Created by arianna_at_rockridge Rockridge Institute staff member) on Friday, April 27, 2007 11:19 AM

Yesterday's first Democratic presidential candidates' debate in South Carolina brought few surprises from the "first tier" candidates. In fact, a look at their language in regard to Iraq shows the status quo at work. However, the little-known former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel gave us reason to raise a cheer in his uttering what none of the other seven candidates dared say.

Gravel was asked this question by moderator Brian Williams:   "...at a forum earlier this year...you said it doesn't matter whether you are elected president or not, so then, why are you here tonight?"

Here is his answer in part, referring to other candidates (bold added for emphasis):

"And I got to tell you, after standing up with them, some of these people frighten me -- they frighten me. When you have mainline candidates that turn around and say that there's nothing off the table with respect to Iran, that's code for using nukes, nuclear devices."

Some of you may recall that the Rockridge Institute published a piece by George Lakoff entitled "The Words None Dare Say: Nuclear War" in late February of this year on this topic. It begins: "A familiar means of denying a reality is to refuse to use the words that describe that reality. A common form of propaganda is to keep reality from being described." Senator Gravel stepped outside the box yesterday in his bold injection of reality into a mostly status quo event.

A cheer, also, for Joe Biden, who also moved outside of the framing box when he responded to Williams' question, "Do you agree with Senator Reid that the war is lost?" His response:

 "...this is not a game show...This is not win or lose. The fact of the matter is that the president has a fundamentally flawed policy."

And Christopher Dodd, when asked a similar question, also pointed to policy as the problem:

"We're more vulnerable today. We're far less secure. We're more isolated in the world as a result of this policy. This is a failed policy."

However, other candidates fell into the "war" framing trap to refer to the Iraq invasion and occupation. Dennis Kucinich used the word "occupation" once, though, like the other candidates, also called it a "war" in every other instance. Here are some of the candidates' responses to questions regarding Iraq:

Obama: "It's time to end this war."
Clinton: "The Congress, as of today, has voted to end this war."
Kucinich: "The Democrats have the power to end the war right now..."
Richardson: "This war is a disaster. We must end this war."

The Rockridge Institute also addressed the framing of the "war on terror" last year. We give Kucinich a hand for his response to the question: "Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?"

His response:

"...the fact of the matter is that the global war on terror has been a pretext for aggressive war. As president of the United States, I intend to take America in a different direction, rejecting war as an instrument of policy, reconnecting with the nations of the world, so that we can address the real issues that affect security all over the globe and affect our security at home..."

Without advocating or opposing a particular candidate or party, what are your perceptions of the language used in the debate? Can you find other instances where candidates used language effectively and accurately to express progressive values?

We plan to take a similar look at the first Republican candidates' debate on May 3, also hosted by MSNBC.

Arianna