When Andrew Breitbart said “politics is downstream from culture,” he summed up in
five words how the left is winning the battle for the American mind.
The political struggle between left and right takes place, not at the ballot box, but in
culture and in the very language we use to talk about politics.
Those who control the culture shape the political future.
Subtle differences in language we use to talk about political issues are in fact grounded
in a deep cultural divide.
And overwhelmingly, the left has been winning the language battle.
Take the word “gridlock”.
Frequently used to describe situations in which a legislature cannot reach agreement
to pass a law, the word has been spread through left-wing media.
"Gridlock."
Inherent in this word choice are the negative associations it brings – traffic jams; something
that should flow smoothly, becoming blocked.
Unspoken is the left-wing assumption that government should be acting to easily pass
lots of new laws.
By contrast, persons with a right-of-center mindset driven by the Constitution would never
have picked the word, because they understand the Founders designed the legislature to first
achieve broad agreement before it can act, in order to protect the citizenry from having
their rights violated by a small but powerful group of politicians.
But once the “gridlock” language breaks out into the culture, people hearing it in
the news or in conversation may never consciously notice how much that single word is packed
with negative meaning, and those who wouldn’t have originated it then adopt it.
As it becomes common usage, all its negative associations infect every discussion on the
topic for years.
All words trigger a network of associations and emotional evaluations that shape our reaction
in a positive or negative direction.
Think of the word “bird” – unconsciously your mind will think of “fly”, “wings”,
“nest”, “chirp”, and so forth.
You may form a natural positive evaluation.
Now think of the word “spider” – observe the different associations and unconscious
negative reaction your brain has.
With political words and phrases, there is enormous room for culture and education to
shape our unconscious associations, and activists have enormous incentives to exploit this phenomenon.
Consider the phrase “limited government.”
To someone steeped in an individualist culture, or a Judeo-Christian culture, the phrase may
spark associations with “natural rights,” or “god-given rights,” and a historic
bulwark against abuse of power.
But what if you’re steeped in a collectivist or progressive culture that didn’t teach
the value of limiting the monopoly on force that is government?
Your unconscious, instant evaluation of the term may be totally different; you may associate
“limited government” with “limited in ability,” “barrier to progress,” “antiquated.”
Think how that process works for all the phrases we use in political conversation every day.
If you control the culture, you control the associations.
This is called “framing”.
A Princeton University study asked respondents if a group accused of hate speech should be
allowed to hold a rally in their town.
When the question referred to first Amendment rights; 85 percent said yes.
But when the question referred to the potential for violence, only 45 percent said yes.
With its control of culture, the left controls the framing of political disputes.
Limiting right-of-center speech on campus is framed as “support for tolerance”.
Disagreement is framed as “intolerant/hateful/hurtful.”
Imagine you’re a non-political person who hears the story of “hateful intolerance
on campus” – if you don’t hear the other frame, which side will your instincts support?
Similarly, framing “income inequality” as “the 1 percent versus the 99 percent”
leads people to associate differences in income with something unnatural, morally wrong, not
in keeping with a just and fair society.
The frame excludes natural differences between individuals in abilities and attitudes that
lead to different outcomes.
The frame also excludes the way “rich” and “poor” often describes the same people,
just at different stages of life, as time and experience allow people to earn and accumulate
more resources.
Consider the change in framing from the term “illegal alien,” to “illegal immigrant,”
to “undocumented immigrant,” to “migrant.”
Even the most innocuous-sounding language can be engrained with an unintended political
message: consider “reform” and the positive associations triggered by the word.
Who could be against reform – healthcare reform, immigration reform, etcetera.
Today we must ask – does our culture have the confidence in America’s founding principles
to defend itself?
With the left’s dominance of our cultural institutions, and thus over language and framing,
the right can no longer assume that voters understand the moral concerns that drive our
policies.
But there is a path back: pay attention to the hidden frame and expose the flaws in its
unspoken assumptions.
Don’t use the left’s frame.
Reframe arguments on solid moral ground.
And most importantly, set the frame to begin with, by winning back the culture.
This is not a call for the right to stoop to the left’s tactics.
But we must understand the methods they use to challenge and change the meaning of words
such as equality, fairness, tolerance, and even freedom, the very language of our political
discourse.
I’m Dr. Steven J. Allen.
If you liked this video, please help us share it and subscribe to our channel.
Thanks for watching!