Framing the Question

Whether it is in politics, faith, or other issues of debate, it is important to see how the question is framed—and who gets to frame it. The one who gets to frame the question can almost always give an answer that seems sensible and winning.

Often in public debate, each side frames the question to its own advantage. You have seen it happen many times, and you recognize it when you realize that a person did not answer the question that has been asked. It may be that the answerer felt the question was inherently unfair (“Have you quit beating your wife?”); at other times the person simply does not want to answer the question as asked and therefore answers in such a way that he assumes a different question was asked. (Q.: “Did you commit the act you are accused of?” A.: “I think it is important that we do not always look at the past. What’s past is past. It is important for us to look to the future.”)

A good example of framing the question can be observed in the recent debate over how the United States treats those captured in the War on Terror. One side framed the question by speaking about American values, the Geneva Conventions, how we want others to treat our prisoners, and the effectiveness of torture. As a believer in Jesus, I don’t care what anyone else says. I certainly believe that torture of prisoners is wrong. I think we should have values that are followed regardless of what the other side does. I think that is perhaps the greatest demonstration to the world as to the rightness of our cause and our value system. So when the question is framed about whether we should be torturing, of course I agree that we should not be doing that.

The other side frames the question differently, however. “We don’t torture anyone. And whatever techniques that we use that you might not like, how can you compare that to what the terrorists are doing? They are cutting off the heads of civilians they capture. Don’t talk to us about losing the sense of rightness when our methods are mild compared to theirs. Information we get may save the lives of other innocents.” And, of course, when the question is framed as a comparison of tactics, certainly I agree that nothing we are doing is comparable to the tactic of killing innocent civilians through suicide bombers, snipers, etc.

When I hear people state their cases and I agree with both of them, I wonder if I am terribly inconsistent. Then I realize that the question has been framed differently. There are really two different questions here. Of course, since we only debate and do not discuss, we can’t seem to agree that we could tackle both questions. We polarize positions rather than seeking common ground—or at least being honest enough to agree on the question!

Sometimes the framing of the question is really more of a matter of identification or even name calling to the extent that no one wants to be painted with that moniker. For instance, in the abortion debate, I noticed that several years ago a national newsmagazine quit using the terms pro-life and pro-choice. Instead, it started using anti-choice and pro-choice. Hmm…I wondered in a letter to the editor (which was not printed) why, if they were no longer going to use the designation that each side would rather be identified with, that they did not decide on "pro-life" and "anti-life" rather than “pro-choice” and “anti-choice.” More recently, we see it when people who are conservative are called “right wing extremists,” people who question the strategies in the war in Iraq are called “cut and run,” or when mainstream evangelicals are routinely called “fundamentalists.” In each of these cases, people are trying to squelch discussion by making people afraid to be labeled with a certain name.

Of course, we see that same kind of thing in the many negative ads that are so prevalent as the election looms nearer.

As you can see, a proponent frequently frames a question to his liking to put his own position in the best light or in an effort to create a “straw man” out of the opposing position. Of course, there are times when we do not agree on what the question is, and when that is the case, it is really hard to assess the positions taken until we can get to that point.

While we all seek to frame questions, we should at least be upfront about it, letting people know that the way we frame it is the way we see the issue, rather than throwing a smokescreen up in order to avoid examining it at all. When others frame questions in different ways, we should try to determine if it is a valid way at looking at the same issue, a different issue altogether, or an attempt to avoid tackling a tough question.

We should be especially mindful of the way questions are framed as we listen to candidates who are asking for our votes.

Politics As Usual! Ugh!

As a follower of Jesus, I am called to love others—fellow believers, neighbors, even enemies. I will admit, however, that I am really struggling in loving one set of people. No, it’s not Muslims or adherents of any other religion. It’s not any particular race or nationality. The class that I am struggling with is politicians, and as far as it applies, political operatives, including those who so often appear on radio and television or write columns in newspapers or on the internet.

Don’t get me wrong about my struggle. It’s not about ideology. I don’t have any particular difficulty in loving those with whom I disagree. If so, I’d be in real trouble. You see, even though I may have more in common with one group’s platform in any given season than another’s, about the only person I agree with most all the time is me—and there are occasions when I’m not even sure about that!

No, my struggle to love people in politics is because of what I perceive as the “ends justify the means” hypocrisy in dealing with issues. Instead of confronting an issue straight on, so many politicians and their advocates simply look to winning points against the opposition or containing damage to their own side.

As one example, we can look to the story of the congressman from Florida who sent inappropriate emails to a page or pages. When this was brought to light, it immediately became an “us” versus “them” issue between the two majority parties. When the opposition party tried to make an issue of the breaking scandal, we saw back and forth finger pointing.

• “What did you know and when did you know it?”
• “Mistakes were made, but why weren’t you concerned when your last president had problems with ‘that woman’?”
• “Well, this issue was with pages, who are much younger than interns.”
• “The page was eighteen when the emails in question were sent, so it was two adults, and, besides, ‘nothing happened.’”
• “The speaker should resign because he knew of the problem and didn’t act.”
• “It seems like your people knew about this in early summer. If you were really concerned, why didn’t you bring it out then rather than wait until right before elections?”

And on and on it goes. Why, instead, wasn’t there a unified voice that condemned the behavior—in this and in previous instances? Why are those who abhorred the previous indiscretions of others now seemingly defending behaviors of the same sort? And vice versa? Such hypocrisy is unbecoming in those who want to lead us. They choose what to attack and what to defend based on who is involved rather than what is right.

Another example is in our own gubernatorial campaign. Each candidate accuses the other of ethics violations.

• “You got a sweetheart deal on land in Florida and a $100,000 tax break that no one else may have gotten.”
• “Your daddy has all kind of business with the state, inappropriately, and he pays you a handsome yearly salary for virtually no work.”

It’s amazing how adept we can be in identifying the nuances of ethical behavior for others but cannot for the life of us see how anyone could question what we do ourselves! It seems like someone once said something about removing the log from your own eye before removing the speck from someone else’s. Instead, we have blind people doing eye surgery on others.

As distasteful as all of this is, it would be great if we could expect such behavior to subside after the coming elections. But I wouldn’t count on it.

© 2006 Fred O. Pitts