I, for one, welcome our new moral overlords

Here's my stab at the whole 'framing' problem the Dems are grappling with. I don't really like what Lakoff has to say, but I don't feel like flogging him either; so let's just start from scratch. One of the great framing successes of the past quarter century has been 'politically correct'.

I trust this proposition needs no proof, nevertheless, a graphic one recently passed beneath my amazed eye. Andrew Sullivan: 

A large part of the pro-Bush vote - especially among blue state residents - was a vote against the left elite and the cultural attitudes it represents in the public imagination. It was a vote not so much for Bush or his often religious policies (or even the war on terror), but against the post 9/11 left, against Michael Moore and political correctness and Susan Sontag and CBS News, among a host of others. I have to say that this was the most appealing thing about George W. Bush for me. If he hadn't so obviously screwed up the Iraq war and endorsed a constitutional amendment against gay rights, I would have succumbed myself.

The very notion that you ought to be even tempted to send a message to Susan Sontag by voting for Bush. (Really, this is crude telecommunication technique. Just putting on your tinfoil hat to amplify your thoughtwaves would be comparatively sensible.)

Now the striking thing about 'politically correct' is that it really means the same as 'moral values', as per Republican rhetoric and post-election polls, etc. Both terms denote sets of moral beliefs which are held strongly enough that believers are prepared to impose them on others, politically. Obviously the sets in question are different, but the thing that makes the term toxic to the bearer is actually the connotation. The elitist moral superiority of it. So what we need is an appropriate analog to pin on conservatives. There ought to be one, by rights, since the Republicans surely are elitists, and they surely do think they are highly morally superior.

Once you put the problem that way, the solution is obvious. Let's get in the habit of calling Republican moral elitists: 'the moral elite', 'morally elite', 'moral elitists'. Just use the terms as flat descriptors for anyone proposing to legislate morality in any of the usual ways. Just to change things up, sometimes you use: 'morally superior' to designate the attitude. And 'moral superiors' to designate the tribe. Maybe you start to distinguish, as a matter of course, between legislation that ensures 'moral superiority' and the regular stuff. Talk about Repubicans taking 'necessary moral superiority measures'.

The beauty of it is that 'morally superior' is already a term of faint opprobrium. It connotes petty social snobbery, schoolmarmery, so forth. It stinks. And it fits. Perfect for our purposes. And 'moral superiors' sounds worse.

It should be hard for Republicans to unstick this stuff from themselves, if accurately applied, because what are they going to do: deny that they are morally superior? In the context of, say, proposing to legislate against gay marriage, can they deny that they think they are morally superior to those who think this stuff would be alright? If they deny they are morally superior, then what do they think they are doing? Letting your neighbor be is such a fundamental American value that it is very embarrassing to be on the wrong side of it, as Republican often are these days

Elite is another good one. Republicans love to dish it out. They ought to get a taste of their own medicine. Again, the hook should be hard to weasel off. Suppose the target denies being 'a moral elite'. Then what proper business does this lot have bothering their neighbors with imposed 'moral values'? Only an elite should think it knows enough about right and wrong to take that rather extreme step. If they are not an elite, they are morally irresponsible.

There should be endless chances to needle people. 'Over at the Corner there is a lot of moral superiority blogging going on today ...' 'Senator, do you support this measure because you are morally superior?' Right now it sounds a little odd, these terms. That's why we have to start using them today. Break them in.

Suppose the victims say: no fair picking on us. Democrats have their own moral values that they believe are best. So they're an elite, same as us. This is true, but a loser, because this is a truth Republicans are at great pains to keep under wraps. If the truth that Democrats have moral values shines forth, a favorite trick no long works: pretending Democratic and/or liberal values aren't moral values. Or even values. Consider a throw-away line in this Newt Gingrich piece of work: "Given an electorate in which values really do matter to a large segment, one wonders how comfortable many Democrats will be having a minority leader (Rep. Nancy Pelosi) from San Francisco, one of the most liberal districts in the United States." It would be very satisfying to see Republicans trying to talk themselves off the hook of being morally superior, moral elitists, by having to explain that Nancy Pelosi has moral values she believes in, too. Pointing to the good example of the upstanding people of San Francisco. If all these proposed terms meant was an end to that sort of smug Newt nonsense, that would be a small, satisfying victory.

And if Reps talked themselves back to moral parity in this regard, thereby getting off the elite hook, that's still a loser. Tie goes to the defender and Republicans are the ones on the moral attack. Once you admit that Nancy Pelosi has sincere moral values, which Republicans happen to disagree with, the American way is: live and let live. That's why our ancestors can to this country. You never want to be in the position of saying: you have your values, I have mine. And that's why you have to accept mine. It's un-American to say that. It's an uphill battle, rhetorically. You look so insufferably morally superior.

Also, the terms I propose have no bad side-effects or blow-back for Dems. They don't insult religion. They don't wrongly malign portions of the Republican coalition. (One problem - a 'framing' problem, if you like - is that there are so many different flavors of Republican. You don't want to wrongly insult people, like libertarians, whom you might want to woo. Libertarians are going to be able to tell that 'moral elite', 'morally superior' aren't targetting them. They can let their fellow conservative coalition members take these lumps alone.) These terms do not wrongly malign anyone, for the targets certain do believe in their own moral superiority. So the terms merely state the undeniable truth in ways that have bad connotations - un-American connotations.

This makes the terms more ultimately durable than 'reality-based community' and all that other fun stuff. I love that stuff, don't get me wrong. But Republicans can plausibly say that, actually, they do believe in reality. And, in some strange sense, they do. Republicans can't plausible say that they don't believe they are one jot or tittle morally superior to Democrats. That would be to abandon the Culture Wars, which I take it Dems would be rather happy to do at this stage. But the Repubicans can't.

Also, the proposed terms entail no constraining commitments, no loss of mobility for Dems. (Here again, Lakoff is forever building his own wildly tendentious policy ideas into his rhetorical suggetions. That's a horrible idea. I don't even think he sees that he's doing it.) You might say: maybe later you'll want to assert moral superiority. Then where will you be, having poisoned the term? I say: for the foreseeable future - and I'd be happy to see it go on forever - the Democratic party can always defend whatever it wants to do by saying 'this proposal has the support of a strong majority of Americans, while respecting the autonomy and rights of all Americans.' Really. This is always the thing that drives Dems crazy. Their policy ideas really are popular, when people take polls and arrange focus groups and all that slick stuff. It's only the elections they lose. Let Democrats say they are for Democracy. Let the people decide. We are not a moral elite imposing our values on others. The political correctness thing shouldn't stick to us. Like we are all slaves to Susan Sontag. (Because we're not. We're just not.)

Also, there are prospects for all the good fun that has been had with 'politically correct'. You can say, 'I favor the morally inferior position in this case...' And: 'speaking only as a moral inferior ...' 'Proud member of the morally inferior community.' And so forth. And then what is the other guy going to say: no, I don't think you are taking a morally inferior position? I don't think you are in any way morally inferior in your views. If he did say that, you fire back: why are you so eager to impose your values on me if I'm not your inferior?

And suppose Republicans point out that these terms are just 'politically correct', borrowed, reversed. Well goody. So Republicans admit they are being politically correct. I'd be happy with that result.

Comments

[Jason Kuznicki]

I think this strategy would backfire worse than we can possibly imagine. Social conservatives would glory in being called "moral elites." They'd wallow in it. For the most part, that's what they are doing already, and talk like this would only play into their hands.

To social conservatives, there is an enormous gulf between morality and mere politics. The latter is ephemeral, this-worldly, and fundamentally a false value: At least half the sting of "political correctness" comes from the first word of the term, which says right away that liberals have taken up the wrong set of values. Moral elitism, though, is no vice.

The speech would go something like this: "Liberals now openly make fun of religious people. Can you imagine that? Openly making fun of religion! They now call it 'moral elitism.' Well guess what--If you have religion, even just a little tiny bit, then you are on our side. Through Jesus Christ, we truly are superior."

The Democrats would never win another election.

[Russell Arben Fox]

I think Jason is probably right, John; while "elite" does have a certain sting, in connection with morally and religiously grounded legislation it would only have any affect on those people who already kind of assume that moral and religious concerns, like economic or political ones, are social constructs. If you don't believe, or at least are open to the possibility, that morality and religiousity aren't simply social constructs, then the idea of being morally "elite," "superior," "aristocratic" (or, to get more Biblical about it, chosen or elect) isn't necessarily going to turn people off. Save those who are already on the libertarian fence, of course, and perhaps that's your hope; but that's an entirely different issue.

Also, one other potential problem with this bit of "framing," one that I don't think is avoidable. You say: "Let Democrats say they are for Democracy. Let the people decide. We are not a moral elite imposing our values on others."

Two words, John: Stephen Douglas.

[jholbo]

We'll, you've got to have the thing about protecting the rights of minorities, yeah. But I built that in by expressing remembering to mention rights and freedom. So I'm covered on that score.

Interesting that you two don't think the moral elites would might me calling them that. Drat.

[Kip Manley]

Who cares what the moral elites themselves think about it? It's everybody else that everybody else is after. "Politically correct" was for a good long while an inside joke the left played on itself, after all. Took sneering repetition after sneering repetition to twist it and turn it and shake it all about.

[Joshua]

I think that you're missing something about "politically correct" that makes this unlikely to work: it's not purely a terminological framing effect. People didn't hear the term applied to things that they were neutral or positive towards and suddenly say "oooh, that sounds icky. I'm against it." While the term was still gaining traction it referred to a pretty specific kind of mealy-mouthedness (and perhaps a hand-wringing moral relativism) that people found somewhere between absurd and objectionable..."person-holes", "wymyn", "differently-able", "x-challenged" People, including many liberal Democrats I know, bought and laughed at Politically Correct Bedtime Stories precisely because there was a certain kind of easy to recognize and easy to parody stance that Politically Correct referred to, and even people sympathetic to its motives found it laughable. At least originally, while people were learning to use it, most of the situations you would describe as being Politically Correct, instead of using the term you could describe the situation and get the same reaction.
I don't think "morally superior" or "morally elite" would work the same way. Unless you start by restricting it to a very small subset of conservative positions I don't think you're going to find that many people who find it surprising and laughable that there are those who take whatever stance morally superior is supposed to encode. Specifically, I think you need it to mean something that will cause folks who never heard the term to roll their eyes when given an example (maybe if you started just using it to describe Don Wildmon, and his type). Without that, I don't think you'll get the widespread take-up and acceptance of negative connotations that will let you broaden it and use it as the kind of club you seem to want. Instead it will stay the same kind of tag as "reality-based community", an in-group marker of those who use it. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as the PC used to say.

[Jeff]

I like the reasoning, but I also see a supply-side problem. "Moral elites" isn't quite snarky enough to create the buzz necessary for its widespread adoption by the lefty commentariat.

The right's framing is driven largely by spite, a genuine desire to stick it to the hippies, commies, yuppies, etc. Thus, if you want to fire up the base on the left, a phrase should convey "Jesus freak." But we know the left is already fired up. To make inroads into the blue-collar vote, you'd need to resusitate William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold."

[baa]

"My opponent says we wants to let the people decide. But why won't he let them decide about the sanctity of marriage, about partial birth abortion, about the death penalty for killers, about the ability of your children to say prayers in schools? They call us the "moral elite", but we just represent the common sense of everday americans. He's the one who won't let the people decide."

After the Republican candidate gives that response, I think you just lost the democrats Rhode Island.

[LizardBreath]

I made this same comment on another blog; I think "Moralist elite" works just a little better than "Moral elite", as having a sliver of implied hypocrisy ("Morally superior", on the other hand, is brilliant.") With that, I think it's snarky enough to stick.

Unless you start by restricting it to a very small subset of conservative positions I don't think you're going to find that many people who find it surprising and laughable that there are those who take whatever stance morally superior is supposed to encode. Specifically, I think you need it to mean something that will cause folks who never heard the term to roll their eyes when given an example...

You know, I don't think this is much of a problem. If we prime the pump with references to "the Sen. Santorum 'gays are gonna git you' moralist elite", "the Bill Bennett 'gambling isn't a virtue?' moralist elite"... I think people will catch on pretty fast.

[loy]

All this is beginning to remind me of Thucydides III.82...(sigh)...But since I'm Asian, let me live up to the stereotype by quoting Zhuangzi instead (I'm sure John will forgive me for this irrelevance):

"The fish trap exists because of the fish; once you've gotten the fish, you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit; once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning; once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can have a word with him?" (Ch. 26 end; Watson tr.)

[jholbo]

baa, my proposal may be a loser but I'm sure it doesn't stink as bad as you imply. Everyone understands about majority rule plus the courts to decide what the Constitution says majorities can't do, because minorities and individuals have rights. That's basic Americanism 101. You can be mad at what the courts have said, but it isn't so hard for a candidate who isn't himself the courts to avoid personal responsibility for that which he isn't personally responsible for. Namely, court decisions. Well, I won't write it out tonight. But I think it's pretty easy to slip under the guard of that little speech and give back as good. You just say yes to voting on things. You pass laws. (What else?) If the courts say they are un-Constitutional, they are struck down. Been that way for a while. Founders thought it was a good idea. Do you say different? Making the Rep sound like he never read the Constitution won't win you the election, but it can't hurt. The Democrat doesn't need to sound all pedantic and lawyerly about it either. Just be real plain and direct: look, our plan is just to do what the Constitution says. (Any objections to the most essential features of this document from our colleagues across the aisle? No. Good.)

The moral superiority thing, I should say, isn't supposed to be the big gun that blasts everything wide open. It's just a little rhetorical gun that makes it clear that people are being morally superior, in an annoying way, when they are. Americans are egalitarian and think that fences make good neighbors and don't like people who think they are better than other people telling people what to do. That's why their ancestors came to this country. This puts the latest crop of Republicans at a disadvantage if it can be exploited.

[jholbo]

Hi, Loy, good to hear from you! How are you?

[loy]

Quite well actually...thanks for asking, though it's getting cold over here in Toronto (snowed the other day). By the way, if all goes well, we are expecting a new loy coming May:-)

Anyway, I think you were right in the post--in the sense that appeal to one's "moral superiority" really has no place in the liberal democratic process. It is not a public reason (in the Rawlsian sense) given the the fact of moral pluralism. It smells of snobbery, etc. If that's so, then pointing out that one's political opponent is precisely making just an appeal--"they think they are the moral elites"---constitutes a powerful rhetorical point: "look, they think that they are holier than us..." in a liberal democratic context.

But it cuts both ways: the side making the expose' have to refrain even the impression that they think they are (morally) superior as well. Else, it would just be two sides calling each other names...

The impression I get from listening to right wing talk radio (and from talking to, say, American Church going friends) is precisely that from their perspective, it's the left that thinks of itself as being morally superior--"they look down on us folks in Jesusland as ignorant gun-carrying, minority hating rednecks, etc." It seems to me that the right has been playing by your proposed playbook for a while now: they are far, far more experienced at this game.

[David Moles]

What's the worst thing that can happen? If it gains traction, then, great. If not, what have we lost? (And don't say "Rhode Island". Nobody's talking about basing a whole campaign on this, any more than the GOP has based a whole campaign on "politically correct".) I say we give it a shot.

[joe o]

Framing isn't a stupid idea. It also isn't brain science. They showed this conservative guy on PBS who came up with the phrase "death tax". He just gets a big ass list of words and goes over them with a focus group. The ones that poll well are then faxed to all the republican polititions for repetition. Democrats should be doing this too, we shouldn't rely on Lakoff tossing out phrases in books.

[Jeff]

It seems to me that the right has been playing by your proposed playbook for a while now: they are far, far more experienced at this game.

My friends, we declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people on every question, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth; and upon that issue we expect to carry every state in the Union. I shall not slander the inhabitants of the fair state of Massachusetts nor the inhabitants of the state of New York by saying that, when they are confronted with the proposition, they will declare that this nation is not able to attend to its own business.

*******

"[Sen. Kerry] said something revealing when he laid out the Kerry Doctrine. He said that America has to pass a global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves...

He talks about PAYGO. I‘ll tell you what PAYGO means, when you're a senator from Massachusetts, when you're a colleague of Ted Kennedy, pay go means: You pay, and he goes ahead and spends."

[Jeremy Osner]

Close tag.

[praktike]

Democrat: You're a moral elitist!

Jerry Falwell: Yes I am! All fags should die!

Democrat: ?

What then, John? What then?

[Cmas]

John, the idea is right - tagging Falwell et al as the elitists they are - but the word choice is a poor one by leaving the "moral" in there. Once you concede that not only is the far right composed of the elite, but of those who are morally elite, who are ethically superior to the rest of the country, you've literally conceded the moral high ground.

Their smear against the left isn't merely that we're elitists; it's that we're morally degenerate elitists who have forfeited decency for a coarse, amoral modernist understanding of the world which we, in our arrogance, believe to be superior to the Simple Values Of Decent Folk. Any framing and counter-framing coming from the left should work to disarm the right of the notion that they're moral at all.

[Kris Lytle]

Speaking from the right - those who have posted that this wouldn't work are correct. The idea of the liberal elite has been so ingrained into the heads of "average Joe Republicans" that they consider themselves counter-cultural - rebels, if you will - in voting Republican. They relish voting against against Susan Sarandon, The Dixie Chicks, Alec Baldwin and all the celebrities who have made the left so trendy. Also: the average conservative doesn't consider himself to be imposing his own "superior" morality on others; rather, he considers himself to be upholding what has been the general, mainstream lifestyle and morality of the U.S. in modern times, conserving the culture against those who would impose their own post-modern morality upon all of us. It's the definition of conservatism. Are there some extremists who go overboard with it? Yeah, sure, we've got our Falwell like you've got your Moore. But the mainstream Republican thinks Falwell's just as nutty as Moore.

Agree or disagree with the above, I think it more accurately pinpoints the attitude of the mainstream right than anything I've seen posted here. I'd like to see the left get itself back together and be a more serious competitor and, more importantly, a check on some of my party's less moderate constituencies. I don't think, however, that trying to label us as "moral elites" is going to have the effect you want. Especially given some of the columns written in the wake of the election - Jane Smiley's "unteachable ignorance of the red states" comes to mind - it's going to be a hard sell to make us come off as the elitists.

[spacetoast]

"it's going to be a hard sell to make us come off as the elitists."

Maybe if Richard Dawkins wrote a personal letter to each of you...

[Cmas]

"it's going to be a hard sell to make us come off as the elitists."

If it's going to be hard, it'll be hard only by dint of the fact that Republicans have been smearing the left as elitist as a political strategy for thirty-plus years now. Given that the majority of the country is opposed to the goals of social conservatives, it's an amazing testament to the power of framing that the increasingly shrinking views of the cultural right have managed to be packaged as - what did you call them? - "mainstream lifestyle and morality."

Dobson, Falwell, Reed, Robertson - whether the average Republican thinks they're "as nutty as Moore" or not, they have far more influence than Michael Moore ever dreamt of having. Moore isn't getting constitutional amendments proposed just to win his vote, or crackpot justices elevated to the federal bench just to make the loons on his mailing list happy.

The problem for the Republicans is that these people are arrogant elitists of the worst sort. They're firmly in the minority of the country, and they think their cruel and spiteful take on religious belief should override the direction of the rest of the country.

Sixty percent of the country wants to uphold Roe v Wade. Two-thirds want to extend some form of marriage rights to gays, as either civil unions or as full civil marriage. As the religious right increases its political power within the GOP, it's been decreasing its power within American society. The right is losing - and indeed, has already lost - the culture wars. It's just a matter of how much damage they can do to basic American liberties before they implode (and take the Republican Party down along with them).

Sane Republicans, who don't want their party flushed in anger when Roe gets overturned by a court of crackpots, had better hope that Dems can marginalize the religious right within the next few years, before they seriously overreach and screw themselves and their party.

[Greg London]

"moral elite" doesn't really work to reframe these folks. you need to highlight to the moderates where these guys are over the top and get the middle of the road people to defect to reason.

Basically, the problem people are the ones who are attempting to take their belief in some far-out interpretations of the bible and are remaking our government in that image.

"Creationism should be taught in schools" type people who argue that since evolution is not a scientific law and only a theory, then all theories should get equal time in school classes.

on a tactical level, you need to show individual issues like teaching creationism in schools as religious extremists attempting to pass off their wild interpretations of the bible as scientificly sound.

On a strategic level, you need to show moderates the problem that this approach invites when separation of church and state are thrown aside. If we have to teach kids that the universe might have been literally created in six days, what other religions should be taught in science class as viable scientific theories.

Should meteorology include the study of the "theory" of rain gods because there is no 100 percent weather model to accurately predict rain?

Occam's Razor has been subverted by these zealots. "Do not multiply entities needlessly". Do not create any needless levels of comlexity, story, or entities to explain a thing. inventing rain gods breaks Occam's razor.

The scientific method has been trashed by these zealots. They've managed to re-frame "theory" as anything that is not proven as scientific law. and people are buying it.

If you want to reframe this and win, you basically need to take the dogma of the Dark Ages and reframe it in the light of the Age of Reason. Otherwise, dogma will continue to retake ground.

[Randolph Fritz]

"it's going to be a hard sell to make us come off as the elitists."

Oh, you mean "I don't need to do my Guard duty 'cause my father will get me off" isn't elitist? You mean "your kids go to jail for 20 years & mine get off 'cause I'm governor" isn't elitist? "Lets rework the tax system so the rich pay less and everyone else pays more" isn't elitist? William "writes books on morality and gambles away a fortune" isn't elitist? Rush "tough on drug crime" Limbaugh isn't elitist?

Bitter? I suppose I am. Would-be aristocratic elite is exactly what they are; one set of rules for them and theirs and another for all us working stiffs. If the charge of elitism can be made to stick, it'll hurt--because once the idea sticks, it'll be obvious it's true.

[Realish]

I think three things:

1. Someone upthread was right that "moralist elite" comes off better than "moral elite."

2. Someone else upthread was right about a larger issue, which is that framing is not rocket science, and it's not done by idle musing. It's brute marketing psychology. Get people in a room, find out what words do and don't bring up positive connotations, and act accordingly. "Moralist" has negative connotations, "moral" doesn't. But there's no need to guess at this stuff -- let's find out, do the research. It's distasteful work, but absolutely necessary.

3. Falwell is -- unequivocally, incontravertably, objectively, beyond any conceivable argument, nuttier than Michael Moore. Michael Moore has come to symbolize many things to many people, but the actual guy is only mildly nutty. Falwell is full-on batshit.

[Chloe]

While I think this post exposes moral elitists for what they are, very well... I don't think it's good "framing". I think a message of anti-framing might be the winner.
After all, I've been calling right-winger Christian Coalition types "moral elitists with an attitude of superiority and domineering agenda" for years, and it's never caught on in pop-culture.
And I, for one, rather like being grouped in with the "latte-sipping" & the "tree-huggers". Those pop-culture tags mean that just being seen as liberal, makes me seem more cool & hip, and more environmentally active, than I really am. :) I haven't done any real big environmental activism in years, and I think I may have had a latte just once... I generally gulp hot cocoa, and continue to buy stuff in plastic packaging. But I consistently vote left, so all is forgiven!
I think that's the issue with the Republican moral values catch is...
"It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them." -- Alfred Adler
Republicans can live an unsavory immoral life, in so many ways, and redeem themselves instantly by voting for a candidate that supposedly upholds 'moral values', in other ways.