What is political framing?

featuring Tim Moore, NC Speaker of the House, on "political polarization."

Why hello! Welcome to my first post.

Consider this substack series to be a mini crash course on political framing, as I experience it through my eyes. You’ll hear from me on political polarization from Chapel Hill, housing from Durham, religion from Spain, euthanasia from Geneva, (perhaps!) nuclear proliferation from Vienna, and much, much more as I travel this summer to pull the rug on a topic that is often discussed in darkness.

But first, writing from Chapel Hill, I wanted to actually define and conceptualize what I mean by political framing, through some observations from a breakfast event on public discourse with Tim Moore, the Republican Speaker of North Carolina’s House:

During his talk, the Speaker condemned social media as a cause of increased political tribalism — on several occasions. He lamented behind-the-screen attack politics, arguing that we ought to do a better job seeing the common good of the humanity that we’ve all inherited.

Would you agree with him?

These articles from NPR, Scientific American, and Brookings certainly do.

Ok, let’s restart. What if I first told you that Tim Moore holds the position most responsible for advancing partisan gerrymandering in the most gerrymandered state in the country? What if I told you that Tim Moore has his name on Moore v Harper, a Supreme Court Case that could allow his legislature unilateral power to gerrymander, regardless of court opinion? What if I told you that when asked about the influential role of gerrymandering in political division, Moore waved it off as part of the game of politics (seriously, he really did)?

Would you rehear his original statement about social media in a different light? I would personally still grant its truth, but only in a very shallow, reductive, and one-dimensional sense. It smears and distorts the larger picture of political tribalism in our country and its many causes, one of which is largely championed by Moore’s speakership.

This is exactly what happened this morning — a group of students handed out pamphlets on the way to the event containing this information, discrediting Moore’s words even without refuting them directly.

---

Whenever we focus on only a few specific dimensions of a larger policy problem, we are framing. We frame when we think, even at a subconsious level. We frame when we communicate, through our rhetorical choices. And framing is inevitable, because our brains are not infinitely powerful supercomputers that can retain and recognize and observe every dimension of a policy issue. (If you’re curious, feel free to refer to Chong and Druckman for a more rigorous treatment of framing)

Could you have visualized this 4-D object? How about a 5-D object? I certainly can’t.

In a lot of ways, our ugliest (metaphorically) politicians are not much more than expert framers, and the ugliest side of politics is not much more than a game of frames. If you’ve ever thought to yourself, “that’s not the point!” or “why does that matter?” while watching a presidential debate, you’ve found yourself recognizing that your frame of reference is different from the candidate, whether due to lived experience, identity, or, more perniciously, the sincerity of the candidate’s rhetoric.

Despite its importance, almost no one in news media talks about frames — because framing is most powerful when it is simultaneously unnoticeable and persuasive, and because news media perpetually exploits framing.

As do politicians.

As does every institution to exist.

As does this article :)

Framing in politics is primarily discussed in the shadows. Its theory is disclosed within the gates of academia, and its application is exploited behind the closed doors of speechwriting, campaign consultant, and strategist meetings.

Let’s bring it to light.