A SCOTUS Confirmation pends “investigation” of a 1980’s teenage drinking party?

America loses when the Left is permitted to frame every debate.

As we’re inclined to do with many issues, we’ve been discussing the allegation against Judge Kavanaugh, within the leftists’ frame: “if true, the allegation is disqualifying.”

Why do we blindly accept their frame of an issue?

The Left wanted to avoid a public debate on judicial philosophy. So they deftly moved the FRAME of FOCUS away from judicial philosophy by leveling an accusation totally out of the known character of the nominee.

In our outrage about the obvious smear, our instinctive reaction was to reject the allegation rather than the frame.  Understandable, but fatal.

Few average Americans would agree with the leftists that a nominee’s teen years require FBI scrutiny. Most rational people recognize that drinking teens of both sexes do regrettable things and that it’s a person’s adult life that matters in considering the nominee’s character and qualifications

Yet rather than DISMISS this allegation as irrelevant even if it could be corroborated, leading members of our party nodded gravely and agreed that “this is a very serious allegation that needs to be examined.” This bit of political malpractice is the product of having failed to challenge another Leftist frame: “allegations of sexual misconduct must always be taken seriously.” (Not when they’re offered without evidence or corroboration, they don’t.)

We gamely jump in to decry the purposeful omission of a specific place, time or date (with which a person can disprove an allegation) and seeming rejection of the presumption of innocence, but our efforts only serve to “ratify” the validity of the frame. In effect, our failure to refute the FRAME rather than the allegation signaled acceptance of the Leftists’ frame; “if true, the allegation is disqualifying.”

This is why we consistently lose.

We in the general public have more influence on the debate than has ever been the case in the past.

Social media provides a powerful vehicle for shaping thoughts and discussions about an issue because it allows people to process their thoughts and receive feedback in real-time. As a result, it compresses the time period required for thoughts on a topic to evolve; for new thinking to emerge.

Let’s use this power to our advantage. We must make it our habit to recognize, break and revise the way issues are framed for public debate.

Here are some suggestions for doing that.

1. We need to challenge the absurd notion which ostensibly makes the accusation relevant:  a man who was once a badly-behaved teenager is unqualified to serve.  Granted, Judge Kavanaugh’s academic, athletic and community service accomplishments as a teen hardly fit the description of “badly behaved teenager” but we’re challenging a frame rather than an accusation (It will shortly become a series of accusations unless we disarm the frame which supports any such accusation’s supposed relevance.)
2. Reject the proposition that there are “grave” allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.  There aren’t.  A huge percentage of Americans can well relate to having been to a drinking party as a teenager.  Most of what takes place when teens drink is unlovely as hell.
3. Our response to the notion that these antics should be investigated by the FBI – 35+years after the fact – ought to dismiss the frame – the notion that we need to know what went on at a teenage drinking party in the early 1980’s.
4. Keep in mind that the person with whom you’re actually having this discussion will not be moved one iota from his/her present position. That’s fine.  His (or her) role is that of a foil anyway. We’re not in the least bit concerned with changing the minds of Leftists entrenched enough to be defending the Leftist position on the boards.  It’s those who read the string without engaging we are actually speaking to.
5. Always assume that there’s a group of people “listening” to your exchange, comparing not only the validity of the arguments but the tone, relatability and reasonableness of the people involved. (It’s a good practice to assume that your grandmother is among those listening.)

Our goal is to win the hearts and minds of loosely attached people comprising the majority of America’s body politic; those who watch, read and listen occasionally but haven’t quite made up their minds on a particular issue (or candidate) yet.

Our objectives are:

1. Break the leftist frame and re-frame the debate around common-sense propositions to which regular Americans can relate.
   • At times, that may involve “stipulating” one or more of the particulars in order to redirect focus on the assumptions under which those particulars were offered.
   • Arguing against specific accusations constitutes acceptance of the absurd assumptions under which those accusations entered the debate.
   • Debate focussed on the particulars serves to “ratify” the Left’s frame of an issue.  They cannot do that without our cooperation.
2. Demonstrate that we represent the reasonable and relatable position on that issue

Let’s stop pulling at threads and instead take a blowtorch to the framework assumptions that allowed their puny allegations into the debate and lent them such power in the first place.