“Bringing Framing to Organizing.”

-Held April 20-22, 2005, in Seattle, Washington

Enclosed are Summary Notes from Dialogue #9, “Bringing Framing to Organizing.” As many of you know, our spring domestic Dialogue on Framing this year was held in three phases:

I. The Seattle Dialogue, held April 20-22, 2005, with over fifty participants from a variety of community organizations and unions from both the U.S. and Canada.

II. A mini-Dialogue with senior staff and leadership of the Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC) network of organizations was held June 3, 2005 in Rapid City, South Dakota. WORC invited John Russonello and Kate Stewart of Belden Russonello & Stewart in Washington D.C. to work with staff and leadership to improve the “framing” of current campaigns being waged by the WORC network.

III. A mini-Dialogue with the management staff of Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in Denver on August 29-30, 2005. Ted Nordhaus of America Environics made a similar presentation to ACORN staff as he had done in the Seattle Dialogue as he explained the “The Strategic Values Project” which has looked at values data collected in both the U.S. and Canada over the past 15-20 years. As part of this Framing mini-Dialogue, ACORN also worked with Chuck Pettis of BrandSolutions on a “branding map” of ACORN and it’s network or “family of organizations”.

You will find included here the Summary Notes for these series of Framing Dialogues, notes from some of the powerpoint presentations given, and a couple of recent articles that pose aspects of hurricane Katrina and it’s aftermath, using a “framing” perspective.

We again want to express our thanks and gratitude to all who attended these Dialogues, to all the presenters who shared their knowledge and perspectives to this methodology of “Framing”, and especially to those funders who specifically funded this Dialogue—Nathan Cummings Foundation (special thanks to Andrea Kydd and Peter Teague); the Marguerite Casey Foundation (special thanks to Chantel Walker); and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation (special thanks to Cris Doby).

If you have questions about The Organizer’s Forum, any past or future Dialogues, contact:

Barbara Bowen, National Coordinator                   
The Organizers' Forum-West                   
P.O. Box 402                              
Stinson Beach, CA 94970                        

Email: bjbowen6@aol.com
Office ph:  (415) 868-0866
Cell ph:      (415) 509-1927
Fax ph:       (415) 868-2925

Summary Notes on Dialogue #9 of the Organizers’ Forum:

Note:  These notes are for informational purposes only and represent an effort to summarize what presenters presented and some participant discussion.  Apologies are offered for any mistakes of fact or nuance, made not out of malice but due to human error.

Introduction - Wade Rathke, Board Chair of the Organizers' Forum 

More than sixty organizers came together outside of Seattle in the recent dialogue convened by the Organizers' Forum to see what exactly what was behind the buzz around "framing."  These were not true believers, but skeptics who might have thumbed through framing guru George Lakoff's bestselling book Don't Think of an Elephant or made it through his Moral Politics, but they were using a lot of their other fingers to scratch their heads trying to figure out whether there was something really to all of this.

Over several days the debate was engaged with George Lakoff, Celinda Lake, Ted Nordhaus, Makani Themba-Nixon, Hunter Cutting, Tony Fazio, Holly Minch, Taj James and Scott Reed, all of whom touched on the subject from different directions and allowed different perspectives to emerge.  Where the issue is joined most intimately by organizers and other activists is in the rejection of short cuts.  Organizers resisted the notion that "framing" was a new silver bullet that changed the outcomes of struggle from defeat to victory.  The notion that simply changing the language of the debate was sufficient to win the battle to persuade the public ran deeply counter to all of the experience in the room. 

    However we understand the metaphor, we gradually made progress.  Whether "framing" became the matting, wood, and glass holding the picture we wanted people to hold firmly in place in their minds or the two by four structure around which we could build the walls and hold up the roof of our campaigns and politics, we gradually came to understand we were struggling to acquire tools we could work with, rather than a tricked out new, finished prefab structure.  We might have hoped to find a short cut or a magic trick, but instead the dialogue on framing mapped out the basics for harder, sweaty work so that we could more effectively communicate and therefore move people, which is at the heart of organizing and political work. 

    Damn!  We can't catch a break.  We didn't believe we were going to find a straight shot through, but secretly I will bet there was not a single one of us who were not hoping down deep for something that would tilt the odds to our favor.  Perhaps, in fact that is what might be possible working with these powerful tools to a level of more proficiency. 

We send along these Summary Notes from the Organizers' Forum framing dialogues and we wish you all could have been there.  But barring that, we hope the next best thing is bringing you some of the full flavor and value of the discussion, which these notes will hopefully do.  Pulling these tools together and putting them in your hands, we can hopefully build a larger framework that holds more of our people and the mass constituency firmly together.

1.  Introductions and Expectations

Due to some technical difficulties in hooking up with George Lakoff on Wednesday evening, we rearranged the Agenda to instead hear from the participants on  the work they do in their organizations, and what were their expectations coming into this Dialogue on Framing.

Some of the comments, questions and expectations expressed were as follows:

• We have met before with George Lakoff but found we didn't have the way or know-how to put new Framing into practice.  Are there progressive "think tanks" working on Framing"?
• In Vancouver, Canada, labor is working with community to develop frames of values that progressives share.
• It's a challenge to find the language that works for those workers wanting a union and it may be different for different workers, e.g. building trades.
• Want to know how to do what we do "smarter", especially in developing leaders.
• In ISAIAH, working a couple of years on 1:1 conversations, we have created some frames.  I'm interested in how we can further the work we've begun.
• In representing family farmers, we are searching for frames that help to communicate why farm policy is important to everyone.  In demanding "don't displace our food system," we are pushing the message of "food sovereignty".
• As a labor union, we find that many of our members have adopted the language of management, especially when bargaining.  As we move to organizing a new constituency of worker-family childcare providers-we see that we have a chance to write new frames and do better in hope that the results are more empowering to the workers.
• Some of us in the UAW have been reading "Don't Think of an Elephant!" by Lakoff and we recognize that framing can be a powerful tool but not the be-all or end-all either.  We need to be thinking more about the "moral" perspectives of workers forming unions.  We need to be about creating a culture-where it now doesn't exist-whereby it is okay to have a union.  This will take a greater emphasis on community outreach for us.
• In the UAW we are in process of re-building the manufacturing base of the union and our units mean that we are communicating to 6,000-12,000 workers who are mostly assembly & supplier workers.  We have to work to frame quickly, especially as union gets demonized by management.  We need to figure out how to frame without feeding into the opposition.  How do we fight through the noise?   We often see how community group messages feed and support the employers' campaign and reminds us how undisciplined we are as a movement.We need to be thinking about how NOT to shoot ourselves in the foot?.immigration is the American experience and sometimes we agree with right wing frames-"Be for the Dream Act because children are innocent" when unconsciously we are agreeing with an underlying frame that "adults are guilty" and we are therefore selling out our longterm vision.
• In the predatory lending fight, it was a new issue and we found that the issue hadn't yet been framed by the opposition.  The opposite is true with anything to do with immigration.  We need help in framing our statewide fights, especially those like drivers' licenses where the frames seem already set in place.  Because of our neighborhood base in Chicago, we are finding that larger issues-like education and health care-are also being framed as "immigrant" issues.
• As organizers we frame no matter what, and we need to be able to recognize when we have a frame that works, and when we have one that doesn't.
• Although we are church-based, it doesn't seem that we talk our values very well.  We tend to pick our issues and then "back into" the values.  We need to be aware that if we want to work with other groups, then we need to be using the same frames and language, e.g. illegal aliens vs undocumented workers.
• It seems that sometimes with our inoculation, that we actually help the employer frame us.  We are often in right-to-work states where the community has defined a union member as a "bad person".  How do we then empower that worker to stand up to the community?  How do we help workers realize when they vote "no" that they are voting against themselves?
• We need to become more articulate about what we believe or we'll lose.  It seems we don't really speak in language that resonates with our constituency.  We have a long way to go.  It seems the right wing wins on issues and on language-they rally their supporters and divide us with:  family values, faith, Christianity, etc.
• Where is the progressive religious voice?  The Rights' religious voice is very clear about what they are against but we are divided and unclear.  All religions believe in justice.  What moves from charity, community, poverty-people care about what affects them.  We don't do well in the media.
• The importance in framing is how we apply it-the point is to be determined, disciplined and clear.  The Right has Frank Luntz & his Bible.
• The environmental groups tend to be more holistic in viewing issues.  We speak of sustaining local economies, watersheds, protecting public lands, etc. but not in ways that resonate with the public.  We need to tell our stories better.
• We need to think systematically.   We do employ technical ways-like polling to test our messages but much of the framing that organizers do is done door to door.
• In our neighborhoods that are undergoing gentrification, framing is being used against us.  Public housing is understood as "racist".  Subsidized housing is confused with affordable housing.  Our overall frame needs to be that people who work for a living deserve a place to live.
• In the union the Boss tells workers that the union is a third party.  We have a tendency to be with the same people and give the same messages.
• In ISAAC we work in a blue state and a red city and the organization is supposed to be non-partisan.  As an organizer, how do I message from the middle?  How do I dialogue with those on the right?  I would like to have conversations with those who have winning messages so I can better connect.
• The Right is being successful but they have re-framing challenges too:  Private accounts have become "personal" accounts; nuclear option has become the "constitutional" option.  We should be able to make course corrections along the way as well.
• The language of faith is being stolen by corporations.  The Right to Lifers support war and the death penalty.  Congregations are wrestling with how to speak values but not end up being portrayed as right wing.  How do we recapture democracy, opportunity, right to life?

2.  "Framing and Organizing"
-George Lakoff, Rockridge Institute and University of California at Berkeley.

    Most of those in the room are aware that the right wing message machine has functioned for forty years with billions of dollars being spent on think tanks, training, and media.  The result has been an overall conceptual framework that has united different branches of conservatives that used to hate each other.  As Progressives, we have nothing like this.  We have an implicit and unconscious framework but not articulated.  We need to get out there with our message.

    They looked at what united them.  They were for a flat tax, for tort reform, against unions, for family values, etc.  Their messaging began with the family values philosophy of James Dobson who teaches that there is evil in the world, there are winners and losers,  competition is good, and children are born bad.   Their perceived natural order of things calls for a strict father who delivers punishment, which in turn produces internal discipline.  A disciplined person can pursue their self interest and become prosperous, which links discipline and morality.  If you are not prosperous, you are not moral.  And if you are undisciplined you will not be prosperous and therefore you deserve poverty.  The free market also links prosperity with morality.  Unions are bad because they disrupt free markets.  Taxes are bad because they are a disincentive to free markets by taking away rewards.  Government regulation is bad because it disrupts free markets.

    Progressives have different frames.  We define a responsible family as one that is nurturing.  We combine responsibility and empathy.  The consequence of this is that progressives want their children to be protected, treated fairly, fulfilled, and raised in a functional community where there is cooperation and trust.

    It is important to recognize that everyone has some aspect of both the "strict father" and "nurturant parent" models in us.  These variations are being studied but it is clear that there are some who argue for "strict father" in all aspects of life.  They repeat over and over the same fundamentalist frames like:

• "Bloated big government" as a frame suggests that government is immoral.
• "Unfettered free market" embraces no unions and no government regulations.
• "Pull up by your bootstraps" suggests individuals made the U.S. great, and you can manage your own money (support for private social security accounts).

    Progressives don't project clear frames-they are in our guts but they need to be articulated.  We embrace "common wealth for the common good" but we need to elaborate and pursue this line of thinking.  We may have ideas but we need to get them articulated into actual language.  

    We need to articulate that taxes are an investment in the common good as evidenced by what taxes are used for:  drug research (NIH), highway construction and maintenance, federally insured banks which often give loans for new businesses, legal protection through the court system, the FEC, etc.  Thus taxpayers invest in the common good in part to further their own personal good.  Investment through our tax dollars in education and health is also an investment in the common good.  

    Work in classic economic terms is a resource for business.  That is, workers sell their work for a wage for whatever the market will bear.  I submit that work is much more than this.  In actuality, work also contributes to profits which is why workers deserve benefits.  Work contributes to the good of all so that social security is an earned benefit. 

    In our current economy, there is a cheap labor trap.  Economic forces seek out short-term profits and labor comes at a cheaper and cheaper cost.  The result is that half of the population is without health insurance and many work two and three jobs just to survive and support families.  Work is essential to our society, upholding the lifestyle of the top three-quarters of the population.  It is crucial that this gratitude for work is earned and currently the earned income tax credit (EITC) does not go far enough. Consider the amount of regular corporate subsidies that exist-150-160 billion dollars yearly!  This transfer of wealth is a corporate subsidy-why shouldn't there be a true wage subsidy?

    The right wing suggests that unions are a negative influence on the economy and would do away with bargaining rights if they could.  But if you are selling your work as a resource for wages, then isn't it okay to do it collectively (collective bargaining)?  Unions are currently framed as tough, coersive, job killers, and corrupt.  

    If we look at progressive values, they are generally traditional values that the right has tried to co-opt and define differently.  We value life, protections, fairness, and opportunity.  We need to take back these values and our language, which is the reason for elections.  An interesting book on some of this is "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank in which Frank argues that people don't vote their interests, but rather their identity.  Voters identify with Bush's values, not necessarily his policies.  Frank speaks of what he perceives as a class war with liberals and progressives portrayed as elites, and poor conservatives voting against liberals.  Even though the interests of poor conservatives should be for more liberal economics, they culturally identify with conservatives.  In these alliances, union men largely vote against the union election picks because they identify culturally with the right.  The cheap labor trap will not be changed easily-it will take organizing the vast majority of workers which is a challenge for all of us.

    It's important in framing to think in terms of frameworks, not just words.  This is conceptual, not magic words. 

(following are responses & reflections on some  participant questions)

Question #1.    When looking at the current debate within the labor movement, I am not as informed as many in the room, but some of the debate seems to revolve around organizing vs. politics and lobbying.  

    The SEIU position in favor of organizing has a truth to it-you can better control your success when you talk to people directly in organizing vs. politics which is largely controlled by the right-wing.  The other frame to look at is that Democrats have been powerful before and legislation pushed by Democrats is important.  This is to say that both sides have some reasonable positions and the two positions shouldn't have to be at odds.

    In this debate, it is important to understand that framing has taken place over the past 35 years, defining labor and unions.  Some things are not being said in this debate and they are:

• unions are thought to be anti-business and harmful to the economy

• unions are thought to cause high prices, not cheap labor trap.

    What is missing when people think of unions is:

• Importance of unions not touted by people outside the labor movement.

• Unions are seen as separate from environmental movement-jobs vs

  owls.  (right wing works to drive this wedge between progressives)

    What stands out with the right wing is they have a single message and philosophy overall-conservatism as a whole.  We don't have "progressivism" as a whole.  We don't have a single message with everyone pulling together.

Question 2.  A question was asked about same sex marriage-especially in the last U.S. election-and how should the left prevent the right from hijacking on these kinds of tangential issues?

    As you state the question, you are pre-supposing that people should vote their economic self-interest.  The same question might be understood as why should those in Iowa care about San Francisco's gay marriage law?  Well, the truth is that they are affected very deeply and gender is very central to the right wing strict-father worldview.  The father must be strong, the mother must be subservient, and gay marriage just doesn't fit this gender identity.  Therefore this is a threat to gender identity and must be taken very seriously.  We can't ignore this frame by the right wing.  A progressive frame must see this issue in terms of civil rights.

Question 3.   "Post 9/11 fear has increased and been directed toward immigrants.   The tension between citizens and non-citizens is so great that we accept torture and define human rights differently for citizens and non-citizens.  Fear activates the strict father model and the sentiments of hope and joy are lost and we want them back."

    As long as we have such intense fear operating, the cheap labor trap comes in.  Immigrants will do jobs that others won't and there is no gratitude for those workers.  And yet there are tax breaks for non-workers like those who buy stocks.  There is no one simple answer except that we all must work to build an entire conceptual system while noting that the right wing has spent $3 billion and 35 years to devise their conceptual framework.  We may work on short term framing with single issues as we continue to move toward longterm conceptual framing. 

Question 4.   Looking at the relationship between workers and the boss, the strict father model is strong, especially in the South.  What are the tricks or triggers in language and framing that can bring out the individual interests of the worker(s)?

    You must recognize that the dominant frame exists that businesses "give" jobs to workers.  The truth is that workers "give" profits to businesses but there is no sense of worker dignity or contribution from the worker that benefits come to business and to society because of the workers' labor.  Bosses treat workers like children-the message is shut-up and be grateful for having a job.  The public by and large has no understanding of where profits come from. 

Question 5.    We as progressives value multiple voices-how do we have pluralism and not have framing that is overly simplistic?

    Nurturance is the opposite of permissive.  Parents provide responsible leadership in the home.  A totally permissive family is a disaster.

Question 6.   The conservative James Dobson accesses many of his frames through a religious framework.  However, there are differences in Christianity when you compare conservatives and liberals.  Conservatives believe in heaven and hell and a punitive God but if you follow the rules then you will be saved.  The more liberal Christian view embraces grace (metaphorical nurturance) and unconditional love.  This liberal view had strong advocates during the 1850's to the 1920's when political battles were being waged on slavery and women's suffrage.  It seems liberal Christians have lost this political connection.

    There are not just two models-conservative and liberal.  Everyone has both viewpoints to some extent.  The new Pope is a good example-economically he might be considered left but socially his views are more conservative.  In developing frames it is important to recognize that everyone is partially progressive and our job is to activate the progressive frames that may be latent, realizing that developmentally some just won't move.  By speaking in nurturant tones-not hellfire-a Pastor activates the nurturant brain. 

Question 7.   Can you share any positive examples of political campaigns/politicians that have been successfully reframed or frame well?

    Wellstone was successful and appealed to conservative voters as well as progressives.  Howard Dean was supported by many fundamentalist Christians because they saw in him a person of conviction-the idea of trust and authenticity was there.  Bush understands this-voters find him trustworthy and meaning what he says.

    Polling can be an important aid and Democrats and Republican have tended to use polls differently.  Democrats tend to follow polls, and Republicans use polls to push an agenda and frame the debate-they use their conclusions and data to make it sound like everyone supports their view.   Polls can be useful in informing where voters can be moved to in their views.  For instance, the research that Ted Nordhaus and others have done on social values data helps us to understand how deeply held certain values are so that we understand not just where people are but also where they might move to in their beliefs.

Question 8.  If you were a dictator and wanted to make a six month or one year plan to move a progressive agenda and realizing that you can't just go home and instantly reframe issues, what would you do?

    We as progressives need a delivery system-the right wing has a great one-otherwise the frames become useless.  It requires local leaders who are willing to talk on all issues, people to book these folks on radio and TV, we need writers, event stagers, and a constant offense on our messaging.  We also need a progressive manual.  (The Rockridge Institute is actually setting up "Rockridge Action" to accomplish some of this.)  This messaging needs to be a constant and said over and over again.  It needs to be outside the political arena but act as a cover for elected officials.  There should be an echo of the messages throughout civil society.  As progressives we need to look at what we have in common as our political principles, like health care, a sustainable environment, etc.  There needs to be total community talk about what we have in common, on everyone's issues and values, not just yours.

    Unfortunately, all we do now is band-aids.  We sometimes take their frames when we say we are against them, but then we lose by activating their frames.  When we do this we alienate our base, we cancel out our values, and it looks like we have no values.

3.  "Strategic Values Project"

    -Ted Nordhaus, American Environics, and Evans/McDonough
    (Note:   see the attached  powerpoint presentation given by Ted here in Seattle and also at the III. ACORN mini-Dialogue in Denver)
 
    Describing himself as a "recovering pollster" Ted Nordhaus explained that three years ago he was presented with a set of data and analysis of American values done by Canadian researchers which he found astounding and powerful.  What he learned was:

• The tools of corporate marketers are superior to our tools.
• Data had important power to explain current shifts in values.
• All this helped me to realize that what I wanted to do was not connected to conventional polling.

An example of the kind of research done by the Canadians were questions like the following which are re-asked over a period from 1992 to 2004:

Do you agree that the father of the family must be master of the house?
The results were by year:

(Derecka Mehrens, ACORN head organizer, and Ted will be working on a tax/fiscal policy strategic initiative in California which may entail a revision to Prop 13, the regressive property tax policy which is a major factor in the lack of state monies available for education and other social needs in California-see below)

    In terms of the Strategic Values Project done by Nordhaus and others, the social values being researched are more expansive than family values or moral values.  These are your mental posture and reflect how you act as a consumer, a family member, a citizen and a worker.  It is generally assumed that these values are fairly well set by age 15 and yet they can still evolve especially in light of deaths, births, or health problems.

    Again, this is social values research, not voter surveys, and have involved 2-3 hour face-to-face interviews utilizing some 600 questions.  There have been 2500 Americans questioned since 1992 and 2600 Canadians questioned since 1982.   From this research the survey has given data on some 114 values.  Some of the identified values are:  complexity, simplicity, personal challenge, need for status, faith in advertising, time stress, acceptance of violence (growing in acceptance), joy of consumption, just desserts (closely identified with political identity), and more.

    To further understand the values and also the trends, the values are placed on a social/cultural map with two axis through the data:    1.  survival/fulfillment, and 2.  authority/individual.  What the data shows is that over time Americans are thinking and holding values more and more like Texans, while Canadians are looking more and more like Europeans.   In the quadrant of "status and security" this is where we see the traditional "red" American-obedient, upholds national pride, behaves as if pursuing the traditional American dream, follows the rules, etc.  In the quadrant of "authority and responsibility" we see Oprah followers, soccer moms, swing voters, importance of well-being and harmony in life, connected to community, responsible and the values of mainstream religion.  In the quadrant of "idealism and autonomy" (the MoveOn quadrant), we find urban dwellers, liberals and progressives, and those who value flexibility and introspection.  And in the quadrant of "exclusion and intensity" we find the most diversity-low-income, non-voters, the marginalized, and those living in ghettos, barrios, and trailer parks.   This latter quadrant is believed by the founders of the study to be the quadrant of those driving social change and in some respects, the quadrant that the other quadrants are responding to.  

    The data suggest that Kerry voters look like non-voters and Bush voters like voters.  Voters are moving to security values and wanting protection at all costs.  What is predictive of voters is:  religion, national pride, traditional cultural identity, belief in patriarchy, and obedience to authority.  Bush is strongest with those pursuing the American dream and those who value personal control.  At a values level, Bush and the Republicans are very successful in civic engagement.        

     When asked if men are naturally superior to women, 40% of Americans said yes.  Other growing value trends in the U.S. include:  A growing acceptance that violence is normal and that violence is okay to relieve tension; that a widely advertised product is probably good; that it is important for people to admire what I own; and to discuss local problems with people in our community is on a big decline in the U.S.  The data shows that 9/11 has been a driving force on values (this study goes back 15-20 years) as were the Great Depression and World War II in earlier years.  There are two polarized reactions apparent in what American are seeking:  many are looking for security and authority, while the more post-modern among us are rejecting institutions and looking inward.  

     Judging from the data emerging so far, Ted shared some of his personal thoughts and perceptions:   The New Deal was a real exception in our history which brought unprecedented expansion.  Darwinian economy begets Darwinian values.  Social change happens when hope is there.  In the 1970's the U.S. looked at modernity and didn't like it.  The oil shocks in 1973 ushered in continuing shifts in the economy and was the advent for huge numbers of Americans (bottom 40%-60%) losing ground economically.  Progressive change usually happens during a time of rising expectations whereas when people are losing ground this usually reinforces xenophobia.  

     What does this say about getting to a progressive values base long term?    The long term trends are consistent with a "losing ground" scenario.  Values and identity are very important and generally more important than survival issues-as progressives we don't deal with this reality very well.   Progressive organizing doesn't offer a fixed identity or escape; our identity is unstable and we suggest the need to change.  These values are hard to compete with the fixed security or escapist views of the right wing.  

     What are values and how are they shaped?  To understand "core values", you must know who your base is and what values connect to your issues.  "Bridge values" come from "constituencies of opportunity" who share some core values but not as strongly as your primary base.  By elevating bridge values with constituencies of opportunity we should be able to expand our base.  That is, the theory is that if we can activate our values with larger numbers of people, we can expand our base.  "Strategic initiatives" are policy initiatives that carry bridge values to a contested space so that people have to take a stance.   Examples are:  school choice, partial birth abortion, tax relief, medical marijuana, etc.  Looking at the partial birth abortion debate, conservatives don't mind losing because they know just the fight and the exposure advances the frame that abortion is bad/murder.  The same is true with the "unborn child pain relief act"-they don't need to win, just advance the frame. 

     The way to advance a strategic initiative is to begin the value, constructing a policy although it need not be the best solution or the final one desired.  We must know our base and also our constituencies of opportunity.  Our goal must be to elevate our value even if we are not totally winning.  We need to ask the question:  Is this the way to solve and advance our politics and policy in the short term?   A strategic initiative must begin with defining the progressive base, then target constituencies of opportunity both demographically and geographically as we take action politically, and then measure outcomes.

    Derecka explained briefly the planned strategic initiative to address California's state fiscal problem and also address local fiscal needs.  California ACORN is currently in 19 cities and has 12 offices in California.  The goal will be to impact on the state fiscal crisis which will entail confronting Proposition 13.  During a "taxpayer revolution", Prop. 13 was passed in California in 1978 and mandated that property taxes be essentially frozen for businesses and for homeowners who stay in their homes from 1978 forward.  It set reassessments at a maximum of 2% a year unless sold and then 1% reassessment upon sale and a 2% reassessment change per year.  It also required that all state tax rate increases need to be approved by a 2/3 vote and all local tax rate changes also must be approved by vote.

    Prop. 13 is a major obstacle in California to real tax reform, especially because the base of voters needed for change is not necessarily open to changing or reforming Prop. 13.  The current frame on this suggests that any change to Prop. 13 will kill jobs by taxing corporations and impact negatively on homeowners.  This strategic initiative will undoubtedly call for a need to reframe taxes and government to be successful.

    Looking at a six month timetable and working with the California Alliance and California Values Project and others, ACORN will pursue the following steps:

• Devise a statewide road map to identify the progressive base as well as

  constituencies of opportunity while targeting bridge values,

• Hold strategic initiative workshops where new policies would be discussed.
• Employ policy experts to construct broad policy frameworks based on values.
• Test with polling and focus groups.
• The goal will be to come up with new theory and frames as well as the

  leadership and base willing to move with us.  Who is ready? 

  Who has the resources?

      Ted emphasized that all the answers will not be known in advance.  He is of the mind that at some point you just have to move ahead, even when it seems that the cards are stacked against you.  (Microsoft philosophy is that you just ship the product out there-you'll learn so much!)  The foundation for such a campaign takes a belief in participation-that is, a belief that the issues come up from the grassroots versus a belief in policy wonks deciding the perfect policy.  We want to reverse the process and tell the policy wonks what the policy should be and then figure out the messaging and the frames to advance the values and advance the organizing. 

     Much can be learned about proceeding on a strategic initiative by looking at the NRA and how they work.  They project gun safety and licensing help to their base and constituencies of opportunity.   This is many steps ahead before they ask you to vote for George Bush.  They first want you to see the NRA as an affiliation for you to be a part of.  Then, over time your values are activated and you move your values by participating politically (and voting).

     The right wing has reframed to advance their frame that evolution is incorrect.  They used to speak of "creationism" but that alienated many of the upper crust Republicans.  Now they speak of "intelligent design" which is oriented toward mysterious forces and grabs new constituencies.  This has become a whole new frame intended to undermine evolution.

     The frame of "livable wage" has been somewhat effective for progressives.  It would be better if it were something more identity/aspiration driven that the opposition would have to fight.

5.  "Orientation to Framing & Framing Applied to Community Organizing"
    -Makani Themba-Nixon, The Praxis Project
    -Hunter Cutting, Resource Media

    Makani spoke about "framing" as something we already know.  She also emphasized that framing must integrate both organizing and communication and that building power can never be forgotten as we pursue the best possible framing words.

    Hunter noted that for organizers, Framing is essentially about cutting an issue but that economic and racial justice takes a different vocabulary and recipe for success.  The job of a movement is to frame stories, knowing that the way we tell the story helps to define the issues.  When we speak of "welfare" for instance, it can be talked about in terms of dependency/lack of personal responsibility or alternately, in terms of the community/lack of jobs, etc.  What words we choose-"death tax" vs "estate tax" can make a big difference to the message.  As organizers, we are always framing, whether we are talking with the Press, doorknocking, or preparing campaign messages.  There are essentially four pieces or dimensions to this kind of storytelling::

• Who is telling the story/character and quality
• Text - metaphors, text, image, buzzwords
• Audience - mind, brain, spirit
• Culture - where the story takes place/greater context
  

     Hunter spoke of several campaigns where cutting the issues and how it was framed were critical to the outcome.  In 1988 there was debate within the Sierra Club-some felt the organization should be neutral on immigration and others felt that the organization should remain neutral.  Central to the discussion was the frame that "immigration drives overpopulation and increased population ruins the environment."  This frame had a coded racism to it and instead they chose to put the issue in a global frame.   

     In another campaign in the Rocky Mountains, public debate was generated when vigorous opposition emerged over a proposal to drill for oil and gas.  One side was saying "this is a very special place" and the other side was saying there is "an energy crisis and we must drill."  The challenge was to frame the issue in such a way as to balance energy needs with a concern for wilderness preservation.  

    In all campaign situations, the journalists and media bring their own frames with them.  Therefore framing is a competition between the journalist, the researchers, politicians, etc.  With energy issues like this, there may be different messages to national audiences (clean energy) and another to the local community (jobs, quality of life) and it is important to know how to pitch which one to which media.

    In many ways one might consider a recipe here, using the metaphor of "making a movie" and these are the ingredients:

1. Script - these are the buzzwords, the factoids, the descriptions.

2. Voice overs - these are the messengers.
3. Cast actors - put in your actors to the narrative/don't let others define the actors.
4. Build sets - lay out the setting.
5. Cinematographer - this is who has the camera.  Consider portrait

   vs landscape.  Zoom in on a couple of people as the media would

   do, but you must paint the big picture or it won't happen.

6. Other stories-You must consider what "is playing on other channels"

   and what other stories are being told about this same issue.
   

     Makani followed with a challenge to the group to consider that "if you could wave a wand and have people think/believe whatever you wanted them to, what beliefs would they hold?"    Some feedback from participants:

• "Government is vehicle for redistributing wealth downward & human

  beings are equally precious regardless of the family they are born

  into."

• "The world is basically a good place."
• "Free markets hurt people."
• "There's plenty for all."
• "We are interconnected."
• "By working together we have the power to change."

      Makani suggests that the reason we haven't accomplished social justice and we "aren't there yet" is tied to the following :

• People need to know-there is an information gap.

• People need to think better-values & culture gap.
• Our people need more power and influence-power gap.

Communicating for change requires we know what we mean by change:

• Need a vision of victory.
• Hidden transcript theory-those telling of a complaint or analysis only

  advance when they speak in the same language as those listening. 

  Must show that others agree.  Involves deep listening.

• Must connect solutions to the frame.
• We mistakenly think the solution will magically happen if we lay out

  the problem-the more important factor is the how and focusing on the

  solution rather than the problem.

There is need for a more integrated approach:

• Recognize more layers.

• Build infrastructure for collaboration. 
• Unveil hidden transcripts.
• Spread hope/inspire.
• Bridge content.
• Break the cycle of privilege (funding, voice, leadership).
• Bring hope so they believe they will win something.
• Declare we are on the move!

      In an exercise of "bridging messages" the participants broke into smaller groups to consider several constituencies:  where they are in their beliefs, what are the bridge issues, and where they want to be following a campaign focused on their issues.   Discussions ensued looking at hospital workers, immigrants and others. 

6.  "Practioners' Panel Discussion on Framing"

    Holly Minch, SPIN
    Taj James, Movement Strategy Center
    Scott Reed, PICO
    Tony Fazio, Winning Directions

    Holly spoke of Framing as the process of becoming relevant.  So often as progressives we believe we're right and therefore others should listen versus they should listen because we are relevant.  Holly spoke of the Miami Workers' Center and the work that SPIN has done with them and others to help improve campaign messaging.  SPIN often does a "communications audit" with groups to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their communications plan for their campaigns.  The 5-day SPIN Academy provides intensive media strategy coaching and spokesperson training.  Communications can "till the soil", providing an air war to clear the way for the "ground troops"-that is, your work on the ground.  

    Scott spoke of sharing stories-and therefore framing externally-in his work in congregational settings where the constituencies he works with would describe themselves less as progressives and more as moderate or traditional.   Scott spoke of political power not only as winning on issues but also about shaping the public debate.  Language is important-in the war on drugs it is better to frame as a "drug epidemic."  When we speak of expanding health care and increasing community clinics we are encompassing the needs of both documented and undocumented workers but the best frame to put forward is "serving working families".  Sometimes polling or focus groups can be used to shape the message, but it is shortsighted to say that communications and "framing" alone can work without organizing.

    Taj spoke of the need to reach "scale" in our organizing but to do this we must join together as a choir-the Movement Strategy Center is just one voice and one song.   We must share the stories, the answers, the frames from all those who are organizing around one issue.  It is important to consider who else has approached your constituency  and attempted to organize them.  Who are we competing with?  Republicans are winning the middle by polarizing-the question remains whether we can win by not polarizing the middle.   Looking at the idealized Republican worldview, there would be an economy stratified and reinforced by the education system.  This is why we see efforts to dismantle public education through initiatives such as school vouchers and "no child left behind."  There are essentially two warring values in this:  individual responsibility versus collective responsibility.  In California there are exit exams.  If individuals don't succeed, it is students, parents and teachers (unions) who are blamed.  The progressive value system asserts that all students can excel with the proper resources and instruction, and accountability can be measured through an "opportunity to learn" index that looks at what resources were given students to ensure their learning success.  This approach reinforces that "all students can succeed if provided resources" versus the right wing view of "survival of the fittest".  Within this context, the question becomes "what are the winning frames?" 

Tony spoke primarily of his experience doing literature and messaging for a variety of ACORN campaigns.  He brought a number of posters and leaflets to illustrate some of his thoughts on what is effective:

• There is usually too much copy; we have 7 seconds before someone tosses our message.
• Ask "what is the message?" and "what do you want them to do?"
• Headlines bring people in-should be provocative.
• Don't state facts-don't hide messages.
• Be consistent!
• Repeat 7 times for unconscious hold.
• Do a call to action:  write, call, vote, etc.
• Don't use the same size type.
• Use charts and bullets.
• Don't confuse facts with message-the message is the Christmas tree and the ornaments are the facts.
• The message comes out of the frame-state what you need, why, and why you need it now.
• Ideology is important in our work-framing is a way to energize the message or worldview.

6.  "Values and Framing from a Pollster's Perspective"
    Celinda Lake, Lake, Snell Perry & Associates

    (See attached powerpoint presentation by Celinda)

©2004 Organizer's Forum