FRAMESHOP:FRAMESHOP: BUSH'S 'OUR JOB' FRAME

In his latest Press Conference, President Bush used the phrases 'our job' or 'the job' 15 times in just under an hour. At one point, it seemed the main objective of the Press Conference was for Bush to repeat this word:

Leaving before the job would be done would send a message that America really is no longer engaged, nor cares about the form of governments in the Middle East. Leaving before the job was done would send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made were not worth it. Leaving before the job is done would be a disaster, and that's what we're saying.

The logic that frames Iraq as a 'job' that we can finish has subsequently been repeated thousands of times by Rebublicans and the media.

What is the logic of this frame and what can Progressives say to reframe the issue?

President Bush's talking point once again tries to take control of the 'time frame,' and to maintain control of the debate, Progressives should talk about results, responsibility, consequences.

'Job'='Time Frame'
When President Bush talks about a 'job' to be done by the United States in Iraq, he is invokinng a broad logic about time. That's right: time. All jobs have starting points and ending points, and by repeating 'the job' and 'get the job done' over and over again, the President is trying to control the time frame--the way Americans think about how long we have been in Iraq and when we should come back home fro Iraq.

The Bush Administration is obsessed with controlling the time frame. They say that they do not want to follow political timetables in Iraq because it will embolden the enemy and lead to more terrorist attacks, but in reality: what makes them more nervous than anything is the thought that they might loose control of the 'time frame' in the debate.

Why? Because they want to stay in Iraq permanently, and in order to accomplish this goal they need to keep American citizens focused on the idea that our occupation is always a step away from achieving a goal or a job. So, they talk about 'training' or 'building'--concepts that involve multiple steps.

For Progressives: Talk About 'Results' and Ask 'Who Is Responsible'
At this point in the debate, with a majority of the country believing that the Iraq policy must change radically and immediately, Progressives can control the Iraq frame by talking about: results.

When we talk about 'results' we fast forward President Bush's 'job is done' idea and grab hold of the 'time frame.' After five years of trying to keep the nation safe, if the policy is working, there should be results. To establish this point, Progressives might say:

• Where are the results?


• If the occupation of Iraq makes us safer, where are the results?


• If we are fighting them over there instead of over here, why are there even more terrorist plots against air travel than there were before? Where are the results?


• If the policy is working, why aren't less people dying than before? Where are the results?

The power of the word 'results' is that it leaps to the end of the slow time frame President Bush tries to establish and demands answers. But more than that, it sets up a logical question about 'accountability.' But rather than using that unwieldly word 'accountability,' Progressives can ask 'Why is responsible' when there are 'no results':

• When there are no results for the Iraq policy, who is responsible?


• Who is responsible when more people die instead of less?


• Who is responsible when air travel is less safe not more safe?
  
• Who is responsible when there are more wars in the Middle East, not less?


• Who is responsible when there are more countries with nuclear weapons, not less?


• Who is responsible when our policies lead to more fear and insecurity, not less?


• Who is responsible?

After five years, Americans are no longer interested in President Bush starting about 'jobs' that we must get done. We want to know why the job has not produced results and who is responsible.

The Logic Of Consequences
Talking about 'results' and 'responsibility' introduces the logic of consequences into the discusion on Iraq-- a logic that President Bush wants to avoid at all costs.

To talk about consequences is to focus attention on what has been done.

In Iraq we se a crisis, a civil war, chaos, destruction, sectarian violence--all results of the Bush Iraq policy. Who whill answer for these consequences. Who will be responsible?

So far, Progressives have allowed President Bush and the Republicans to completely control the logic of consequences through the talking point that says we will be attacked by terrorists if we pull out of Iraq.

In that logic, President Bush's is the one who got us into Iraq, but it will be the Democrats and the American people who are responsible for failures.

It is a cowardly accusation, but so far it has been an effective PR trick.

To really hold onto the Iraq debate, Progressives cannot allow themselves to be undermined by that tactic, but should focus on: results, responsibility, and consequences.

© 2006 Jeffrey Feldman, Frameshop