"Honest, robust conversation is the key to the cage."
No doubt. How do we create that, outside of our classrooms, I mean? John Stewart made a nice stab at it awhile back, and it does seem like people are tiring of this "who can yell louder" style of televised "discussion, but in terms of facilitating this move, what can a mere citizen do?
If I told you now, you wouldn't have to read the rest of the book... 
The Cato the Elder reference and the g. gordon Liddy reference can use more support. Quotes from them showing that they make the move you suggest would help.
I really enjoyed the selection, and I guess my main comment is similar to I's...
The last paragraph seemed like too much of a gloss, a quick fix to the problem developed in the chapter. Is it supposed tobe a teaser? Without seeing how it fits into the rest of the book, it is hard for me to comment - but within the context of this chapter alone I would've liked to read more on the "key to the change."
Other quick things...
- If the chapter is going to be titled after Charlie Brown then I think it might be nice to bring that analogy back one more time. You pose it as a rhetorical question at the beginning, and so it might be nice to provide an answer within the analogy at the end.
- One thing that strikes me about the caging move is that it can only be used to defend the status quo. In this chapter you do not explicitly attach caging to conservatives (though it is obviously the case since all of your examples are conservative positions). Do you ever argue that caging tends to be an inherently conservative position - or do you not want to make a claim that strong?
It is their fault and no one else’s that they have that job.
Important, too, is that this view gets intrnalized. Poor working class folks think it is there fault as well. Needless to say, this view does great things for self-esteem... and people with low self esteem do all kinds of strange things, things that make no sense to the "rationally minded" economists and politicians.
I think Steve's analysis of the rhetorical tactics is spot on, but I think his interpretation is naive, and rests on the faulty premise that ethics (in the particular) are a matter of objective truth.
Framing and caging are certainly effective propaganda techniques. But it is not propaganda per se, nor is it even dishonest propaganda, which is undermining ethical discourse. It is, rather, liberal and progressive shame about using propaganda--in the neutral sense of attempting to directly influence the values of the audience--which is undermining political and ethical discourse, leaving this necessary tool entirely in the hands of the conservative movement.
More at Propaganda and Negotiation
Tom Tomorrow makes a similar point a thousand times more succinctly than I do.
ahh what a marvelous post! it moved me, and i shared it with some buddies here at work who i discuss politics with.
one example of a place where i think there is a good chance for the civil discourse that you describe to occur is the new ways and means committee -from what i've heard so far i think charlie rangel is pushing bipartisanship and discussion and creative solutions as much as possible, so i'm hoping good things will come from that committee this year!
one critique, depending on the audience you're going for with your book, is that all the examples put liberals in a good light and conservatives in a bad light.
while i agree with all the examples from my perspective, i think it might be more powerful if there is a mix of the two so that it can reach out to both liberal and conservative people who are positively motivated toward improving people's lives but come from different worldviews, and perhaps this would make the book more timeless as well.
i'm excited to hear more! rock on!
I see caging and framing in the way that discussions of race (including received wisdom among blacks) get inevitably and impossibly stuck. It could explain well-meaning liberal mistakes, too.
I am still a bit shy, but I do want to take a stab a response to this posting. Saying so in a comment on your blog will make it impossible for me to back out of it.
I imagine that your book is going to be about US political dialogue, but another good example is the histrionics in Europe over veiled women. That caged dialogue refuses to address the realities of an aging population, unchecked discrimination and disaffected youth - not only in the banlieus; unemployment is an issue for white Europeans as well.
All that to say, this was interesting and thought provoking, it explains these 'rhetorical traps' that are so frustrating and disheartening. Good explanations like these keep the pessimistic sort (not naming any names) to refrain from getting too down and leaving the public sphere to those who shout loudest.
You use too many commas, and Tanya somehow became Tonya.
What, you weren't getting tired of substantive comments? I was going to try to make one, but all my thinks had been thunk for me by commenters above. Mainly I was going to agree with I (mon): civil fucking discourse is not the answer because it presupposes, only works in the presence of, good faith. Cage-and-frame tactics are, I think, commonly used by people who don't understand them but can only be generated deliberately, by people who do know what they're doing. In other words, cage-and-frame arguments proceed from, and procede to further generate, bad faith.
Looking forward to reading the book!
Having said that, I should take a stab at a workable answer. I'm going to fall back on that indefatigable detergent, sunlight. In the face of a cage-and-frame attack, the thing to do is make the cage and the frame explicit: point out what your opponent is doing. List the other issues, show how they are related, make clear how the emotive "uncaged" issue is being used as a smokescreen. Respond to "so, you concede X?" or "so, you have no answer for X" by saying no, my answer to X involves these other issues that you want to hide. Cage-and-frame relies on discourse that generates more heat than light, so don't take that bait. (Easier said than done, I know.)
A moral debate must "treat all concerns open-mindedly..." we must "mercilessly reject those views that fail to meet rational muster."
Comments like this give me a slight shiver, for some of the reasons that came up in an earlier Philosopher's Playground conversation on faith and atheism (Friday, Jan 5). As MacIntyre might ask, "Whose rational muster? Whose open-mindedness"?
on 'open-mindedness'
I've come to the conclusion that there are basically two types of people: those who believe (only) in nature, and those who believe (either in addition to as a substitute for nature) in magic.
The magicians (IDists, theists, etc.) would claim that materialists who say that their magical beliefs lead to all sorts of problems and should be 'opposed' (e.g. not letting ID be taught in schools) are 'close-minded'. But I think this is just a rhetorical diversion to get people not to think of the problems magical beliefs cause.
Case in point.
"Case in point."
Exactly. That's a false dichotomy. You'd be amazed at the breadth of interpretations of people who believe "only in nature." And SteveG has already refracted believe in God into three different interpretations.
You may see these distinctions as coming down to your two basic divisions, but my naturalism probably has more in common with Kerry's "phenomenological" religious beliefs than it does with the scientistic statements I've seen on this blog.
oops. "belief" in God. Not "believe." Still need more coffee.
my naturalism probably has more in common with Kerry's "phenomenological" religious beliefs than it does with the scientistic statements I've seen on this blog.
I am almost too afraid to even think what sort of 'naturalism' that is.
Good job Steve! I sit here and remember
attending a company seminar on meetings.
Don't recall the exact name but it involved Green dots(positive), Yellow dots(caution), and Red dots(negative). The goal was for everyone to begin the meeting with a Green dot discussing a topic going from person to person for input. It was amazing to me(non-management)! Opened my eyes wide! We must strive to be the best we can all be and pass on Green dots!
One more thing I'd like to add regarding a dead end job...... A former employer placed employees from being paid on an every two week basis to twice monthly.....this resulted in a pay cut. Well one of the employees burst out crying...and was called into employer office. Discussion.....employee was asked to bring in her monthly expenses. To make a long story short, the employer did not see how she could live on what he paid.......so her salary was re-evaluated and bumped up.
This might seem like a happy ending but you must remember, there was no health insurance.....5 days paid vacation per year and 5 days paid sick. For a working worman with children......but you just say "thank you" and keep on keepin on.
There is one area where I find I have a problem. I find it hard to talk this one particular group of people ( the 2nd definition in http://www.thefreedictionary.com/redneck ). Does that make me intolerant?
It reads a little too much like it's just one liberal's opinion to me. If you call your subject ethics and you take liberal pieties for granted, you're going to alienate conservatives fast. Also as a metaphor connoisseur I'm afraid I can't hold back from quibbling over "caging." Nice that it echoes "framing," but to me it doesn't so much explain as need explaining or reward those to whom you're explaining your concept during or after. We talk about "baiting" political opponents already, and the root verb "bait" by itself suggests not only a cage but the goal or act of entrapment, and that seems to be your subject. By "caging" one may mean an action, an assembly of material or a structural plan (ala "fencing"). I think that ambiguity makes it vague or mushy on first use, which in effect relegates the explaining to other words and leaves me feeling "caging" is just a word you want us to remember for some reason. Why not make more of "bait"? Also "ambush" seems like a natural metaphor. One chooses where and under what circumstances to ambush an opponent. I read your "caging" as most centrally about selecting where and when to confront the opponent, and not at all about engineering a container or chasing after your opponent with it. The "caging" emphasis makes me want and expect a how-to, and if you don't deliver me one, I might vaguely feel you've failed show what you set out to. If the context is competitions between ideologies for minds or votes, I suppose you could figuratively describe and reference your topic as "game rigging"
Commenting by HaloScan
