Framing the Debate

There's been some discussion of "framing the debate," and I thought I'd jump in.

Debates are easy to frame, if you get to them first. Once that debate has been framed, it becomes very difficult to unframe it.

For example: We can use the "You're either with us or you're against us" rhetoric used right after 9/11. In that context, the debate was simple: You are either for civilization or you're for chaos and terror. Simple right?

That debate seems to have been re-framed. We saw this with the extremely poisoned pre-war rhetoric that was thrown back and forth all over the world. I've heard at least two country anti-Dixie Chick songs. Lots of people still hate France, which is ironic, because our ruling party and their ruling party are ideological cousins. Okay...second-cousins. At least it's not Front National. And as we occasionally rattle our sabers at Iran or Syria (or both) that debate is still framed in the "You're either with us or against us." Once framed, it becomes difficult to unframe.

Other examples? "Reporting on troop casulties lowers American morale." That debate has been framed blaming media for all that's wrong with the occupation. Even FAIR, which is notoriously left-leaning, sent out an action alert this week on this very subject. Yes, there's good things happening in Iraq. At the same time, guerillas are still blowing the hell out of our troops and international organizations.

(did you notice I just framed a debate?)

Once framed, it becomes difficult to unframe.