How Politicians Deliberately Use Frames which Lakoff Discusses - Essay Example

of Morality shapes our Political Discussions and how Politicians deliberately use Frames which Lakoff discusses George Lakoff has mentioned a number of techniques which are employed by politicians in order to frame their campaigns and their motives. As understood by a number of instances where George Lakoff discusses framing, it is easy to note and state that framing is a moral phenomenon or an outlook which is suited to an individual’s thought process regarding what is being seen or heard. Politicians have used framing over the years to discuss and assimilate their self interests or public interests. This paper aims to discuss the various patterns in which politician’s charting of political intercourse are undertaken. Framing is the basis of analysis in this paper which has been done with the aid of advertisements and other media sources to analyze the moral influence on politician’s conduct. This paper shall also evaluate how a common man is likely to get affected by the framing. The area which has been chosen to analyze the political discourse is immigration. Also, solutions to the issues which are acting greatly as an obstacle towards development will be given in the paper. As evident from the study of George Lakoff regarding different framing patterns have been used by politicians, is it progressive or conservative etc (Lakoff 148). Taking into account, the current scenario of the US political schema, it has been noted that Mitt Romney and Barak Obama has been actually involved in framing their agenda and outlook towards immigration and terrorism in their respective manner. By noting down the media clip namely Romney: WeShouldn’t Negotiate with Taliban, We Should Kill Taliban, it becomes quiet easier to ensure that the Mitt Romney has been a conservative in terms of framing his opinions against Taliban. It can be said that Mitt Romney acts like a person who is a naturalist father who does not understand the feelings of other members of the family. A democratic state is more likel to come up with better decisions if consensus is undertaken. The aggression quiet evident from his words when he speaks “People of America has been targeted by Taliban and for which they deserve to be killed and not negotiated with”, completely states that he is against the foreign policy of United States and he wishes to bring more changes in the policy (BreitbartNews). For most of the people who would actually come to watch the video will claim that Romney has a strict outlook towards terrorism but countries like United States cannot show aggression with an open call for war. It is for this reason that the framing as done by Mitt Romney regarding his interests towards terrorism is regarded as weak yet conservative. The impact of such a frame will not have a positive and productive effect of the viewers from all around the world. It should be noted that Mitt Romney must understand the group he is actually referring to before framing. The effect of such a frame is more likely to affect the people who needs assistance and can be able to serve Afghanistan for settling their social status-quo (Karoli 121) On the other hand, another attempt has been noted by the exemption speech of Barack Obama who claimed that United States can actually talk to the Taliban for peace. It has been noted by watching the video namely Obama On "Direct Discussions" With Taliban: "They Can Be A Part Of This Future" that the president has settled an onset and proved that United States is ready to come across with Taliban in the same way as earlier (with the aid of videotapes) (Realclearpolitics). On his own part, Barak Obama has tried to prove to the world that United States does not aim to call for a war but his framing seems to affect Romney’s outlook. The view and the position of Barack Obama with the aid of framing is more of a way to loosen down the aggression of the people who think that war is the only solution to the issues of terrorism. Barack Obama is seemingly another good example of a naturalist father who thinks that he can actually negotiate with Taliban where other Americans believe that they just want to live without any negotiation process. It should also be noted that with the aid of a frame, terrorism and issues like immigration has become one of the most prominent issues in United States. However, it should be noted that that the terms negotiated and peace conversation should be introduced in terms of the American economy because it is the most significant and most attention grabbing issue than the foreign policy (monkeyt033). Thus, it becomes quiet easier to understand that politicians use mere frames in terms of symbols, information, campaigns, policies which can take the lead to divert people’s mind. This is not just the case of United States because almost every country of the world has a history or the contemporary status-quo where politicians are greatly making use of frames to divert the attention f people from one prominent issue to another. Taking the aspects of Mitt Romney, it becomes easy to understand that he and his party believes that immigrants are basically against the success of American dream of common natives of America. It is because of this reason that Americans are giving increased hatred towards the immigrants. Taking Mitt Romney’s claim, it is the increased number of illegal entrants in America who have made it possible for Taliban to exercise their activities in United States without any fear. So, in one way or another, immigrants are being targeted by the politicians with the usage of such frames (Jilson). It has been noted in the mass media theory that framing is one aspect of media communication that is signaled within the message. The source can appoint any technique of framing if they know their targeted audiences closely and also their expectations towards their leadership. There are some other evident and easy to understand examples in the study of George Lakoff where he has actually posed George W. Bush to frame terrorism as the most critical issue that needed the attention of American nation. However, recession was the major issue that needed to be looked after and not terrorism. It was the aid of framing that the people were not able to note that George W. Bush could not save the economy of United States and instead continued the spending on the US Forces to send to Afghanistan to find out terrorists. Ultimately, it ended up in vain for so many years and a recession which is still having its effects on the US economy. This is the reason why politicians are more likely to get affected by their morals for political discourse (Cohen). Effects on Common People: Considering the effect of framing, it is quiet evident that non-Americans who have migrated to US have been looked as the enemies by Americans because they consider them to be involved in any heinous acts. For instance, George Lakoff has mentioned that the frames used by George W. Bush during his presidential era made it quiet difficult for the immigrants in US to live with complexities. For instance, Muslims were being targeted by the mob gangs because they thought that they are all from the same religion and can be the same. This is because the politicians did not really think before framing the immigrants. Even in the contemporary time frame when Mitt Romney speaks of Taliban, he exaggerate that US citizens have hatred towards non-Americans. However, Americans are the most charitable people who provide aid to many under developing countries. This shows that the American nation has a concept of peace relationship with the world. Just because of the handful politics who have been involved in framing their moral interest (Wald 89). The story of Ashraf Mehboob can be taken in this regard. He has been living in United States almost all his life. His two daughters and a son were born in St. Louis. Mr. and Mrs. Mehboob have been serving well in United States and lived no different than other American families until the 9/11 attacks. The speeches were of the politicians were framed in such a manner that it totally led down the immigrants in US who have been staying for so long and have been active in contributing in the economy of United States. Mehboob family has to go through a number of events when they were called names and their religion freedom was taken away by skipping the holidays for religious rituals. Also, they were not given the entrance to most of the landmarks at Texas because they were Muslims. But with the passage of time when the exaggeration was interpreted and it was found out that people were compelled to hate other immigrants, it became normal for the immigrants (Fine). Despite the social balance that was achieved after 9/11, there are some of the underlying effects of the political framing which is still evident. This is evident in the cases of immigration when immigrants travel to US. Application of immigrant students has clauses where they actually have to mention that they have not been involved in any terrorist’s activities and vice versa. This continues even in the present time when the democratic government of America has enabled the immigrants to have their voice in situations where they have been suppressed. But again it should be mentioned here that it is the framing of US to behold their treatment with the non-Americans because this will have an impact on its foreign policies with other states (Little and Smith 79). As far as my evaluation, I would suggest that the politicians are able to measure the impact of frames that they are posing towards the viewers. It is expected of them to make sure that they have a clear indication of the circumstances that could rise after their framing activities. It is not important to say aloud about every aspect. It is rather important to solve the issues by working which is practical and can be noted by the citizen. Speeches and special campaigns are designed to acknowledge people because politicians are basically representatives of their thoughts. And in case they are not able to fulfill their duties then it is useless to implement the theory of framing. Be it the controversy of Mitt Romney framing which most of the people have disagreed with or the progressive framing of Barack Obama, it is evident that politicians have been able to set their agendas and leave marks for the followers to track in order to maintain their beliefs. In other words, it can be said that politician’s political discourse is mainly influenced by their morals. Works Cited BreitbartNews. "Romney: We Shouldnt Negotiate With Taliban, We Should Kill Taliban." 16 January 2012. Youtube.com. 6 July 2012 . Cohen, Cathy. Democracy Remixed. London: Oxford University Press, 2010. Fine, Michelle. Framing Dropouts: Notes on the Politics of an Urban Public High School. New York: SUNY Press, 1991. Jilson, Cal. American Government. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2012. Karoli. "Republicans: The Party of War." 16 January 2012. videocafe.crooksandliars.com. 06 July 2012 . Lakoff, George. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. Little, Richard and Micheal. Smith. Perspectives on World Politics. Washington DC.: Routledge, 2010. monkeyt033. "Mitt Romney Says He Could Wage War on Iran Without Congress Approval." 19 January 2012. Youtube.com. 6 July 2012 . Realclearpolitics. "Obama On "Direct Discussions" With Taliban: "They Can Be A Part Of This Future"." 01 May 2012. realclearpolitics.com. 6 July 2012 . Wald, Kenneth. Religion and Politics in the United States. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010. Read More