I can understand the arguments about "framing." I think it's CW that that the Right is resistant to facts (including statistics) although they might very well be of value to folks on this site. To think in terms of reframing messages to reach the intended audience is a valuable exercise.

What puzzles me is the implication that this post is somehow OT for this site. Perhaps it reflects, in part, a gender difference in perception. Theocracy isn't primarily about religion (that's the tool). It's about control. Major targets of this control are minorities (including races and gays) and women - especially their reproductive autonomy. Given the current battle over the SCOTUS nominee, the implications for women's reproductive choice and the theocrats commitment to seat a justice that they think will enable their agenda, it seems that this is one topic that would be considered central. Am I missing something? Is this a nexus that isn't generally apparent?  

by Psyche on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:11:32 PM EST

D. James Kennedy devoted approximately 15 minutes of his "Coral Ridge Hour" on the TBN television network to a prolonged denunciation of Planned Parenthood and tax funding to their clinics. No mention was made of services such as well-women annual exams, Pap smears, etc., which are normally provided to women like me who do not necessarily seek their birth control or abortion services.
An African-American woman who reportedly received two abortions from Planned Parenthood clinics in the past was prominent among the interviewees.

by MaryOGrady on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:31:04 PM EST

Well, I'm not sure that Talk2Action is the place to "challenge statements of religious right groups that engage in race-baiting and divisiveness, ethnic and otherwise, and to expose these tactics." While I agree with your analysis that STOPP's propaganda aimed at Latinos is factually incorrect, I disagree on the suggested methods for countering this type of propaganda.

First, it's not clear what this squabble has to do with the fight against theocracy, which is what Talk2Action is about.

Second, countering propaganda with data is not effective, and is actually counter-productive. STOPP has effectively framed its propaganda as an appeal to Latinos (and especially to Latina mothers) to safeguard their families and extended families. The message frame of making the world a safer place for children and families is strong in American society, and especially strong among Latino demographic groups. Therefore, merely throwing corrective data points at this well-framed message will have a couple of counterproductive effects. That is, data points don't trump effective message frames. But engaging STOPP about the accuracy of its effective emotional appeal is not just ineffective, it actually reinforces the message frame, and legitimates the controversy that STOPP is trying to raise.

What would be an effective message frame to counter STOPP's effective message frame? It would be more effective to say that, as it's name makes clear, STOPP is a group that aims to STOP women's clinics from providing health care for Latinas. They want to shut down Planned Parenthood clinics that provide a full range of health care that are needed for healthy children and families. By closing down these women's clinics, they want to STOP prenatal health care for Latinas and their babies, and they want to STOP mammograms that help keep Latina mothers safe from breast cancer. One could go on and name a full range of health care services, but those two should be enough, because they effectively bring o mind images of pregnant mothers and breast-feeding mothers and their babies.

An effective message frame would not "slap the tar baby" -- not legitimate the "debate" on whether PP is "targeting" Latino populations, and not throw wimpy data points at a strong emotional appeal. An effective message frame would say: STOPP wants to STOP affordable, accessible health care for Latinas and their babies. By aiming to close Planned Parenthood clinics, they want to STOP the very health care services that Latina mothers need, including prenatal care for healthy babies and mammograms and physicals that nourish the mother's health.

by jhutson on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 07:59:10 AM EST

Cindy, I'm as inclined as you to want to believe that logic and facts will prevail. But I can see Jonathan's Lakoffian point which I interpret, in short, as this : facts and logic won't work here because the territory is emotionally visceral and because trying to rebut spurious claims tends to implicitly support them.

STOPP has shown up in the public square with a bullhorn, shouting its baseless and inflammatory accusations, and is in the process of attracting onlookers and whipping them up into an angry mob targetted at Planned Parenthood.

That's a close enough depiction of the nature of the situation. Notice, there's a "first mover" advantage to this - perhaps others in the political arena were reluctant to make baseless accussations, or to do so didn't even occur to them. But inflammatory and baseless charges are weapons of choice for groups such as STOPP, and by getting in first they've implicitly claimed the high ground as "defenders" of Latino self interest.

So, there's STOPP, in the public square with a bullhorn, egging on the angry mob:

"What's the PROBLEM ? - Planned Parenthood. Whadda we got to do ? SHUT those CLINICS !"

That's the situation.

Now, enter [ stage left ] an indignant opponent, armed with facts, a believer in the power of reason, who tries to project a logical, factual rebuttal over the roaring of the crowd.

Simply showing up and trying to rebut the baseless charges  reinforces STOPP's "frame" - all the crowd notices, if it notices at all, is a defensive voice protesting "no, no, it isn't true !". But, many in the crowd have already bought the allegations and are preparing to march to war.

What can be done ?  Well, Jonathan offered a good counter-frame. Imagine that the mild mannered opponent gets a little mad and not-so-mild, and goes into the local WalMart to buy a bullhorn and then, from across the street, starts to address the mob :

"Good people, STOPP wants to take away your health care ! STOPP wants to STOPP the health care that keeps Latino babies healthy !"  Repeat over. and over. and over. and over. On and on.

What happens ? Well, probably some of STOPP's mob breaks away and drifts across the street towards the new bullhorn.

Now, there are some dangers here - were the now not-so-mild speaker to wax demogogic, the mantra might come to include "STOPP is trying to STOPP La Raza !".  But racial politics may not be the best direction to take things in, and whatever the professor says needs to be in line with the facts. The idea in the end is still to claim the moral high ground.

So, the speaker might begin to develop the theme, to take it in positive directions and even begin to add some facts :

"As Cezar Chavez would certainly have said, Latinos in America have got to organize and work to advance and they need to know who their allies are. Now, Planned Parenthood helps out [ insert number here ] Latina mothers a year, and it does [ number ] of breast cancer screenings, it tests [ number ] of Latinos for STD's. Planned Parenthood works hard to keep Latinos healthy. STOPP wants to STOPP that critical work."

To address Jonathan's point about the appropriateness of the topic, well - I'd tend to view STOPP as one organization advancing an implicitly theocratic Christian right agenda, sure...

I'm not ashamed to say that Frederick Clarkson has roundly criticized many of my arguments - enough for it to have sunk in a little at least - for a lack of "connective tissue" : in this case I'd say that the activities of many organizations such as STOPP - attacks on women's and reproductive rights - represent a major point of advance of a wider theocratic social agenda. So the "connective tissue" that strengthens the relevance to Talk To Action might address these sorts of questions:

What do Christian theocratic groups tend to advocate in terms of their agendas for women's and reproductive rights ?  

How is STOPP connected ( or not ) to similar groups working to advance the theocratic agenda on women's rights and reproductive rights ?

Are STOPP's tactics characteristic of other similar groups ? What can be done to effectively combat such tactics ? [ Jonathan's point ]

Who are the major players, at the national scale, actively attacking women's reproductive rights ? What's the lay of the land ?

One of the dangers of deep familiarity with subjects is to understand how particulars fit into the wider context - it's very easy to forget that many people, including readers on Talk To Action - may not have that contextual awareness. How does any given battle over women's or reproductive rights fit into the ultimate focus of Talk To Action ? Establishing those connections may not be too difficult but it's a good way of keeping focus on the site. In other words, one approach might be to think in terms of this question "how does X fit into the fight against theocracy and the promotion of religious liberty ?"  Addressing that is what elevates discussions here beyond issue advocacy ( no matter how significant or central the issues are ) as such and distinguishes Talk To Action as unique and invaluable.

We're all learning here - I know I certainly am ! - new ways of thinking about and talking about religion and politics in America. That was pointedly discussed in initial conversations long before this website and project were launched :  We're breaking new ground, we're all learning, and none of us have a perfect sense of where this is going.

In the end I believe the majority of American women - and men I'd also hope - would be appalled were they fully aware of the extremity of the social agenda vision shared by many leaders of the Christian right. Establishing that awareness - and just as critically a wider awareness of the overall theocratic agenda - represents a major portion of the work we all need to do here on Talk To Action.

To sum up with a cliche that is still apt, think of "the blind interest groups and the elephant" :

To list some of the interest groups:

Women's rights
Reproductive rights
Gay Rights
Environment
Teachers and educators/Public Education
State and Federal Employees
Unions
Scientists
MD's and medical professionals
Liberal and non-theocratic religious groups
AARP
Trial Lawyers
The Democratic Party

That's a very abbreviated list, one that could go on much, much longer.

Now all of those interest communities, and organizations representing those interests, have encountered and battled aspects of the advancing theocratic agenda - but do they actually perceive the whole elephant of theocracy as it rampages about in its frenzy to trample existing American institutions, pluralistic democracy, and religious liberty and to reconstruct America along radically different lines ?  

Well if all of those interest groups I've listed perceived the elephant for what it truly is they would be talking together,  establishing common ground and collaborative strategies and pooling resources. But, they cannot yet see - or accept - the elephant for more than the parts of it each perceives.

One says : "It's a horrible noise, screeching propaganda on the radio !"

Another: "It's a huge thing, a giant foot that stomps on social programs that benefit the common people!"

A third: "It's a giant club-like thing, but flexible like an elephant's trunk, and it smashes away at the common ground in American politics - leaving no center, only polarized camps."

Will the coalition of interests that - bound together - once made the Democratic Party strong reconnect as a cooperative political whole ? Those communities of interest must learn to see that elephant for what it is and recognize their interest in joining together in common opposition : they must realize their collective political power. Otherwise they will each in turn be stomped, alone, to bits.

I think they are now starting to open their eyes to that reality.

by Bruce Wilson on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 12:07:51 PM EST

On the issue of topicality, I stand corrected. And I'm truly sorry if my expression of doubt about topicality caused offense to Cynthia, whom I respect as a colleague and fellow defender of democracy. Next time, I will take more time to think about how the dots connect between specific issue areas and the theocratic big picture, and I will take more care in raising questions and concerns.

Because I do consider the issue vitally important (although I erred in failing to immediately grasp its connection with theocracy), I did suggest some constructive solutions, in terms of effective message framing. I stand by my analysis that throwing logic and data points at emotionally compelling propaganda is not effective, and is in fact counter-productive. But that should not be construed as a criticism of any other proposed solution, because no other solution had been proposed. Essentially, what I meant to say was, "I see that this problem is important, so even though I'm not sure if this is the proper place to talk about it, I agree that it should be addressed. So how do we fix it together? We could do it the traditional way, which wouldn't work but would worsen the problem, or we could try a new approach based on analysis of what makes right-wing propaganda message frames effective."

Apparently I didn't express my intentions too well, and my bluntness irked some colleagues and participants whose contributions I truly welcome and respect. And for that, again, I'm sorry.

by jhutson on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 10:21:44 AM EST

I'm not real shocked that STOPP is claiming "abortion is Latino genocide"--because during the 80's and 90's, one big thing that the dominionist right-to-lifer groups did in promoting their agenda to the African-American community was promoting the idea that abortion was planned as a form of genocide against black people and poor people in general.

In fact, quite a few dominionist groups spout this, including Renew America, American Family Association, National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families (a dominionist pro-censorship group whose links section is entirely comprised of dominionist groups, some of which (like NARTH and "Christian Counseling" groups) are known to be harmful and some links even promoting "Christian counseling" to captive audiences like prisoners); in fact, entire websites like blackgenocide.org (operated by "Life Education and Resource Network", a dominionist anti-reproductive-choice group targeting the African-American community that promotes the exact same canards regarding not only abortion but birth control as are promoted by other groups like American Life League) and even the offensively-named Klan Parenthood (operated by a group called Pro-Life America which not only spouts the usual dominionist urban legends about condoms and birth control (much less abortion) but is also hardline dominionist, operates a small radio empire, and whose links page is a veritable who's who of dominionism including hardline Christian Reconstructionist groups tied with militia orgs like the Constitution Party).  This sort of pap is also regurgitated by more "mainstream" right-to-life groups like National Right to Life Committee.

by dogemperor on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 11:55:52 AM EST

Texas has a population that is 32% Hispanic according to the last census.  

by bakirita on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 01:48:53 PM EST

So, where does this lovely group get that $6-7 million for their budget? Who is fronting them? Who is donating to them? Does anyone know? Does anyone know anyone who might know?

I suspect that, if we knew the answers to those questions, an action plan would be easier to come up with. Following the money works just as well in the religious realm as it does in any other.
- -

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Those who study history are doomed to know it's repeating.

by Alice Venturi on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:14:03 PM EST