The Dark Art of Framing

Nov 25, 2019

Why do intelligent people – sometimes even our friends and family members – continue to fall for the Left’s false narrative? Jeff Myers, President of Summit Ministries, offers some compelling insight into the ways in which the Left manipulates words and emotions, and what you can do to protect yourself.

This video was made possible through our partnership with Summit Ministries. Click here to learn more and get your free e-book: 5 Steps to Making Convincing Arguments.

Study Guide

The Constitution doesn’t speak about the right to hold beliefs. Those are a given. It specifically defends the free exercise of religion.: The First Amendment forbids the “making of any law respecting an establishment of religion” or “impeding the free exercise of religion.” That means freedom to act on your religious beliefs and not to be forced to violate them, and the freedom the to influence others, just as secular people can.
View source; Many on the Left have come to view religious freedom in a negative light. Martin Castro, former chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for the Obama Administration, wrote: "The phrases 'religious liberty' and 'religious freedom' will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance."
View source; Related reading: “Understanding the Times: A Survey of Competing Worldviews” – Jeff Myers, David A. Noebel
View source
The framers of the Constitution made the defense of the free exercise of religion a priority in the founding of the country.: James Madison said, “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.”
View source; Thomas Jefferson said, “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”
View source; Related reading: “What Would the Founders Say?” – Larry Schweikart
View source; Related reading: “Understanding the Faith: A Survey of Christian Apologetics” – Jeff Myers
View source
“Hate speech is not free speech” has become a common refrain on college campuses. But who decides what counts as “hate speech”?: Freedom of speech is most threatened on university campuses, where “hate speech is not free speech” has become an increasingly common refrain.
View source; Freedom from speech is a threat to both pluralism and democracy, a violation of human rights.
View source; Related: “Standing For Free Speech” – Mike S. Adams, Summit Ministries
View source
Though college students are being taught the opposite, there is no “right” not to be offended.: The essence of free speech is that it must extend to those with whom we disagree and least want to hear; otherwise it has little meaning.
View source; If a right is denied to one group, the denial of that right will soon spread to other groups.
View source; Related reading: “Understanding the Culture: A Survey of Social Engagement” – Jeff Myers
View source
We’re told socialism is morally superior because it makes people “more equal”—but that really means equal in lack of choice and prosperity.: Income inequality motivates people who want more money to create profitable companies (i.e. companies that provide something people want). As economist John Tamny argues, “[I]t is gaps in wealth that drive creativity among the citizenry … their innovations redounding to individuals of all income classes.”
View source; Capitalism naturally drives entrepreneurs to create increasingly affordable products and services in order to increase their customer base. Consequently, capitalism improves the lifestyle equality of society.
View source; Related reading: “Equal Is Unfair: America's Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality” – Don Watkins
View source
Socialism only achieves “equality” by concentrating power into the hands of government elites—ultimately through force.: Socialists often try to hide their method of enforcing socialism, by using terms like “sharing” or “helping people,” but socialism is ultimately imposed and enforced through government force.
View source; Socialism inevitably involves growing government, thus shrinking the autonomy of the private citizen.
View source; Socialism is the concentration of power into the hands of government elites to achieve the following purposes: central planning of the economy and the radical redistribution of wealth.
View source
Countries with the most economic freedom earn 6 times more than countries with the lowest level of economic freedom.: Countries with the most economic freedom earn more than six times the annual earnings of countries with the lowest level of economic freedom.
View source; Read Arthur Brooks on the significance of free enterprise.
View source
In a free market, the economic pie is always growing. In a socialist economy, the pie is fixed and the government slices it up.: The free market is a positive-sum game. In any free market transaction, both people receive something that they value more than the thing they are giving. In other words, both sides are better off after transacting than they were before.
View source; When all parties are free to act voluntarily, without coercion, every trade is, by definition, mutually beneficial.
View source; It is the government, not the free market, that creates zero-sum games in an economy. Mandated government redistribution of resources—such as sugar and ethanol subsidies—is a coercive action that benefits some by forcibly taking from others.
View source; Related reading: Economic Facts and Fallacies – Thomas Sowell
View source
Progressives point to Europe as more socially enlightened than America. So why don’t they embrace Europe’s more stringent abortion policies?: Despite their generally progressive and secular worldview, Western Europeans have a much more conservative attitude about abortion than American progressives do.
View source; Author Emily Matchar on Western Europe’s abortion laws: “I assumed that Western Europe would be the land of abortion on demand…But as it turns out, abortion laws in Europe are both more restrictive and more complicated than that. Waiting periods, decried by American pro-choicers as…unreasonably burdensome, are common…”
View source; The U.S. now has some of the most pro-abortion policies in the Western world. Most states in America allow abortions up to 20 weeks.
View source; Related video: “The Most Important Question About Abortion” – Dennis Prager, PragerU
View source
America has more pro-abortion policies than many countries in Western Europe, which generally restrict abortion after the first trimester.: Germany, Finland, Belgium, Ireland, Denmark and other European countries have more stringent abortion laws than the U.S. For example, Germany restricts most abortions after 12 weeks and requires a three-day waiting period and counseling for all abortions.
View source; Finland requires the authorization of at least one doctor for abortions sought within the first 12 weeks.
View source; Belgium requires counseling, that a woman claim she is in a “state of distress” in the first trimester, and the agreement of two physicians that there is serious risk to a mother’s health after the first 12 weeks.
View source; The U.S. now has some of the most pro-abortion policies in the Western world. Most states in America allow abortions up to 20 weeks.
View source; Related video: “What You Need to Know About Planned Parenthood” – Lila Rose, PragerU
View source

If you’re a movie buff, you’ve probably seen a picture of a director, thumbs joined together, index fingers forming a square, showing the camera operator how to frame the shot.

The camera can’t see everything, right? The art of directing is framing every shot so the audience sees exactly what the director wants them to see.

We all do something like this in making arguments, whether personal or political. It’s not necessarily a bad thing. We only have so much time to make our points.

But there is a downside. Often arguments end up unfairly skewed by the information they include or leave out. If you understand how framing works, you’ll have a better chance of seeing through weak arguments and appreciating good ones.

Let’s look at some examples.

Take socialism. Socialism is enjoying renewed popularity, especially among young people. Why is this, given the failure of the socialist model in places like the former Soviet Union, Cuba, and Venezuela?

The answer is that socialism has been very cleverly framed by its proponents.

Socialism, we are told, is morally superior because it makes people “more equal.” Those who have more than their fair share have to give it back. What could possibly be wrong with leveling the playing field? Who’s against equality?

When framed that way, socialism is made to seem the only moral choice. So if you’re opposed to it, you’re framed as regressive, selfish, and pretty much a jerk.

Another example of framing is the issue of religious freedom. The American Civil Liberties Union website says that “The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment gives you the right to worship or not as you choose. The government can't penalize you because of your religious beliefs.”

It sounds good—but only because of the framing. The Constitution doesn’t speak about the right to worship and to hold beliefs. Those are a given. The Constitution specifically defends the free exercise of religion. And that means freedom to act on your religious beliefs and not to be forced to violate them. And that also includes the right to influence others—just as secular people can.

Yet people who want to exercise their religion in these ways are framed as bigots. Martin Castro, former chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for the Obama Administration, wrote that religious freedom is a “code word” for “discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, and Islamophobia.” So even if courts uphold your religious freedom, you’re still a “hater.”

Speaking of hate, “hate speech” is another example of framing. “Hate speech is not free speech” is a common refrain on college campuses. And what counts as “hate speech”? Whatever people who say “hate speech is not free speech” find hateful. And that number is growing at an alarming pace, according to several recent studies.

There are many other examples. People who question climate change policies are framed as “science deniers”; people who oppose abortion—even late-term abortion in a healthy pregnancy—are framed as “waging a war on women.”

So how does someone who wants to present the other side of these arguments deal with this framing tactic?

First, reject biased framing. Now that you know what framing is, you’ll be able to spot it. That’s half the battle. Say something like, “Do you think that’s the whole story? Let me suggest another way of looking at it.”

Second, get yourself up to speed on the big issues. Don’t expect someone else to fight your battles. Read up. Memorize some bullet points. You know what they’re going to say. You hear their arguments all day in the major media and in your classrooms. But here’s where you have an edge: it is unlikely they’ve ever heard your arguments. You might be surprised what happens when they do.

Third, set some basic ground rules. Bury the insults: no name calling. General statements are fine, but they need to be backed up with examples. Make it clear that you’re prepared to hear their arguments. In turn, they have to commit to hear yours.

And then, may the best argument win. If nobody budges, that’s fine. You’ve had a respectful exchange of ideas. If nothing else, that’s a victory for civil discourse—and we certainly could use more of that!

Just don’t forget to look out for biased frames. They’re great for making movies, but not for finding truth.

I’m Jeff Myers, president of Summit Ministries, for Prager University.

Download Transcript