Terms of debate

Winning a debate can depend upon how it is ‘framed’ - as much as by its substantial ingredients.

Just as a frame can draw attention to, or away from, an artists’ painting, big debates can be won – or lost – according to how they are ‘framed’.

The tax debate

British proponents of bigger government have been winning the tax-cuts-versus-higher-spending debate by framing the debate in terms of meanness-versus-public-spiritedness. Believers in small government need to reset the terms of debate by talking of the morality of targeted tax relief (a ’Don’t Think Of An Elephant!’ term) and the wastefulness of much fat government expenditure. They may even want to triangulate by positioning themselves between those who want tax cuts for the already wealthy and those opposed to all tax relief.

The abortion debate

Following the re-election of George W Bush, Senator Hillary Clinton made a speech about ‘values’, and about abortion, in particular. Mrs Clinton understands that part of the explanation for the electoral success of pro-life Republicans is the way they have framed the debate. Republicans have focused on abortion’s nastiest aspects – particularly the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure and many US states’ refusal to notify parents if a minor wants to terminate their pregnancy.

Mrs Clinton knows that Americans are more sympathetic to pro-abortion Democrats when the focus of debate shifts to preventing ‘unwanted pregnancies’. She and Senate colleague Harry Reid are promoting the Prevention First Act which would facilitate more contraception services for poor families and liberalise the availability of the morning-after pill. Mrs Clinton knows that such a reframing of the debate would be uncomfortable for George Bush. Many Catholics in the Republican’s religious base oppose artificial methods of contraception. Many more, rightly, see the morning-after pill acting sometimes as an abortifacient. These are minority views, however, and that’s why Mrs Clinton wants to talk more about preventing abortion and less about the humanity of the unborn child.

The Europe debate

A January 2005 ICM poll for The Sunday Telegraph revealed how public opinion can shift depending upon the way in which issues are framed. January’s respondents were asked:

"Should the United Kingdom approve the treaty establishing a constitution for the European Union?"

39% said yes – just 2% less than the ‘noes’.

Three months earlier, in November 2004, ICM had asked:

"If there were a referendum tomorrow, would you vote for Britain to sign up to the EU constitution or not?"

The 24% who said they would sign up were heavily outnumbered by the 69% who said that they wouldn’t.

This astonishing shift was discussed within this article by Matthew D’Ancona. Mr D’Ancona concludes that the shift is explained by attitudes to the status quo. The first question – which produced a divided result – invites people to approve an existing Treaty. The second question invites people to ‘do something new’, “take a leap in the dark” and sign up to the Constitution. If people are ambivalent about the status quo it is usually helpful to frame your side of the debate as its defenders. That puts the onus for explanation onto the shoulders of the ‘changemakers’.