Introduction
In her thought-provoking book "Don't Buy It," Anat Shenker-Osorio explores the powerful role of language in shaping political discourse and public opinion. The author delves into how the words we use to discuss complex issues like the economy and social inequality can profoundly influence our understanding and, ultimately, the policies we support.
Shenker-Osorio argues that conservatives have been far more effective than progressives in framing economic debates to their advantage. By carefully analyzing the metaphors and rhetoric employed in political discussions, she reveals how language can be used to either maintain the status quo or push for meaningful change.
This book is particularly relevant in the wake of the 2007-2008 financial crisis, which exposed deep-rooted problems in the American economy and society. Shenker-Osorio examines why, despite widespread public anger and calls for reform, little has changed in terms of economic policies and wealth distribution.
Through a series of insightful analyses and examples, the author demonstrates how progressives can reframe economic debates to better align with their values and goals. She offers practical advice on how to use language more effectively to promote progressive ideas and challenge the dominant conservative narrative.
The Persistence of Inequality
Shenker-Osorio begins by highlighting the long-standing issue of economic inequality in the United States. Contrary to popular belief, the 2007 financial crisis didn't create this problem; it merely exacerbated existing disparities.
For decades leading up to the crisis, real wages (adjusted for inflation) remained stagnant for most Americans, even as corporate profits and overall economic productivity soared. This resulted in a massive concentration of wealth at the top of society, with 84 percent of the nation's wealth now owned by just 20 percent of Americans.
This extreme inequality has far-reaching consequences:
Psychological impact: Research shows that societies with greater inequality tend to have lower overall levels of contentment. This is particularly damaging for those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Economic consequences: The U.S. economy relies heavily on consumer spending for growth. As wages stagnate and disposable income declines, consumer demand drops, leading to a slowdown in economic output.
The 2007 financial crisis only worsened these existing problems. In 2009, 25 percent of American households experienced zero or negative net growth, up from 18.7 percent in 2007. The situation was even more dire for African-American households, with 40 percent facing financial distress.
Perhaps most troubling was the government's response to the crisis. While the financial sector received massive bailouts, individuals facing foreclosure, poverty, and unemployment received little to no federal assistance. This stark contrast highlighted the intense financial pressure facing middle- and low-income households in America.
A Missed Opportunity for Progressives
The financial crisis of 2007-2008 presented an unprecedented opportunity for progressives to shift the economic debate in their favor. Public awareness of income inequality and injustice reached new heights, with an unusually high level of interest in political and economic issues.
In October 2008, a Pre Research study found that 70 percent of American voters were closely following economic news – a significant increase from the previous peak of 49 percent during the 1993 recession. This heightened public engagement was reflected in Barack Obama's successful 2008 presidential campaign, which centered on a message of change and creating a fairer America.
Moreover, the crisis opened up more media opportunities for progressive academics and policy experts, who had previously been overshadowed by those promoting conservative, neoliberal views. It seemed like the perfect moment for progressives to advance their agenda and push for meaningful economic reforms.
However, despite these favorable conditions, progressives failed to capitalize on the moment. Surprisingly, conservatives managed to win the post-crisis argument, successfully framing the narrative to their advantage.
The conservative message was clear and consistent: government interference in the economy had caused the crisis, and the solution was for the government to step back. This narrative resonated with many voters, as evidenced by the Republican victory in the 2010 midterm elections and the rise of the anti-government, pro-free market Tea Party movement.
A 2011 Bloomberg poll revealed that 57 percent of respondents agreed that "spending/tax cuts will give businesses confidence to hire," indicating the effectiveness of the conservative message. This unexpected conservative victory in the battle of ideas raises an important question: How did they manage to shape public opinion so successfully in the face of a crisis that seemed to discredit their economic philosophy?
The Power of Metaphors
To understand how conservatives won the post-crisis debate, we need to examine the role of metaphors in shaping our understanding of complex concepts. Shenker-Osorio draws on the work of renowned linguists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, who have shown that metaphors are not just poetic devices but fundamental tools our brains use to make sense of abstract ideas.
On average, we use metaphors every ten to fifteen words in our speech. This prevalence is not coincidental; our brains are naturally wired to compare complex concepts to more tangible entities. This is particularly true when discussing abstract ideas like the economy.
However, the metaphors we use are not neutral. They profoundly influence our understanding of reality and can shape our opinions on important issues. Shenker-Osorio cites a compelling study by Stanford psychologists that demonstrates this effect:
- People who read passages describing crime as a "beast" were more likely to support harsh law-and-order techniques to fight crime.
- Those who were encouraged to think of crime as a "virus" were more inclined to support crime prevention measures.
This study reveals how metaphors can subconsciously guide our thinking. The "beast" metaphor led people to draw upon assumptions about how to deal with dangerous animals – by fighting them. In contrast, the "virus" metaphor triggered associations related to disease prevention, such as immunization or hygiene measures.
The impact of metaphors extends far beyond academic studies. In the real world, the metaphors we use to discuss the economy have a significant influence on economic debates and, ultimately, on policy decisions.
Conservative Metaphors and Their Impact
Conservatives have been particularly adept at using powerful metaphors to advance their economic agenda. Shenker-Osorio identifies two key metaphorical frameworks that conservatives consistently employ:
- The Economy as a Living Entity
Following the 2007 financial collapse, conservatives frequently referred to the economy as a patient, using words like "recovery," "ailing," and "fragile." This framing aligns perfectly with two core neoliberal principles:
- Financial crises occur naturally, like illnesses, meaning no one is truly responsible for what happened.
- Just as a patient recovers from an illness on their own, the economy will heal itself without outside interference.
By using this metaphor, conservatives implicitly argue against government intervention in the economy and absolve financial institutions of responsibility for the crisis.
- The Economy as a Moral Enforcer
Another powerful conservative narrative frames the economy as a medium for enforcing desirable moral behavior. According to this story:
- The economy rewards virtuous, hardworking people with wealth.
- Those with a lesser work ethic are punished with poverty.
- This system incentivizes those on the lower economic rungs to emulate the purportedly honorable virtues of the affluent.
This narrative is often invoked when conservatives argue against raising entitlement benefits or providing assistance to those in financial distress. For example, when responding to a proposal to reduce the principal owed by those at risk of home foreclosure, Republican Senator Bob Corker stated, "People who acted responsibly in Tennessee will be paying for the bad behavior of [other] lenders and borrowers."
By framing economic fortune as an indicator of moral worth, conservatives create a powerful tool for political persuasion. This narrative discourages support for wealth redistribution or increased social services by suggesting that those in need are somehow less deserving.
Reframing the Debate: The Economy as a Moving Car
While conservatives have mastered the art of using metaphors to their advantage, progressives have struggled to frame economic debates effectively. Shenker-Osorio suggests that progressives could benefit from describing the economy as a moving car. This metaphor offers several advantages:
- Promoting Government Intervention
By describing the economy as a car that might be "stuck in a rut," "out of control," or in need of a "jumpstart," progressives can make a case for government intervention. Most people would agree that a moving car without a driver is dangerous and out of control. This image implicitly promotes the idea of government involvement to "steer" the economy or impose "rules of the road" on the financial industry.
- Emphasizing Human Agency
The car metaphor presents the economy as a man-made entity, aligning with the progressive notion that it can be altered to serve society's best interests. This contrasts with conservative narratives that portray the economy as a natural, self-regulating system.
- Focusing on Individual Journeys
By framing the economy as a vehicle that facilitates an individual's financial journey through life, progressives can emphasize the idea that the economic system should help all citizens develop their potential and realize their dreams. This narrative challenges the conservative account, which suggests that whatever outcomes the economy produces are natural and right.
- Addressing Inequality
The car metaphor allows progressives to discuss inequality in more nuanced ways. They can talk about people having "different starting points" or "carrying more baggage," conveying the progressive notion that certain individuals face unfair barriers through no fault of their own. Importantly, this framing also suggests that these unequal starting points can be changed by removing barriers to basic necessities like employment or education.
By adopting this metaphor, progressives can create a more compelling narrative that supports their policy goals and challenges the dominant conservative framing of economic issues.
The Problem with Crisis Language
While progressives often passionately argue their case, Shenker-Osorio points out that they frequently rely on words that inadvertently align with the conservative agenda. One prime example is the use of the word "crisis" to describe economic downturns.
The problem with "crisis" is that it carries ambiguous connotations that can contradict the progressive account. Progressives aim to convey that:
- The economic collapse of 2007 was long in the making.
- It resulted from deliberate actions, misdeeds, and oversights.
- Sound government intervention could prevent similar calamities in the future.
However, the word "crisis" doesn't carry these connotations. The dictionary definition of crisis – "An emotionally significant event or radical change in a person's life, e.g., a midlife crisis; an identity crisis" – suggests an unexpected event that will sort itself out naturally without necessarily requiring outside intervention. This aligns more closely with the conservative message.
Instead of "crisis," progressives could use terms like "economic blunder" or "damage," which frame the events in a light more favorable to their perspective.
Similarly, the term "financial reform" might be counterproductive for progressives advocating for radical change in the financial system. "Reform" implies that the entity being reformed should remain in existence and be "reshaped from existing materials." This subtly precludes a more fundamental rethinking of the financial system and the neoliberal principles on which it rests.
Alternative phrases like "financial overhaul" or "consumer protections" could trigger associations related to more radical changes, better serving the progressive agenda.
The Dangers of Passive Voice
Another linguistic trap that progressives often fall into is the use of passive voice when discussing economic events. This grammatical construction can have significant implications for how we perceive responsibility and accountability in economic matters.
Consider these common phrases:
- "The unemployment rate rose"
- "The dollar fell"
- "Most people struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren't"
The passive voice in these statements implies that events happen of their own accord, obscuring the human decisions and actions that directly cause negative outcomes. This linguistic framing makes it easier for people to avoid taking responsibility for their actions.
In reality, the dollar didn't just fall on its own. Economists and politicians made decisions that led to currency depreciation. By using active voice – "Policymakers' decisions led to a weaker dollar" – we can more clearly assign responsibility and promote accountability.
The use of passive voice is particularly problematic when discussing the aftermath of the financial crisis. The phrase "people are losing their homes" misses a crucial point: people weren't randomly losing their homes; banks were actively taking them away. This framing obscures the role of financial institutions in the foreclosure crisis.
Moreover, by hiding the real actors in these economic stories, the passive voice can lessen public empathy for disadvantaged people. Our brains are wired to fill in gaps and create causal links between actions and consequences. When we don't clearly name the forces and actors who made conscious decisions to the detriment of others, we implicitly put the burden on those suffering the consequences. This can lead to victim-blaming and a lack of support for policies aimed at helping those affected by economic downturns.
The Problem with Vertical Metaphors
Despite rising inequality and decreasing social mobility in the United States, many Americans continue to believe in the idea of the American Dream. Shenker-Osorio argues that this persistence is partly due to the language we use to discuss economic stratification.
Phrases like "the top/bottom 20 percent" have become common in political discourse, even among progressives. However, these vertical metaphors are problematic because they implicitly reinforce notions of hierarchy and deservedness – concepts that align more closely with the conservative worldview.
Consider the associations we have with the concepts of "up" and "down":
- Being "at the top" is associated with success and superiority.
- "Feeling low" is linked to depression and inferiority.
- Historically, the "upper classes" were considered one's "betters."
- Belonging to the "lower" social classes has long been associated with inferiority.
These vertical metaphors subtly reinforce the idea that those at the "top" of the economic ladder deserve their position, while those at the "bottom" are somehow less worthy. This framing makes it harder to argue for policies that aim to reduce inequality or provide support to those struggling economically.
Alternative Framings: Imbalances and Barriers
To energize public debate on socioeconomic inequality, Shenker-Osorio suggests that progressives should shift their language away from vertical metaphors. Instead, they could talk about economic "imbalances" and "barriers."
- Imbalances
The concept of imbalance is powerful because it doesn't imply a natural hierarchy. Most people dislike feeling off-balance (except perhaps during brief thrill rides), making this metaphor emotionally resonant. Describing the economy as "imbalanced" suggests that something is wrong and needs to be corrected, aligning well with progressive policy goals.
- Barriers
Framing inequality in terms of "barriers" is equally effective. This metaphor connects to supplementary ideas like:
- Being held back
- Facing roadblocks
- Being trapped in poverty
- Being denied access to education
The "barrier" metaphor offers several advantages for the progressive narrative:
- It underscores the structural causes of inequality.
- It stresses that inequality is neither natural nor inevitable, but rather an alterable, man-made phenomenon.
- It shifts blame away from the poor and puts the burden on those at the top, suggesting that those with more have – perhaps deliberately – erected "barriers" to keep others out.
This framing has historical precedent in effective social movements. Martin Luther King Jr. used the barrier metaphor to great effect in the 1960s when advocating for an end to racial segregation. By describing discrimination as a barrier to be torn down, King created a powerful and galvanizing image that resonated with many Americans.
The Importance of Active Language
To counter the problems associated with passive voice, Shenker-Osorio emphasizes the need for progressives to use more active language when discussing economic issues. This approach can help clarify responsibility and promote accountability.
Instead of saying "unemployment rose," progressives could say "companies laid off workers." Rather than "the gap between rich and poor widened," they might say "government policies allowed the wealthy to accumulate more while the poor fell behind."
By using active voice, progressives can:
- Highlight the role of human decisions in economic outcomes.
- Make it clear who benefits from and who is harmed by various economic policies.
- Create a sense of agency and the possibility for change.
For example, instead of saying "income inequality has increased," progressives could say "our current economic system allows a small number of people to capture most of the gains from economic growth." This framing not only identifies the problem but also suggests that it's a result of policy choices that can be changed.
Reclaiming the Narrative of Fairness
Conservatives have long claimed the language of fairness to argue against progressive policies, suggesting that it's "unfair" to tax the wealthy more or provide additional support to those in need. Shenker-Osorio argues that progressives need to reclaim this concept and reframe it to support their policy goals.
Instead of accepting the conservative framing of fairness as "getting what you deserve," progressives can promote a vision of fairness based on:
- Equal opportunity: Ensuring that everyone has a fair shot at success, regardless of their background.
- Shared prosperity: The idea that when the economy grows, everyone should benefit, not just those at the top.
- Community responsibility: Promoting the notion that we all have a stake in each other's success and should support one another.
By reframing fairness in these terms, progressives can make a stronger case for policies that reduce inequality and provide support to those in need.
The Economy as a Garden
In addition to the car metaphor, Shenker-Osorio suggests that progressives could benefit from describing the economy as a garden. This metaphor offers several advantages:
It emphasizes the need for care and cultivation: Just as a garden requires regular attention and nurturing, the economy needs careful management and investment to thrive.
It highlights the importance of diversity: A healthy garden contains a variety of plants, just as a robust economy benefits from diverse industries and businesses.
It allows for discussions of "weeding out" harmful elements: This could refer to removing unfair advantages or addressing destructive business practices.
It emphasizes long-term thinking: Gardeners must plan for different seasons and years ahead, just as economic policy should consider long-term impacts.
It provides a framework for discussing sustainability: A well-maintained garden can produce for years to come, paralleling the idea of a sustainable economy.
This metaphor can help progressives argue for policies that invest in people, infrastructure, and innovation, framing these as necessary steps to cultivate a healthy economic "garden."
Conclusion: The Path Forward for Progressive Communication
In "Don't Buy It," Anat Shenker-Osorio makes a compelling case for the importance of language in shaping political and economic debates. She demonstrates how conservatives have effectively used metaphors and framing to advance their agenda, even in the face of events that seemed to discredit their economic philosophy.
For progressives to succeed in promoting their vision for a more equitable and just economy, they must pay closer attention to the language they use. This involves:
Avoiding metaphors that reinforce conservative narratives about the economy as a natural, self-regulating system or a moral enforcer.
Embracing new metaphors, such as the economy as a car or a garden, that better align with progressive values and policy goals.
Using active language that clearly assigns responsibility for economic outcomes and promotes accountability.
Reframing concepts like fairness to support progressive policies rather than undermine them.
Being mindful of the subtle implications of commonly used terms and phrases, and choosing alternatives that better serve the progressive cause.
By adopting these strategies, progressives can create a more compelling narrative about the economy and society. This new framing can help build public support for policies that address inequality, promote shared prosperity, and create a more just and sustainable economic system.
Ultimately, Shenker-Osorio's work reminds us that the battle for political and economic change is not just fought in legislatures and voting booths, but in the realm of ideas and language. By choosing our words carefully and thoughtfully, we can reshape the way people think about the economy and society, paving the way for meaningful change.
As we move forward, it's crucial for everyone – not just politicians and pundits, but ordinary citizens as well – to be more aware of the metaphors and language used in economic and political discussions. By developing this awareness, we can become more discerning consumers of information and more effective advocates for the changes we want to see in our society.
In an era of increasing economic inequality and political polarization, the insights offered in "Don't Buy It" are more relevant than ever. By mastering the art of framing and metaphor, progressives can reclaim the narrative and build a more compelling case for a fair, prosperous, and sustainable economy that works for everyone.