by Evan Wolf

What’s this book?

Thinking Points is a 176-page book written by George Lakoff. Lakoff is a prominent cognitive linguist and philosopher. He was a professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley until his retirement in 2016.

Lakoff is known for his studies on how metaphors shape humans’ understanding of our world. He has also written many books about politics.

In Thinking Points, Lakoff discusses how progressives can frame issues on our turf, rather than reinforcing the arguments of the right-wing opposition.

Why does this matter?

Progressives are often behind conservatives and Republicans when it comes to conveying a strong and memorable message. Look no further than the ability of the Republican establishment to quickly unite around fear-based talking points, be it around CRT or “defunding” police or LGBTQ rights.

Democrats, and progressives more broadly, have a moral obligation to effectively communicate our values. We stand for good principles and policies that will improve people’s lives. We can’t let an intolerant right-wing dominate the national conversation.

This information is important for progressive activists, officials, and voters to understand. I hope that this summary can help other progressives convey our values during this crucial time for our country.

What is politics all about?

Politics is about values.

People vote for candidates with whom they identify and with whom they share a world view. They vote on the basis of values, connection, authenticity, and trust in the candidate. Issues matter, but they are secondary. Issues should flow from one’s values, and issues and policies should symbolize one’s values.

When communicating in politics and advocating for policies, emphasize shared values and speak to people’s identities.

A message and the words we use in a message should act in service of our core values.

How do we communicate our values?

We talk to people by using frames. Frames are deep mental structures that explain how the world works. They provide a mental context to facts. They help us understand reality.

Words activate frames. It’s impossible to think without frames. No matter what we say, we will activate a frame in our audience’s mind. As long as we’re saying something, we’re activating a frame. So choose a good frame.

If facts don’t fit people’s frames, then people will keep the frames and forget the facts. Frames help people understand facts. That’s why we need to establish frames.

Frames are unconscious and instinctual. They tell us how to behave in different areas of our lives. We encounter countless frames in our daily lives without even realizing.

For example, a hospital has its own roles and expectations. It is ‘in-frame’ if a surgeon performs surgery. It is ‘out-of-frame’ if the surgeon starts doing construction on the hospital.

Political discussions can have many different frames. So we have to reframe political issues to suit our values.

How can we frame?

We begin to frame an issue when we define a deep frame. This is the structure upon which all our other values and policies are built.

Deep frames are crucial. They define our moral values.

Creating deep frames takes time. Creating deep frames and conveying our moral values must last longer than a single election cycle. It must be a continuous and long-term effort.

Deep frames create a structure upon which candidates and slogans can build. Surface frames depend on deep frames in order for them to work.

Deep frames last longer.

How can we create deep frames?

By explicitly saying what we values are. Say it again and again, over a long period of time. This must extend beyond a specific issue or movement. It’s about making clear what our shared vision is.

But don’t just mention these values. We must talk about what these values mean to us and how we understand them.

Remember — frames are our lens into how the world works. They give us expectations and provide context to facts.

What do we do after we use deep frames to state our values?

By now, we’ve explicitly said what our core values are and explained what they mean to us.

Now, we can move on to framing individual issues.

These are issue-defining frames. They define what the problem is, who to blame, and what the solution should be.

Define heroes, villains, and victims. And talk about policies in terms of how they’ll affect people. For example, explain how a policy can help someone access healthcare or send their child to college.

By now, we’ve talked about the issues we face and established a context for them.

Next, we can use surface frames. Surface frames are more basic and less values-based. They can include spins and slogans.

Remember, we must create deep frames before we use other frames.

Cliche but true: tell a story

A good argument has a good story with heroes and villains. Stories help us move beyond individual issues. They help us connect to a personal and national identity. They are also more interesting to the audience, and make it easier for them to grasp onto issues.

These stories can be fashioned to fit our values.

Repeating our words = repeating our frames

Repetition helps our audience remember our frames and worldview.

Don’t negate a frame

When we negate a frame or phrase, we reinforce it. Avoid phrases with “don’t/stop/not” or others. We must phrase our words in a positive way.

When Richard Nixon said “I am not a crook,” that made everyone view him as a crook.

That’s why one of the titles of George Lakoff’s books is Don’t Think of an Elephant. When he tells us “NOT” to think of an elephant, it’s impossible not to think of one.

You might have noticed that I did not follow my own advice when I wrote this section’s heading. By telling you “NOT” to negate a frame, you are still thinking about negating a frame.

But why would people vote for the right wing?

Those people might have a different values system than ours’.

Lakoff says that there are two world views grounded in the metaphor of a family. The two world views are Strict Father and Nurturant Parent.

As Americans, we live in the same culture. This helps us become familiar with these two values systems.

The family metaphor likens the role of a government to the role of a parent. Both entities tell us what we can and can’t do. Both entities protect us, provide for us, and educate us.

These two family models are representative of two distinct views about government’s ideal role. They are mutually exclusive. Activating one worldview shuts down the other.

Different moral viewpoints & their impact

The Nurturant Parent viewpoint is associated with the left wing. They believe in loving their children, caring for them, and making them happy. They prioritize empathy and responsibility for themselves and others. This leads to other core values like opportunity, fairness, freedom, and community.

The Strict Father viewpoint is right-leaning. Those with this world view perceive the father as the family’s moral authority. He determines what is right and wrong, and shouldn’t be challenged. They believe in authority over oneself and others. This leads to other core values like discipline, hierarchy, and ownership.

These world views don’t just lead to different moral values. They also lead to different ways of viewing issues.

Those with the Strict Father view often believe in more direct causation. There’s a cause, and an effect.

Meanwhile, those with the Nurturant Parent worldview often believe in more complex causation. They might view an issue as the product of many different, and more subtle, factors.

This is true for many different issues.

But what about centrists or moderates?

“There is a difference between self-identified labels and personal cognition.”
— George Lakoff

Moderates and centrists don’t exist. There isn’t a set moderate or centrist ideology.

Instead, there are biconceptual voters. There are people who are torn between the Nurturant Parent and Strict Father world views.

Both progressive and conservative viewpoints can exist within the same brain.

Biconceptuals may have different identities and views in different areas of their lives. They could have one values system in one area of their lives, and then view politics with a different moral viewpoint. And they might identify with a political label, while also having a mix of moral and political values in different areas of their lives.

For example, a self-identified conservative may have progressive values in other areas of their lives. They could believe in caring communities. Or they could be accepting in their religion. Or they could be employers who care for their employees, rather than simply chasing profits.

How should we talk to swing voters?

Talk to swing voters the same way we would talk to the party base. Don’t move to the “center.” Instead, activate progressive values in the minds of biconceptuals. Use a progressive vision and language to make this happen.

We can win when we activate our worldview in our audience, rather than moving to the center.

It’s our job to foreground and repeat those progressive values so we “activate” them in the minds of active biconceptuals.

Should Democrats ever move to the right to win Republicans’ support?

Democrats and progressives hurt their cause when we move to the right. By moving to the right, we are using right-wing frames and values. This repels base voters and turns Democratic candidates into “Republican Lite.” And why would Republicans vote for “Republican Lite” when they can just vote Republican?

Moving to the right and using conservative frames is a lose-lose. We lose our base, and we won’t effectively persuade the right wing.

As progressives, we must embrace our values. We need to have proactive policies and messages, rather than repeating the frames of the opposition.

And by the way, rational appeals to economic self-interest don’t work. Instead, reach out to biconceptuals on the basis of a shared identity and highlight our shared progressive values.

What about when Republican politicians slip up? Can we just let them fail and not say anything?

No. Nothing is self-evident. The failures of the right wing don’t speak for themselves.

When progressives don’t frame the failures of conservative politicians, we let conservative politicians blame their own failures on progressives. We must explicitly and repeatedly call out the opposition.

By not introducing our own frame, we let the right wing frame the debate and shift blame.

How can progressives unite our movement behind shared values?

Liberals often have “laundry lists” of individual issues, rather than embracing core values and issues.

According to Lakoff, we can unite the progressive movement by campaigning on strategic initiatives. These are policy proposals that have wide-ranging impacts, beyond the topic itself.

Conservatives do this. They use “tax cuts” as an issue that justifies their other stances, such as rolling back the safety net and cutting social programs.

Lakoff provides an example for progressives: investing in renewable energy. This can lead to other progressive priorities, such as better environmental policies, job creation, and boosting the economy.

He also offered up four possible strategic initiatives for progressives: clean elections, healthy food, ethical business, and transit for all.

Talking like a progressive

As progressives, we share a Nurturant Parent world view. So let’s ground our messages in our core values, such as human dignity and the common good.

And when it comes to polls, don’t follow them. Change them.

Let’s be truthful and say what we really believe. Don’t lie or water down the truth.

And remember — repeat, repeat, repeat. Repetition is key to using our words and phrases, and making our messages memorable.

The final word from George Lakoff

“Movements are ultimately about values and ideas. Organizing is crucial, but it has to be about something.”

Column: GW should bring the RA program back

President Joe Biden made a promise on the 2020 campaign trail to cancel at least $10,000 in education debt per borrower, which would provide relief for the 43 million Americans who have taken out federal loans. But Biden has yet to fulfill his campaign promise.

The payment deadline for education loans has been extended five times during the entire pandemic and three times during the Biden administration alone. The president extended the payment deadline for education loans yet again late last month, this time extending the pause through May 1.

Biden’s continuous delays only prolong the problem millions of Americans are facing and stops short of implementing a long-term solution to make higher education more affordable.

Biden should stay true to his word and unilaterally cancel at least $10,000 in education debt per borrower via an executive order. Every college student deserves an equal opportunity to an affordable education and not be held back by financial constraints.

GW families are no strangers to student debt — 35 percent of GW undergraduate students take out federal or private loans, costing each of them a yearly average of about $6,500 in federal education loans.

The University’s tuition cost students almost $60,000 this academic year. Reducing each person’s education loans would ease the financial burden of current and former GW students and help make the sky-high tuition a bit more manageable for those who need the most help.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said that there will be a “smooth transition into repayment” when the payment deadline is reached during a press briefing on Dec. 10. But restarting education loans will be anything but smooth for millions of Americans.

A November survey from the Student Debt Crisis Center found that 89 percent of fully employed loan borrowers described themselves as not being financially secure enough to restart loan repayments by the former deadline of Feb. 1. Just as startling, 21 percent of respondents said they will never be financially secure enough to make any payments again. These figures are significant, as 43 million Americans have unpaid education loans.

The impact of the pandemic is obvious and has only worsened many people’s financial statuses. Before the pandemic hit, 25 percent of fully employed loan borrower respondents described themselves as financially poor or very poor. Now 45 percent describe themselves the same way.

The recent rise of the Omicron variant brings economic uncertainty with it and makes education loan relief all the more necessary. While we can hope for Omicron to subside by the repayment resumption deadline in May, we should also prepare for continued challenges in facing the pandemic.

It falls on the Biden administration to anticipate these economic and political challenges and to provide a safety net for education loan borrowers in dire financial straits. The pandemic has been difficult enough for Americans struggling to make ends meet, and the Biden administration can ease the financial burden of millions by canceling thousands of dollars in education debt with the stroke of a pen.

The rising cost of college tuition over the past few decades is coupled with a rising number of Americans filing for education loans. While the crippling cost of higher education existed before COVID-19, the pandemic has caused these loans to burden Americans even more.

Race is also a huge factor in people’s ability to pay education loans. Black Americans have about seven times less wealth than white Americans. In addition, Black borrowers owe an average of $25,000 more in loans than white borrowers.

A June report from the Roosevelt Institute found that canceling $50,000 of education debt per borrower would lead to a 40 percent increase in Black wealth. Canceling education debt would help close America’s racial wealth gap and improve millions of Black Americans’ lives.

GW has a role in alleviating students’ financial burdens, too. GW has recently been attempting to collect donations to distribute Pell grants to students in need of financial help. But experts in higher education said in October that the award increase would likely only make tuition slightly more affordable for Pell-eligible students. GW has an obligation to pursue more effective ways of reducing its tuition and making college more affordable for its students.

The debate on this issue is ongoing. But the catastrophe that will result for millions when the payment deadline resumes is not up for debate. Considering this, and considering how unlikely it is that Congress will act on the education loan crisis, Biden must take matters into his own hands.

This action would be beneficial for current college students and alumni, including at GW. Canceling education debt would make a significant difference for many GW families struggling to afford the high tuition or pay off loans.

It is a pragmatic move and a moral imperative for Biden to use his presidential authority for the betterment of Americans struggling to make ends meet. Biden has already canceled $11.5 billion in education debt — more than any other president — making debt cancellation for each borrower a natural extension of his administration’s current policies.

Rather than helplessly hoping that Congress will pass a bill accomplishing this, Biden should use his executive authority to build on his administration’s progress. Lifting the burden of education debt off the backs of millions is crucial in providing people with security during turbulent times and ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to achieve an affordable and valuable education, both at GW and across the country.

Administrators have made extensive efforts to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 on GW’s campuses, including implementing a mask mandate, requiring bi-monthly testing and making vaccination against the coronavirus a requirement for accessing campus. Officials even expanded GW’s testing system last month, offering 2,600 more testing appointments and creating a standby line for students who need tests sooner than the appointment schedule allows for. But there’s one area that’s still lacking a sufficient testing apparatus — the Mount Vernon Campus.

The Vern is the only GW campus without a coronavirus testing site, despite being home to almost 700 freshmen. Public health experts and GW officials have said there is likely a small chance that coronavirus would be transmitted on the Vex because of GW’s high vaccination rate and required mask-wearing on the shuttle. But we should not have to take the chance. As helpful as the Vex can be, it places dozens of students in cramped quarters with relatively little circulation. This could put students at a somewhat higher risk of contracting not only coronavirus but other viruses too. Cold and flu season is approaching, and students living on the Vern who feel symptoms might not be inclined to get on a crowded bus where they could spread an illness — coronavirus or otherwise — to determine whether they have coronavirus. We deserve the peace of mind that we are not putting ourselves and others at risk by using University transportation.

The University should look out for its freshmen and act in a way that is consistent with its coronavirus guidance thus far. Establishing a testing site on the Vern would also help the University more quickly detect coronavirus exposure and isolate individuals with cases. Doing so would make cases even easier to trace by helping to alert the administration of when and where cases are. Establishing a testing center on the Vern would also lighten the testing loadon Foggy Bottom and make it easier for students there to schedule tests. It would ensure that symptomatic students stay at their respective campuses without spreading a virus on public transportation.

Operating a testing center on the Vern is not a new concept. At the start of the academic year, coronavirus tests were available at Post Hall, which gave freshmen living on the Vern convenient and efficient access to a coronavirus test. From my experience, the temporary testing center ran a tight operation, with most students in and out in a matter of minutes. The center that operated from Post hall can give GW a point of reference for what a permanent Vern-based testing center can and should look like.

Given all that GW has done to combat coronavirus cases on campus and how successful those efforts have been, it is somewhat surprising that they have drawn the line at having a testing center at the Vern. The Vern’s lack of a testing center is a lapse in judgment and is inconsistent with GW’s other extensive efforts to prevent viral transmission. Current freshmen are in our second month of college, and the nation is still grappling with the coronavirus pandemic. Starting college is a big enough transition without the added risk of spreading a highly contagious virus. Opening a testing center on the Vern would give freshmen the peace of mind they deserve during an in-person academic year in the midst of a pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought about an unprecedented disruption to both K-12 and higher educaiton at a national and worldwide scale. Classrooms across the country and the globe were forced to adjust to a new virtual educational landscape.

Students are no strangers to this considering all of the past academic year was conducted fully online. This topic will continue to be relevant to GW, in light of officials’ recent decision not to provide opportunities for remote or virtual classes in the 2021–22 school year.

This decision puts those who benefit from technology in learning at a disadvantage. It takes away the chance to foster a more diverse and comfortable learning environment for a wide array of students.

Officials should consider virtual learning as a viable option for students — pandemic or otherwise — to ensure that all students have an equal opportunity in their education. Expanding access to online learning options creates flexibility for students by putting them in charge of how they learn. This could mark the beginning of a shift away from a one-size-fits-all classroom and toward a more equitable learning environment.

In order to better understand virtual learning, it’s worth examining its effectiveness even before the pandemic. Many studies have explored the effects of blended or flipped classrooms, which are hybrid learning environments that include both virtual and in-person lessons. One study published by faculty at the National Taiwan Normal University in July of 2016 found that high school students in flipped classrooms performed better academically compared to those in traditional classrooms. This suggests that a blended learning model could be beneficial for some struggling students.

The study revealed that the ability to watch recorded video lessons online was helpful for some students because it allowed them to watch at their convenience and process the material at their own pace. Those small adjustments helped students take control over their learning process and to be proactive in working to better understand the material.

A more comprehensive study from the Journal of Educational Technology and Society affirmed these findings, concluding that flipped classrooms as a whole can help students improve academically. It is clear that including virtual learning options in the lesson plan can lift students up and boost their learning abilities.

This is why it is important for administrators to offer virtual learning options. Those who prefer to use technology in learning can do so and reap the benefits while those that prefer a more traditional classroom can remain in a more comfortable setting. Schools must strive to offer learning environments that are as diverse as the tastes, preferences and needs of each individual student.

Virtual classes quickly went from the exception to the norm during the pandemic. In the process, it laid bare a crucial roadblock toward virtual or blended options in education: unequal access to technology and the internet.

In a report from December on what he dubbed the “Digital Divide in Virtual Learning,” Director of the UCLA Center for Neighborhood Knowledge Paul Ong found that households with parents that do not have a college degree are less likely to have access to computers and the internet, as are lower-income households. In addition, Black and Latino students have had more limited access compared to white and Asian American students.

Our education system must curb these inequalities by providing the means to use crucial learning tools in different types of learning environments.

Although there are many benefits to virtual learning, the isolation that virtual learning brought many students during the COVID-19 crisis was often damaging.

The Intercultural Development Research Association released a newsletter in March on how the pandemic affected grade school and college students’ mental health. It cited findings from a survey of San Antonio students which found that “more than 71% of survey respondents consider virtual remote learning as contributing more stress than traditional in-person school.”

This is representative of a larger trend throughout the pandemic. According to a survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 75 percent of people ages 18 to 24 have had at least one negative mental health symptom during the pandemic.

This truth likely resonates with many of us, either because of a personal experience or because people we know struggled with virtual learning or mental health during the pandemic.

The stress many students felt as a result of remote learning is an important reminder that while virtual learning is beneficial for some, being in a traditional classroom setting is preferable for some others. Choice in education cuts both ways. Having more room for students to choose their learning environment and providing the tools to maximize that learning is crucial in order to achieve a more equitable education system.

GW’s administration can learn from the past and adapt to the future by offering virtual learning options and providing opportunities for a more blended classroom environment. The continuation of virtual options could help students who view technology as a resource to aid their learning and expand their potential.

By recognizing the challenges of the COVID-19 crisis and turning them into opportunities, administrators and professors at GW can create a more equitable classroom environment that suits the needs of each student.