Frameshop: The 'Grieving Mom' Frame

In broad terms, the success of the 'grieving mom' phrase indicates that Americans are now thinking about the War in Iraq through the frame of the family, rather than thinking about Iraq through the frame of 'terrorism' or 'ideology.'

If Democrats want to build on Cindy Sheehan's success, we must accept that last week's media storm was less about Cindy's demand to meet or her accusation against the President, than about her image as a 'grieving mother.'

Of the 122,000 pages that result from a Google search of grieving mom, almost all of them are stories about Cindy Sheehan.  Clearly, 'grieving mom was the magic phrase at the heart Cindy Sheehan's success.

In fact, while many Democrats believe that Cindy Sheehan's protest has focused the nation's attention on the lies of the Bush White House, the reality is exactly the opposite.

Prior to the Cindy Sheehan story, the media was dividing its time between the 'Memogate' story and the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court.  Despite the staggering complexity of Memogate, the more the media focused on the sinister and criminal acts of the White House political team, the more Americans saw the President as dishonest.   

When Memogate ruled the headlines, the country's attention was focused not just on the President's lies, but on the cloud of deception that surrounded the White House.  Similarly, even though John Robert's seemed like a squeaky clean nomination to the Supreme Court, the more the media discussed him, the more Americans saw the President as untruthful.  When John Roberts topped the headlines, America's attention was drawn, slowly but surely, to what the President was hiding (by refusing to release documents about Roberts' past to Congress).

Rather than extending America's focus on Presidential lies, the meteoric rise of Cindy Sheehan to the top of the headlines shifted our attention to a 'grieving mother.'  Curiously, this shift seems to have happened despite the fact that Sheehan's personal writings and public statements tried to intensify the national focus on the President's lies and refusal to meet with her.

So what is the bottom line of the Sheehan protest?  What did the Sheehan week achieve? 

In broad terms, the success of the 'grieving mom' phrase indicates that Americans are now thinking about the War in Iraq through the frame of the family, rather than thinking about Iraq through the frame of 'terrorism' or 'ideology.'

The implications of this shift from 'terrorism' to 'family' in the country's thinking about Iraq are profound.  Not only does this shift forewarn a political tidal wave soon to break on the President's foreign policy, but also of a much deeper, tectonic shift in the strategy beneath all the recent gains in the Republican party.

The great success of Cindy Sheehan's protest, therefore, is no less than the moral authority for the Democratic Party to speak for the American family. 

In other words, there are now two very clear claims on the American family at the heart of politics, and the claim by the anti-War Democrats has so much momentum that it has already forced every single Republican candidate running for office to rethink their strategies for the next few years.

At the heart of the Republican claim to speak for the family is a very narrow idea of marriage, and a reactionary nervousness about 'the culture' as a cause for social problems in America.  For the Republicans, the key to translating this claim into political gains has been a broad scale effort to use state legislators to strip homosexuals of the full rights and privileges of American citizenship.

At the heart of the Democratic claim to speak for the family is a broad and powerful idea that the war in Iraq is killing America's children for no apparent reason, and a growing anger than unless American soldiers leave Iraq, America's hard-working and honest communities will be destroyed forever.  For the Democrats, the track record for translating this claim into political gains has been very short--so far only one Ohio candidate has applied this claim to political gains.

One need only think back a few months to see a Democratic party that was ripping out its hair to figure out how to stem the electoral bleeding caused by the Republican so-called 'family values' debate.  In two successive elections, Republicans made incredible gains telling people that they were the party of 'family values,' while the Democrats tried as hard as they could to say more than 'We are, too.'

But now, as a result of the incredible courage and endurance of one woman, the Democratic Party has a solid, tested strategy for speaking about the family in a way that draws Americans into the values and ideals of the Democratic Party.

At this point, it would seem that the main obstacle to turning Cindy Sheehan's achievements into real political gains would be the circle of overpaid and out-of-touch consultants that suffocate the potential and idealism of the Democrats' high-profile national candidates. 

While Cindy Sheehan has lead America's families in an emotional and meaningful discussion, the consultants are still trying to distract voters into thinking that our potential Presidential candidates are the true voice of 'staying the course' in Iraq.    We can only hope that somebody with real influence in Washington--and the ability to fire these consultants who leading our candidates astray--has the same courage as Cindy Sheehan.

In the meantime, Democrats working at the grassroots level--in the blogs and elsewhere--would benefit from taking a minute to reflect on the real gains that we have made in the past weeks.  Bringing President Bush's lies to light is important work and it must continue apace.  But the Democratic Party has been searching for some time, now, to find a way to reclaim the moral authority to speak on behalf of American families.  As a result of Cindy Sheehan's protest, that moral authority is now with us.

Let's hold tight and not let go.

©  2005 Jeffrey Feldman

Comments

[Roger Drowne EC]

1600 ACRES of Bu$h Family Land
& Like ( Jesus Christ ) NO ROOM at the INN
So Cindy sleeps in a Manger ! In Texas
.
Another Multi-Millionaire Local & Global Monopoly
Not Sharing their Land, Their Home, Bed or Food... Says It All…
And the Selfishness… Continues…
( Yet Another GET $$$ MORE MONEY Buy the USA… Bu$h fundraiser, Just Up the Road… Yesterday )
The Bu$h Family Multimillionaire Class Buy USA Elections
That Is… In It-Self… TREASON
Bush Gangsters… Steal, Use, Monopolize,
More Than Their Share of the Planets, Land, Resources et al.
And What does this - GREED - Do/Say to the Children of the USA
NOT Sharing his Land with a fellow Americans… Cindy & Friends
Let them use my ditch… I am King Bu$h, I have my 1600 Hundred Acer Castle/Ranch with no cattle…
.
What a JOKE
.
AND… All the While… People Live… NOT Owning any land…
ON two Dollar a Day… Around the World.
This whole story… ( 4-me ) JUMPs UP and… Shows It All…
It’s Time 2 Impeach and Jail those
Who support the Bush Family of Gangsters & Friends
They must be STOPPED… NOW !!! before it’s 2 late
From Killing OUR American Democracy and the Environment
More about all this at… ( Re-Written ) DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE
at
http://www.RogerART.com Thank, U Roger Drowne EC

[mreed]

I know this may seem slightly off-topic, but I am working with a group that is attempting to frame our message against the Texas anti-gay marriage amendment coming up in November. These words in your post really caught my eye:

"At the heart of the Republican claim to speak for the family is a very narrow idea of marriage, and a reactionary nervousness about 'the culture' as a cause for social problems in America. For the Republicans, the key to translating this claim into political gains has been a broad scale effort to use state legislators to strip homosexuals of the full rights and privileges of American citizenship."

In a note to my group, I said:

In Feldman's words, the Democratic Party is rebuilding its "moral authority to speak for the American family." The Democratic Party stands for keeping families together, whether they be families with military members or families with gay members, or both. The Republican Party tears families apart with lies for political gain, lies that whip up fears about nonexistent threats, including lies about nonexistent threats to marriage.

Again, quoting Feldman, the Republicans are translating these fears into political gain with their "broad scale effort to use state legislators to strip homosexuals of the full rights and privileges of American citizenship." Thus, we can say that HJR6 is the Texas Republicans' cynical attempt to STRIP SAME SEX COUPLES OF THE FULL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.

Or better yet, HJR6 is the Texas Republicans' cynical attempt to STRIP SOME OF OUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE FULL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.

Democrats stand for keeping families together, anchored on the foundation of equal rights that our nation was founded upon: we stand for FAMILY, FAIRNESS, and FREEDOM. Republicans stand for tearing families apart and denying equal rights: they stand for LIES, FEAR, and BIGOTRY.

Well, that is my rant for the day ... but I love the idea that the Democratic Party is regaining "the moral authority to speak for the American family," and the first ingredient of "family" is the right to choose one's partner for a loving, committed relationship.

Does anyone have other ideas about how we can frame the Democrats' new image of family values (thanks to Cindy Sheehan) to fight the Republicans' "Bigotry Amendment" in Texas?

[Grim Reaper]

To paraphrase Huck Finn, 'If ya didn't know any better, ya'd think them n-words loved their young-uns as much as white folks does'

If you didn't know any better you would think Cindy loved hers as much as the Bushes love theirs.

[slgalt]

This is an example of what deep framing is really about.

No matter how much someone screams from the rooftops about Memogate and Plamegate etc., the facts will continue to bounce off. When you shift a frame (in the deep sense) people suddenly let in the information. People don't relate and have empathy for "facts" they are able to have empathy and understanding of other human beings. By Cindy standing up and calmly demanding accountability she is activating the progressive model. You don't need to shout on Fox to be heard around the world.

[Dana Scott]

Very good analysis. Feldman said:

"In broad terms, the success of the 'grieving mom' phrase indicates that Americans are now thinking about the War in Iraq through the frame of the family, rather than thinking about Iraq through the frame of 'terrorism' or 'ideology.'"

But the angle on lies is still very important. My wife found me crying in the bathroom the other day, because I had just heard on NPR a grieving family say (more or less), "We miss him so much, but it is better he was fighting over there than if we had to fight over here." I just could not stand it! These poor, sad parents were taken in by the lie that the war was necessary, when in fact the war has made us LESS SAFE (pace our Secretary of War). And the current comeback that we have to "honor our dead by staying the course" is equally disgusting.

And on top of the military dead (and all those wounded), how many private "security forces" have died? Will we ever know? They have parents and families as well. It's too bad if they were suckered in for the money and not for some kind of "patriotism", but they are just as dead as the others. Their families are just as sad. And how many civilian Iraqi are dead? Will we ever know? And their families are just as sad. Do we care?

We must let the dead speak: "Why did we have to die for lies?"

[Jack Schlink]

Beltway Dems, with the sole exeption of Senator Bird, have a ways to go yet to suggest that they have moral authority momentum in the Iraq fiasco. However, the iconic image of a grieving mom standing as a sentinel for democracy, a totem to truth,is a very powerful one indeed. One need look no furthur than the poisonous spritz of Matty Drudge, and other Bush boosters to illustrate this point. Ironically, the neocons surfed to power again on the crest of 9/11 emotion; Cindy Sheehan is the epicenter of an emotional tsunami that will flush the greedy warmongers from the Whitehouse and return the troops from a war without honor.

[PamB]

"At this point, it would seem that the main obstacle to turning Cindy Sheehan's achievements into real political gains would be the circle of overpaid and out-of-touch consultants that suffocate the potential and idealism of the Democrats' high-profile national candidates".

I, too, found this paragraph unsettling. How do we by-pass these overpaid and out of touch consultants? How can we make Cindy's message part of our Base Message now? How can we convince Politicans that, like Paul Hackett, Americans want Strength !

[Alan Anderson]

Is there a way to get news in the world that isn’t dictated by what political party the owners of the news agency belong to? Maybe I’m not as well educated as the people on the news stations I’m watching and listening to. I just don’t know why I turn to one channel and get one story and then turn to another and get a totally different story. Could it be the people who write and/or spin the story? My gosh, someone please tell me the truth. I’m seeing a woman camping out front of President Bush’s ranch in TX. (Cindy Sheehan). Just for those who don’t know who she is, she gave birth to a brave, patriotic American son who joined the Army. He was sent to Iraq to do his duty for the American military that is in the middle of a war with some bad people there. I’m not really sure why we are there at war but we are. My heart goes out to Ms. Sheehan he son died there in Iraq. What more pain can any mother feel but to lose a child? She’s mad as hell at something. Her son made the ultimate sacrifice for his country and we should all thank him and her for his bravery. As for mom camping outside of Bush’s ranch, if she’s not breaking any laws then let her be. She’s got issues she has to come to terms with. She blames the President for her loss. We all have an issue one way or another with the way this war was started and has played out till now. I’ve read news articles or maybe some were political spin blogs. They all do nothing but bad mouth the other side’s story. Her some died, she’s sad, mad, and has to vent her emotions someway. End of story.

The second story of the week that I can understand is the whole 9/11 Able Danger story. I watch one station and get that they told the 9/11 Commission and go to another channel and hear that no one ever said anything to the commission about it. Now does anyone know what the heck the truth is? I know that 4 planes on September 11th, 2001 crashed into the Pentagon, the World Trade Centers and a field in PA. I’ve only heard since then that it was a lack of different intelligence agencies being able to communicate with each other because of political red-tape. Well looks like we’re back to square one. I feel for every family affected by the events that played out that day. I also feel for every family who has a family member or more go off to war and die for his or her country.

It is time that we as Americans fix our problems within our system and truly protect our country here at home and find ways to protect it from the outside. Now that I’ve said all of this I don’t feels so stupid anymore. It seems that the stupidity is coming from the people we trust to give us news. The real news, not the spun version of the news depending on which political party the news agency is associated with. I see a lot of blogs out there giving news. Is it news? Or is it really just another person’s spin? Maybe instead of calling them Blogs we should call them Spinsters. Wait that is too hard to type.

Alan Anderson
Granite Bay, CA

Non-Republican and Non-Democrat
I think I’m considered a Centralist whatever that is.

[Kaktivist]

I applaud you!

Thank you so much for bringing the strategy to so many people.

Here's one small thing that I do on a daily basis. When I read "faith-based", I think "religion-based." It's remarkable how much that/those magic word(s) have permeated our language, and yet it goes unchallenged. If you substitute, even one time the word "religion" for "faith", it creates a furrowed brow. It creates a hmmmm.... kind of moment.

Thanks for all you do.

[janinsanfran]

In this horrible war that posed Saddam Hussein and then Zarqawi on one side and a dangerous 'pre-emption' and then a pack of lies on the other, Cindy Sheehan has finally offered a story that enables confused US people someone to be FOR. The desire for something morally positive to latch on to is what opponents have not been able to project since Bush launched his phone GWOT. She has given opponents of the war something that answers the need for uplifting content to our message.

[jb iken]

Ms Sheehan is nothing more than a political plant of moveon.org and the rest of the left wing nutball groups. We all grieve for the loss of her son; but using him for the politcal gain of the looney left is disgusting. Shame on the democrat party for using this poor woman.

[The Heretik]

Nicely done. More on this at MADONNA BEATS MACHO MAN

[loverofpeace]

interesting post. not too thrilled that you are now trying to turn Mrs. Sheehan's brave stand into a political opportunity for the Democratic Party. The fact that she has struck a chord with so many families is NOT political at all. She is not for sale and not a shill for some group such as moveon.org or any other group. She is a mother with a right to ask "why" of the person who sent her son to his death for what she, and many of us, perceives to be a lie.

[Marie]

You know what might be really compelling? To have a grieving Iraqi mother come and join the vigil in Crawford, stressing that this isn't a war between the United States and the Iraqi insurgents, Western Culture against the Muslims, Christianity against Islam. No, it's a war between a particularly vicious segment of the international capitalist class, and the rest of us. Too bad members of that class have infiltrated the Democratic Party.

[SadieB.]

Mr. Anderson,

If you want to know more about Cindy Sheehan's story you can go to Democraticunderground.com. She is posting reports on her vigil every day.

They also have a great advice column called "Ask Auntie Pinko." She has a good, common-sense approach to things. She puts something out every week but you can also read archived columns.

[Craig Whipps]

EUREKA !!! Jeffrey Feldman has got it. BY (BYE) GEORGE, he's got it! And now that we have a frame can we please start talking about the portrait that goes in it.

Yea, I know it's a discussion and everybody can talk about it in '06 and '08, but, eventually somebody has to focus that discussion, and the only time I find myself agreeing with the right is when they accuse us of not having the conviction to say what we stand for. It isn't that we don't know what we stand for…oh, let’s be honest:

We just don't want to say it, OUT LOUD! We’re afraid they'll call us FAGS, and, when we don't look insulted, we're afraid they won't vote for us.

WE'RE FOR PEACE:
Unless you try to take it away from us, (FOR REAL) in which case we WILL kick your ass every bit as hard as a Republican. But we don’t own shotguns, or, go duck hunting, and even if we do, we really don’t want your kids to have the right to take them to school.

IF WE AREN'T IN FACT FAGS, WE LOVE THEM:
Couldn’t picture a sane world without them. Think they should be afforded all the same courtesies and protections the Constitution provides the rest of us. If watching grown men kiss on TV makes you want to barf, we love you, too. Change the channel, stop making it a big deal and the news will stop covering the courthouse.

And as long as we’re at it…

LET'S ACTUALLY TELL PEOPLE THAT THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT ISN'T OVER YET: You ARE nine times more likely to get arrested if your black, but you are NOT nine times more likely to have your vote count.

Now, this far from the Beltway, can we expect the usual suspects, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Joe Biden to fit this frame?

I see a person who has the wisdom of John Conyers Jr., the strength of Paul Hackett, and the moral authority of Cindy Sheehan.

In fact, let’s just do it like that.

Conyers Jr. (president) / Hackett and Sheehan (co-vice presidents) in ‘08!!!

You see why I want to get started early?

But, I see all this good news being spread just like this, here, in little pieces, without the ads from moveon.org, or the money from the corporate, oil, and military machines, without Al Franken’s parodies of Rush Limbaugh (but, the OY YOY YOY stays!) and can we please not coach them how to use there hands? (Talk about lipstick on a PIG! Is there anything more phony that a guy telling you he stands for honest government while he’s delivering a hand gesture that was practiced in front of a mirror.)

What’s the problem with pointing, anyway. Just STICK IT OUT, for Christ’s…(sorry.)

Oh, yeah. One more thing.

WE VALUE MORALITY MORE THAN MORAL VALUES:
FAITH means not knowing for sure. It is the opposite of BELIEF. Faith = open mind. Belief = closed case. EVOLUTION = science. INTELLIGENT DESIGN = another pig with lipstick.

As long as it’s honest, simple, and human, like Cindy, I think we have a chance of not scaring the undecideds into thinking were just Republicans with good haircuts.

P.S. Will someone please mention that it WAS Congressman John Conyers Jr. that had the courage and vision to bring Cindy Sheehan to the table at the Downing Street Memo Hearings, in the first place? -- thanks John.

[r dx]

Sheehan's 'family values' vs Bush's--no contest now that she's woke us

[Joseph Juhasz]

An excellent analysis. Dead on right about the Family Values include grieving moms phenomenon.

Not enough being said about how a pissed-off mom is something that any human being can understand as a powerful force.

[marblex]

Come on. The Democrats' job is to lose. Look at how Kerry threw the election and then conceded with lightning rapidity. His Skull and Bones loyalty far exceeded any desire to WIN.

Joe Lieberman
Joe Biden
These guys are obviously stealth republicans.

ANYONE who voted for

CAFTA
BANKRUPTCY ACT
PATRIOT ACT
KILLING OVERTIME WAGES
CUTTING MEDICARE
ANWAR DRILLING

ALL traitors to progressive causes.

FUCK THEM ALL.

[SadieB.]

Well, yeah. I don't think you are going to find many Lieberman/Biden fans on this site. The purpose of this site (as I understand it) is to help the real Democrats take back their party.

[Grace Kelly]

I think the Vigils have also generated another new frame: Iraq is only going to get worse, there is no solution. Bring the troops home now.

[PlacitasRoy]

Alan-
Actually she was about 5 miles from his pig farm, until she moved.

He was sent to Iraq to fight in an illegal and immoral war. He went to protect his buddies. He was not doing his duty. His duty was to protect the US from all enemies, foreign and domestic. While Iraq was vilified as an enemy, in actuality they were a toothless, impotent, beaten, and starving non-threat to the region or the U.S.

No one else knows either. That is what Cindy is attempting to find out. Finally the question is getting attention, although it is being misdirected by the Reich-wing.

Sorry, you have fallen for a big piece of propaganda. He didn’t sacrifice for his country. He was sacrificed for an illegal and immoral war. He was sacrificed on the alter of lies and deceptions.

It isn’t the end of the story. Finally someone is able to tell the story about the lying bastards and get face time on TV. It isn’t about this beautiful compassionate lady, it’s about the lying bastards who lead the willfully ignorant into supporting this immoral and illegal war. It’s no more about Cindy than the civil rights movement was about Rosa Parks. She was just the spark that fell in the dry kindling.

No. That was the job of the 9/11 commission that Bush fought against - To totally confuse and obfuscate so the total incompetence (at best) of this pack of lying thugs would NEVER see the light of day.

jb iken - Insightful post that says alot about you.

[PlacitasRoy]

I didn't realize the formatting wouldn't allow the greater/lesser signs. Assume there first phrase in the above is highlighted, followed by my remarks

[jim young]

Insightful analysis on "Grieving Mom" implications! Now the $64 dollar question is What do the Dems do with a successful frame? Your suggestion that we get rid of the consultants is simplistic-won't happen! Consultant opinion will turn on a dime IF they smell success however So the task is for the grassroots to reassert and magnify this family frame in all the other issues. We need "Cindy Sheehan's" to front our other issues-This was part of the framing strategy for Social Security and it has worked. If we do this Family could become a Megaframe for the Dems with the key being finding the personal faces to put on an issue.

[ExtraWise]

Hey all,

Your friendly conservative popping in again.

You want frames? Wanna see why yours aren't working.

Check out the context?
http://www.illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=27992

You guys will all do better if you start seeing the world as it is, and not like Mother MoveOn told you it was.

Mother MoveOn is leading you off a cliff.

[jim young]

ExtraWise: Thanks, I checked out your "context". It took me awhile to find it what with the meet Republican singles and college mascot ads but I did and wow-the context I am missing is that Bush is much more saavy and intelligent than LBJ was...and the world has changed since the 60's! If that's your "realistic" frame then we progressives are better off than I thought. It is ironic that your reference page includes a survey on whether we should get out of Iraq. Even conservatives must be thinking about that.

[ExtraWise]

Jim,

What do ads have to do with anything?

It was nice of you to glance over the article, but you're whistling past the graveyard if you think the Sheehan hype did anything positive for "your side."

If anything, her shrill and extreme rhetoric (when comprehensible) only pushed a deeper wedge between rational "progressives" - who are smart enough to know that withdrawal would be a disaster, and the irrational progressives, who increasingly resemble the Sparticist League.

As for the "get out of Iraq"
Survey...

Yes, it must seem ironic to some. We conservatives actually have disagreements among ourselves. We have to contend with our own brand of "foam at the mouth" types like 'antiwar.com.'