Changing the terms of debate: Hunter Cutting discusses strategies to influence public opinion of the war on terrorism. (A New Era).

"Be inquisitive. Remember, asking questions about government policies isn't disloyal. It's your duty." Janis Besler Heaphy, president and publisher of The Sacramento Bee, never got to say these words at a commencement address in front of 18,000 at Arco Arena on December 22, 2001.

Within minutes of starting her speech and launching into "troubling constitutional issues" of racial profiling, secret military tribunals, and government vetting of videotapes of Osama Bin Laden, Heaphy was drowned by boos and hisses from the capacity crowd. The public was in no mood to hear Heaphy's less-than-patriotic ideas. Ironically, her last audible sentence before being silenced was, "To what degree are we willing to compromise our civil liberties in the name of security?"

During the summer of 2001, activists in the United States were pressing national debate on a wide variety of issues ranging from racial profiling to the plundering of national lands. But within a few short days of September 11, conservative forces whipsawed public debate and left progressive voices gasping for breath. Their efforts were organized by a strategic refraining of the historic conservative agenda as a response to the events of the 11th, a rhetorical undertaking grounded in the language of values and emotions.

The effort by progressives to wrest back the terms of debate will have to be similarly strategic.

Activists have to assess and acknowledge the enormous rhetorical territory that has been lost. Much of the civil rights agenda has been severely set back and it will take some time to regain the momentum.

Against these long-term considerations, there are communication strategies that can be called upon now to reframe public debate of the War on Terrorism.

Go Back to a Place of Agreement