Assignment 1 - Poverty, Welfare, And Framing

8/4/2019 Assignment 1 - Poverty, Welfare, And Framing

1/7

21323554

(Group: 21575157)

Poverty, Welfare, and Framing

While it may be comfortable to imagine that there is only one rational way of looking at

the world, cognitive science tells us that there is no such thing as an "objective" reality - every bit

of data that we receive is shaped by the frames that we associate with it. Applied to politics, this

means that to the voter, issues and policies mean only as much as the frames that they are placed

in. However, even though frames form a fundamental part of how we think, we are so used to it

that we don't consciously pay attention to frames as they are used. It is because of this that

liberals and conservatives frequently cannot even understand the opposing viewpoint on issues:

liberal ideas make little or no sense within conservative framings, and vice versa.

One issue in American politics that has strikingly different liberal and conservative

framings is the issue of poverty. Over the past fifty years, at least 10% of the population has

always been below the poverty line, and in 2009 the number of Americans living in poverty

reached a record high of 43.6 million. (U.S. Census Bureau) Neither conservatives nor liberals

dispute these numbers, but the real debate is over what the causes of poverty are and what

measures must be taken to alleviate poverty.

The conservative framing of the issue of poverty revolves around the Horatio Alger myth,

the "rags-to-riches" narrative, where the hard-working and virtuous are rewarded with wealth and

success. This narrative declares that everybody can work themselves out of poverty. By

contraposition, this means that those who are poor and remain poor must be either inherently

wicked and thus not deserve wealth or lazy and not work hard enough to achieve success. As

such, giving such people government assistance is at best a misdirection of money and at worst

an encouragement of laziness and other bad behavior.


2/7

21323554

(Group: 21575157)

This framing follows directly from the Strict Father moral system. Under the Nation-as-a-

Family metaphor, where the government is the parent and the citizens are children, one of the

government's primary roles as a strict father is to teach his children self-discipline. As the

children grow old enough to leave home, their father will not meddle in their lives, and it is up to

them to make use of the discipline they were taught in order to succeed. (Lakoff, 33) A strict

father does not send checks to a daughter who falls on hard times, because doing so would

completely undermine all of the discipline that he had taught her. Likewise, under the

conservative framing, welfare is not only unnecessary, but downright immoral - it rewards its

recipients for laziness and takes away their discipline.

The language used by conservative politicians when talking about poverty and welfare

serves to strengthen the idea that welfare takes money away from those who deserve it and puts

it in the hands of those who do not deserve it. The oft-used phrase "welfare queens" suggests that

there are those who not only profit but lead extravagant lifestyles (Luntz, 46) thanks to the

money that is "handed out" to them. Note that the use of the word "handouts" suggests that

welfare money is simply "handed out", perhaps to anyone who asks for it, and strengthens the

conservative idea of government as an inefficient bureaucracy that is prone to waste and fraud.

Furthermore, not only is the money a "handout", but it is a "redistribution of wealth" away from

the wealthiest Americans, who are referred to as "job creators".

Within the conservative frame, poverty can be alleviated simply by creating more jobs,

and it is here that another metaphor comes into play, one that was invoked by Senate Minority

Leader Mitch McConnell in an op-ed last week when he said, "If the president really wants to

create jobs, he needs to be as bold about liberating job creators as he has been about shackling

them." (McConnell) The metaphor is that of an economy being held in chains by the


3/7

21323554

(Group: 21575157)

government, due to taxes and regulations. Seen in terms of these frames and metaphors, the

conservative message can be summarized in one sentence as, "To fix poverty, stop taking money

away from the rich to give to the poor - let the rich use it to create jobs instead, and the poor can

and should fend for themselves in the meantime."

The conservative framing hides several crucial truths. First and foremost, invoking the

"rags-to-riches" narrative and the American Dream notion that "those who work hard will

prosper" presupposes that all Americans have access to equal opportunities, which is clearly not

the case. The daughter of a billionaire will have a far easier time obtaining financial success than

the son of a blue-collar worker, due to access to a higher-quality education, powerful

connections, and simple wealth. With this in mind, the idea that the poor have themselves to

blame for not being well-off and simply need to work harder is fundamentally flawed: if you are

in a sufficiently disadvantageous position from birth, you could do everything right and still not

be able to make it out of poverty, owing simply to the circumstances you were born into.

The portrayal of welfare recipients is also misleading. Contrary to the popular perception

of welfare as an endless cycle of dependency, 50% of families on welfare leave within a year and

90% do so within 5 years. (Pavetti) Welfare fraud is also not as commonplace as is suggested by

the "welfare queen" stereotype: a 2002 report by the US Department on Labor, the most

comprehensive report on this topic, concluded that only 1.9% of Unemployment Insurance

payments in the previous year could be attributed to fraud within the program (Elliott).

Finally, the conservative framing leads to policy recommendations that have a long track

record of failure. One cannot assume that lowering taxes on the wealthiest Americans leads to

more jobs being created, because no such connection has ever been demonstrated: in fact, even

with George W. Bush's record tax cuts, the economy under him underwent the slowest job


4/7

21323554

(Group: 21575157)

growth in 75 years. (Perr) In fact, the entire idea that the wealthiest Americans are "job creators"

who would create more jobs if given the chance ignores the fact that it is in business owners'

self-interest to employ as few people as possible while achieving the same profits. When

companies do hire, it is in their self-interest to hire the lowest-paid workers possible, and so

companies hire overseas workers whenever possible. Outsourcing, the replacing of American

workers with lower-paid workers in other countries, has increased over the years, and another 1.3

million American jobs are expected to be lost to outsourcing from 2011 to 2014. (Outsourcing)

The liberal framing of poverty is entirely different. Conceptually, the key metaphor is

that of a playing field. Ideally, all players on the field should be able to have an equal chance of

success, but because the field is skewed, this is not the case. In the interest of both fairness and

empathy, it becomes necessary to "level the playing field" by helping out those players who were

given the worst chances, thus making an unfair game more fair. This frame follows from several

metaphors within the Nurturant Parent moral system, including the metaphors of Morality As

Fair Distribution (all children should be nurtured equally and have equal opportunities) and

Morality As Nurturance (it is moral to make some sacrifices to help the truly needy). (Lakoff,

117-123) Perhaps most importantly, the Morality as Empathy metaphor says that the parents

must seek to understand what it's like to be each of their children (Lakoff, 114). The liberal

frame stresses that we must care for all members of society, regardless of economic status.

Given the strong moral foundation of the liberal framing of poverty, it is unfortunate to

see liberal politicians relying on the conservative framing and conservative language when

talking about this issue. For instance, in his 1991 speech "The New Covenant: Responsibility and

Rebuilding the American Community", Bill Clinton described the late 1980s by saying, "Poverty

rose. Many inner-city streets were taken over by crime and drugs, welfare and despair," in other


5/7

21323554

(Group: 21575157)

words, suggesting that government aid to the poor along is an affliction. (Clinton) Clinton

promised to "end welfare as we have come to know it", a promise that was kept with the Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, popularly known as "welfare

reform". This bill was exactly what the conservative frame pushed for: less aid given to the poor

and unemployed and stronger measures to push welfare recipients to work. (H.R. 3734) Bill

Clinton is just one prominent example of a liberal politician repeating conservative talking points

on the issue of poverty. When liberals talk about "welfare reform", the assumption is that

welfare, not poverty, is the problem, and by strengthening the conservative frame on this issue,

liberals are conceding the debate before it even begins. Even more importantly, liberals are not

clearly expressing the liberal moral system based upon empathy, instead talking about poverty

within the conservative framework where "job creation" is the end-all, be-all. Given this, it's

hardly surprising that the conservative frame is dominating the debate on poverty.

What should liberals do to respond to conservatives more effectively on this issue? To

start, they should avoid using the word "welfare" completely. Luntzs polling has shown that

42% of Americans say we are spending too much on "welfare", and so it is clear that the

"welfare queen" stereotype has done its part to make "welfare" into a dirty word. However, the

same poll showed that 68% of Americans say that we are not spending enough on "assistance to

the poor". (Luntz, 46) Liberals can use this to fight back against conservatives pushing for "less

welfare": rather than conceding and talking about "welfare reform", as Clinton did, liberals can

counter by arguing for the necessity of "assistance to the poor". By reframing the issue into one

of assistance, charity, and, above all, empathy, liberals can make the voters see the inherent lack

of empathy in the conservative view on poverty. It's not just policy that matters but framing as

well, and liberals must realize this if any serious progress is to be made on the issue of poverty.


6/7

21323554

(Group: 21575157)

Works Cited

Clinton, Bill. "The New Covenant: Responsibility and Rebuilding the American Community."

Speech. Remarks to Students at Georgetown University. Georgetown University,

Washington, D.C. 23 Oct. 1991.Democratic Leadership Council. Democratic Leadership

Council. Web. 15 Sept. 2011. .

Elliot, Jonathan. "How Bad Is Welfare Fraud in the USA?" Spritzophrenia. 4 Jan. 2011. Web. 15

Sept. 2011. .

H.R. 3734, 104th Cong., U.S. G.P.O. (1996) (enacted). Web. 15 Sept. 2011. .

Lakoff, George. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: University of

Chicago, 2002. Print.

Luntz, Frank. Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear. New York:

Hyperion, 2007. Print.

McConnell, Mitch. "Opinion: Focus Must Be on Job Creators - Sen. Mitch McConnell -

POLITICO.com."Politics, Political News - POLITICO.com. 7 Sept. 2011. Web. 15 Sept.

2011. .

"Outsourcing - Statistics."RTTS - The Software Quality Experts. 13 Dec. 2010. Web. 15 Sept.

2011. .

Pavetti, LaDonna. "Time on Welfare and Welfare Dependency: Testimony before the House

Ways and Means Committee, Subcommittee on Human Resources." The Urban Institute


7/7

21323554

(Group: 21575157)

| Research of Record. The Urban Institute, 23 May 1996. Web. 15 Sept. 2011.

.

Perr, Jon. "The Republican Job Creators Myth." Crooks and Liars. 28 May 2011. Web. 15 Sept.

2011. .

U.S. Census Bureau. Current Population Survey. 1960 to 2010 Annual Social and Economic

Supplements. Web.

Assignment 1 - Poverty, Welfare, And Framing

Documents

Transcript of Assignment 1 - Poverty, Welfare, And Framing