Luntz's Lessons for the Left
How to arm our messages against neoliberal co-optation and dilution
Language is a powerful tool that shapes public perception, policy outcomes, and societal discourse. For advocates of social justice, equality, and communal well-being, the challenge of effectively communicating their message is compounded by neoliberal co-optation. Neoliberalism, with its focus on free markets, privatization, and individualism, has a long history of using strategic language to obscure the negative consequences of its policies and present harmful agendas as beneficial.
One of the most famous architects of such messaging is Frank Luntz, a conservative pollster who has mastered the art of reframing issues to align with right-wing ideologies. Luntz’s approach, epitomized in phrases like "death tax" instead of "estate tax" and "energy exploration" instead of "oil drilling," has been key in advancing neoliberal goals by softening the public's perception of harmful policies. To counteract this, advocates must develop their own strategies for reframing key issues in ways that resist neoliberal co-optation and preserve the integrity of their message.
This essay explores ten reframes of key issues designed to strengthen messaging and make it more resilient against neoliberal reinterpretation.
1. "Privatization" ➔ "Public Wealth Extraction"
Privatization is often framed as a way to increase efficiency and reduce government waste by transferring public assets into private hands. However, this narrative obscures the fact that privatization frequently results in the depletion of public resources, as assets meant to serve the community are sold for private profit. Reframing "privatization" as "public wealth extraction" shifts the focus from the supposed benefits of privatization to the reality of how public wealth is siphoned away from the community.
Why It’s Less Co-optible: This reframe challenges the neoliberal assumption that privatization inherently leads to efficiency. By highlighting the loss of communal resources, it becomes more difficult to argue that privatization benefits society without addressing the social costs.
2. "Free Market" ➔ "Unregulated Corporate Dominance"
The term "free market" is idealized by neoliberals as a symbol of fairness, competition, and freedom. However, in practice, a so-called free market often leads to unchecked corporate power, where large corporations exploit workers, consumers, and the environment without meaningful regulation. Reframing "free market" as "unregulated corporate dominance" emphasizes the dangers of a market with insufficient oversight and the corporate overreach it enables.
Why It’s Less Co-optible: This reframe challenges the romanticization of free markets. It forces a conversation about the need for regulations to protect the public from corporate exploitation, making it harder for neoliberals to defend deregulation without addressing its harmful effects.
3. "Tax Cuts" ➔ "Wealth Redistribution Upwards"
Tax cuts, especially those aimed at the wealthy, are frequently framed as policies that stimulate the economy and encourage growth. However, such tax cuts often benefit the rich disproportionately while depriving public services of essential funding. Reframing "tax cuts" as "wealth redistribution upwards" exposes the reality that these policies shift wealth from the general public to the wealthy.
Why It’s Less Co-optible: By reframing tax cuts as a regressive redistribution of wealth, this messaging makes it harder for neoliberals to argue that these cuts benefit society as a whole. It shifts the focus to who truly gains from tax cuts and the social consequences of depriving public services of revenue.
4. "Deregulation" ➔ "Public Protections Rollback"
Deregulation is often framed by neoliberals as a way to remove burdensome bureaucracy and unleash innovation. However, many regulations are in place to protect the public from harm, whether environmental, financial, or health-related. Reframing "deregulation" as "public protections rollback" shifts the narrative, emphasizing that deregulation frequently involves stripping away protections designed to keep people and the environment safe.
Why It’s Less Co-optible: This reframe makes it clear that deregulation isn’t just about freeing businesses; it’s about removing safeguards that protect the public. It shifts the conversation from business interests to public safety, making it harder to argue in favor of deregulation without acknowledging the risks.
5. "Economic Growth" ➔ "Inequality Expansion"
Economic growth is typically seen as a positive indicator of a healthy economy. However, under neoliberal policies, economic growth often exacerbates inequality, with the gains disproportionately benefiting the wealthy. Reframing "economic growth" as "inequality expansion" calls attention to the fact that growth under current systems often leads to wider economic disparities.
Why It’s Less Co-optible: This reframe forces a discussion on the distribution of economic growth, rather than its quantity alone. It challenges the assumption that growth benefits everyone and makes it difficult for proponents to celebrate growth without addressing its unequal effects.
6. "Human Capital" ➔ "People's Potential"
The neoliberal term "human capital" reduces individuals to their economic utility, valuing them primarily for their ability to contribute to economic growth. Reframing this as "people’s potential" recognizes the inherent worth of individuals and values their holistic contributions to society, not just their productivity in economic terms.
Why It’s Less Co-optible: This reframe resists the commodification of individuals by emphasizing personal development, fulfillment, and their broader impact on the community. It challenges the reduction of people to economic units, offering a more humane perspective on human value.
7. "Consumer Choice" ➔ "Community Needs"
Neoliberalism often elevates "consumer choice" as the ultimate expression of freedom, suggesting that individuals can drive social change through their purchasing decisions. However, many societal issues cannot be addressed by individual consumer choices alone. Reframing "consumer choice" as "community needs" shifts the focus from individualism to collective well-being and the importance of meeting communal requirements.
Why It’s Less Co-optible: This reframe de-emphasizes market-based solutions and stresses the need for collective responsibility to address systemic problems. It highlights the limitations of consumer choice and promotes a shift towards communal solutions.
8. "Innovation Economy" ➔ "Exploitation Economy"
The term "innovation economy" often evokes positive images of technological advancement and progress. However, innovation in neoliberal contexts can often rely on underpaid labor, exploitative working conditions, and regulatory loopholes. Reframing the "innovation economy" as "exploitation economy" draws attention to the human costs behind these advancements.
Why It’s Less Co-optible: By emphasizing the exploitation that often underpins innovation, this reframe calls for more ethical and responsible economic practices. It challenges the assumption that all innovation is inherently good and makes it harder for proponents to ignore the negative consequences.
9. "Gig Economy" ➔ "Insecure Work Economy"
The gig economy is frequently celebrated for offering flexibility and freedom to workers. However, the reality for many gig workers is instability, lack of benefits, and little job security. Reframing the "gig economy" as the "insecure work economy" highlights the precarious nature of this kind of employment and the lack of protections for workers.
Why It’s Less Co-optible: This reframe counters the romanticization of gig work by focusing on the insecurity faced by workers. It exposes the pitfalls of this employment model and makes it difficult to argue that gig work is empowering without addressing its downsides.
10. "Globalization" ➔ "Corporate Globalization"
Globalization is often framed as a positive force that promotes international cooperation and economic growth. However, much of modern globalization benefits multinational corporations more than local communities. Reframing "globalization" as "corporate globalization" specifies that the primary beneficiaries are often corporations, not individuals or local economies.
Why It’s Less Co-optible: This reframe distinguishes between people-centered internationalism and profit-driven corporate expansion. It makes it harder for neoliberals to argue that globalization is universally beneficial without addressing its negative impacts on local economies and cultures.
Summary of Strategies to Reduce Co-optibility by Neoliberalism
The reframes explored in this essay utilize several key strategies to make progressive messaging more resilient to neoliberal co-optation:
Expose Hidden Costs: Each reframe uncovers the societal and ethical costs that are often glossed over in neoliberal discourse, forcing a more honest and transparent discussion of the issues.
Specify Actors and Actions: By clearly identifying who benefits and who suffers from certain policies, the reframes reduce ambiguity and foster accountability, making it harder for opponents to obscure the real consequences of their actions.
Emphasize Human and Community Values: Focusing on people, communities, and collective well-being counters the impersonal nature of market-centric language, ensuring that the conversation stays grounded in human rights and social justice.
Challenge Positive Connotations: Many neoliberal terms carry positive connotations that mask their true impact. The reframes question these assumed positives, opening space for critical dialogue and making it harder for neoliberal narratives to go unchallenged.
The work of figures like Frank Luntz has demonstrated the power of language to shape political outcomes by reframing issues in ways that favor neoliberal goals. In response, advocates for justice must develop their own reframing strategies to ensure their messages remain clear, compelling, and resistant to manipulation. The reframes discussed in this essay offer a blueprint for how to protect progressive messaging, exposing the true costs of neoliberal policies and refocusing the conversation on equity, justice, and the common good.
In an era where messaging can be swiftly co-opted or misconstrued, controlling the narrative is not only a matter of communication—it’s a powerful act of empowerment. Advocates must seize the opportunity to reframe the debate and foster a more inclusive, fair, and just society.