Aviva Total Politics 2010 Election Map

Total Politics - because knowledge is power

I was watching an episode of the West Wing recently in which the character Charlie Young attempts to make progress on the 'earned income tax credit policy', which gives a tax refund to the poor. He fails to get anywhere, until a colleague steps in to tell him he needs to give it a better name.

 

'Earned income tax credit' isn't the catchiest title. Young goes back to the drawing board and reframes the issue, making it a battle against 'poor tax' instead. Result? Game, set and match to Charlie. The underlying point is that words matter. They define the debate, they control how issues, opponents and policies are viewed. Why else would we spend so much time tweaking our CVs and covering letters when applying for jobs?

 

In politics, all too often we accept and adopt our opponent's words, choosing to frame the debate, issue or policy in their terms rather than our own. Just consider the Countryside Alliance; its website refers repeatedly to their opponents as the 'animal rights movement'. In doing so, the Alliance confers on their adversaries all the benefits that go along with such a name. Who after all, in a nation of animal lovers, would disagree with the concept of 'rights for animals'? To win the debate, you have to frame it in  the way you want.

 

For the Countryside Alliance that means adopting a new name to describe their adversaries. It should define them in the negative, be believable and, importantly, memorable. Rather than 'animal rights movement' for example, it could be 'eco militants'.

 

The point? By changing some words you can start to take control of the debate and advance your agenda far better than you ever could when campaigning on your opponent's terms. So, the next time you put out a leaflet, make a speech or go on the radio ask yourself the following: "Am I setting the terms of the debate, or is my opponent?"

 

 

Shane Greer is executive editor of Total Politics