also become rather pessimistic about their economic prospects. They now value economic security far more than economic opportunity (Figure 6.7).

Figure 6.7

Economic Opportunity Versus Economic Security (percentages)

Question: Which is more important to you personally—economic opportunity or economic security.

For the same reasons, polls show that Americans have become less confident that they will ever achieve the American dream. And after all that has happened during the Bush administration, who can blame them?

There are less cheery terms that convey the concept of opportunity, including equal justice, equality, fairness, and equal opportunity. These are a little more defensive, because they imply “someone else got theirs, so I want mine.” And these formulations of opportunity remain as popular as ever. While there’s nothing wrong with opportunity, progressives will get a little more traction by saying equal opportunity or other words until Americans become more hopeful. But hope is hardwired into Americans, so we can expect the more optimistic version of opportunity to make a comeback, and soon. Perhaps all it will take is a change of presidents.

Security

John Kerry lost the 2004 election on the issue of security. So-called security moms voted for George Bush—and other Republican candidates—because they thought the GOP would do a better job of keeping their families safe from terrorism. What were they thinking? Here’s part of an op-ed published in USA Today:

 

I am what this year’s pollsters call a “security mom.”… The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks shook me out of my Generation X stupor. Unlike Hollywood and The New York Times and the ivory tower, I have not settled back casually into a Sept. 10 way of life. I have studied the faces on the FBI’s most-wanted-terrorists list. When I ride the train, I watch for suspicious packages in empty seats. When I am on the highways, I pay attention to large trucks and tankers. I make my husband take his cell phone with him everywhere—even on a quick milk run or on a walk to the community pool.

 

While that was written by a right-wing columnist, it does capture the fears of many persuadable voters. According to a Gallup Poll just weeks before the 2004 election, 75 percent of women (and 44 percent of men) worried that someone in their family would become a victim of terrorism. So voters are scared. Progressives have no chance to win their trust unless we take their fear seriously.

Fear is a powerful motivator. Those who took basic psychology should remember Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

 

●Physiological needs

●Safety needs

●Love and belonging needs

●Esteem needs

●Self-actualization needs

 

Once people have satisfied the physiological needs (basic biological needs, such as air and food), their strongest motivation is personal security. So when a candidate suggests “if you don’t vote for me, you’re going to die”—and you believe it might be true—he has your vote. Hmmm, kind of explains both the 2002 and 2004 elections, doesn’t it?

Figure 6.8

Security Depends on International Cooperation Versus Security Depends on Military Strength (percentages)

Question: Tell me whether the first statement or the second statement comes closer to your own view, even if neither is exactly right: America’s security depends on building strong ties with other nations, or, Bottom line, America’s security depends on its own military strength..

Fortunately, we don’t have to abandon our principles to reassure voters that we know how to protect them. Look at Figure 6.8!

You may have noticed that in earlier figures the answers of persuadable voters usually fall about halfway between Democratic and Republican answers. Not here. Persuadables are much closer to Democrats on multilateralism and far from Republicans. So on military and terror-related issues, let’s use this advantage. Talk all you want about security, and be prepared to point out that our policies would make America more secure.

At the same time, progressives have much more credibility than conservatives on issues of economic security, health security, and employment security. Americans are ready to hear our message—as long as we remember to explain that the beneficiaries of our security programs are entirely deserving of the government’s help.

Responsibility

This brings us to responsibility, another truly compelling political value. The conservative version of this concept is individual or personal responsibility—an idea that is more popular than opportunity or security. Progressives can answer with an appeal to mutual or community responsibility, as I discussed earlier. But I think there’s a better response, one that was a favorite of President John F. Kennedy.

 

Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.

 

And more famous than that, delivered in his Inaugural Address just before “Ask not what your country can do for you”:

 

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it.

 

How can we quickly and directly draw the distinction between progressives and conservatives? Progressives assume responsibility, while conservatives shirk it. We’re determined to extend freedom, opportunity, and security to all—and we’ll take responsibility for energetic steps toward these goals. Conservatives refuse that responsibility—they simply don’t share our values.

That’s our linchpin. Remember, the Rush Limbaughs of the world have been arguing that they have values and we don’t. But, see, it’s just the opposite. Progressives stand for traditional American political values, and we welcome the responsibility to fight for them. By arguing for individual responsibility and opposing freedom, opportunity, and security for all, it’s the conservatives who are short on values.

It’s not unusual to compare political spin to Newspeak from George Orwell’s novel 1984. (I’ve done it twice already.) We call it Orwellian when a measure increasing air pollution is called Clear Skies, when legislation that erodes the fundamental rights of Americans is called the Patriot Act, and when a military invasion and occupation is called Operation Iraqi Freedom. But Orwell was expressing more than his disgust when war is called peace, and lies are called truth. He was saying that language itself can become a tool of evil by changing how people think.

In 1984, an editor of the Newspeak dictionary explains to the novel’s protagonist: “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

When a word like values is redefined to mean antigay bigotry, when a word like freedom is redefined to mean extrajudicial imprisonment and torture, that narrows the way Americans perceive the political debate. Yes, injustice is called justice, but worse, voters forget the true meaning of injustice.

It’s our job to remind them. Whatever else we do, let’s remember that our goal is to clarify, not to obfuscate. We’re trying to use language to broaden thinking, not narrow it. Let’s fight the right wing’s Newspeak with words that persuadable voters understand as plainspoken truth.