April 13, 2006
What's In A "Leak": The Power of Metaphors in Debate
by Jeffrey Feldman
Despite all the scandals weighing down President Bush (e.g., Iraq, Katrina, the ports, Delay, Abramoff...) nothing threatens to sink him faster than the word 'leak.' Last week, the 'Commander-in-Chief' was renamed the 'Leaker-in-Chief' following revelations from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that the source of the national security leak -- or at least the authority behind that leak -- was none other than the President himself. Suddenly, after years of an investigation that had gotten way to complicated for all but political junkies to follow, the 'leak' revelation recast the story in straightforward understandable terms: An American citizen criticized the President, Bush leaked information to be used as political payback. And as that straightforward story took hold of public imagination last week, the haze of hard-to-remember scandal names dissipated (e.g., 'Plame Affair,' 'CIA Leak Investigation,' 'Niger Yellow Cake Scandal'), leaving 'Leakgate' in their place.
'Leakgate.' Like 'Watergate' for Nixon, 'Iran-Contra' for Reagan and 'Monicagate' for Clinton, 'Leakgate' will be forever associated with President George W. Bush, a word that will define both his Presidency in the mind of future generations and establish a certain category of political scandal as a historical reference point.
But why is the word 'leak' so powerful? Why is 'leak' so damaging despite all the other scandals swirling around President Bush? Why is the word 'leak' so effective at defining this President and this Republican Party?
'Leak' Expressing A Metaphor
The key to understanding the power of the word 'leak' in current debate is to recognize that it expresses a metaphor. But what is a metaphor?
In basic terms, a metaphor is just a figure of speech where one thing is expressed in terms of another thing. When we say, for example, that a pair of sneakers is 'sweet' or that an idea is 'solid' we are using metaphors to express ourselves. In these examples, chosen just to illustrate the definition, I have expressed [sneakers] in terms of [candy] and talked about [ideas] in terms of [wood] or [stone]. The reason people use metaphors when they talk to people, according to linguists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in their book Metaphors We Live By, has to do with the number of abstract and difficult-to-explain concepts that make up the world around us. Abstract ideas are hard to explain and hard to understand. And so as part of a general set of speaking habits that have developed over time, we speak to express our ideas -- particularly new ideas -- in terms of other things.
Metaphors, in other words, may be a little complicated to explain, but they make life much easier for us when we use them. They help us by allowing us to communicate ideas that might otherwise be abstract in familiar terms. The more familiar the metaphor, the more accessible the idea becomes.
When we use metaphors in political debate, we turn otherwise boring or overly complicated policy talk, diplomatic jargon and legalese into accessible, interesting public conversation. In certain cases, metaphors not only make government technical babble more accessible, but they actually turn government ideas into everyday conversation.
Understanding the broad ideas and logic that are framing a debate often depends on our ability to find the core metaphors currently at work. It may not sound like sexy work at first, but finding the metaphors in a political debate like the 'leakgate' scandal are often the key to understanding why a particular phrase or keyword has become so damaging or helpful in a campaign.
How The 'Leak' Metaphor Works: Good And Bad Made Simple
To see what I mean, let’s take a look at the word 'leak' as it is being used to define President Bush. What are the metaphors expressed by that word and how are they framing the debate?
For example, what is the metaphor at work when we use the word ‘leak’ to describe President Bush?
It may seem silly when we first write it out, but the metaphor is:
[President Bush] is [a faucet]
We are using this metaphor every time we say that President Bush 'leaked' classified information. Think about it for a minute: Did President Bush really 'leak' the information? Of course not. What we mean when we say that is that the President gave the authority for certain words and phrases in a classified document to be distributed by his assistants to the assistants of other members of his cabinet so that those words and phrases could be used in press campaigns and other public forums where they were previously not in use, and -- for this process to take place in such a way that the general public would not find out about the authorization of those words and phrases for that use.
Phew! What a mouthful. When we actually try to say what we mean by the phrase 'President Bush leaked classified information,' we can understand immediately the value and power of using metaphors. They make it easier for us to say what we mean without getting bogged down in explaining every details. What did President Bush do with the classified information? He leaked it. He let it out when he was supposed to keep it in.
Interestingly, the word 'leak' also has hidden within it another metaphor being used to clarify what we mean when we say that President Bush leaked classified information:
[information] is [water]
Now, information is definitely not water. But when we say that information 'flowed out' of the White House, that it 'ran' in certain 'channels' or that the President was 'the source' -- we are using that metaphor.
And we all know what we mean.
Metaphors Make Morality Easy To See
Now that we can see the metaphors at work in the 'leakgate' term, we can start to understand why that word 'leak' is so damaging to President Bush.
When we are talking about information -- documents, threat assessment reports, grand jury testimony -- what is good and bad becomes murky. But when we are suddenly talking terms of leaks, good and bad becomes clear.
Leaks are bad. Nobody wants a faucet that leaks. A good faucet is a faucet, by definition, is one that does not leak. When a faucet leaks it is damaged or broken and needs to be repaired or replaced. When faucets leak, water ends up where it is not supposed to be -- on the floor or in the walls. And that water causes damage that can destroy a room a home or even a building.
In the apartment building where I live, the one reason the superintendent can break down our door without asking permission is a leak. Leaks can be so damaging, that we have special insurance policies just to cover leaks.
While the Fitzgerald investigation of the CIA scandal has been difficult to navigate up to now, hearing that the President 'leaks' makes everything clear. When a President leaks, that President is broken and needs to be fixed or repaired before he causes damage. When a President leaks, like a leaky faucet, it is likely that he has already caused damage. A President who leaks is a bad President that should probably be replaced with a good President who does not leak.
The emergence of the word 'leak' as the central word now describing President Bush, in other words, means that the country is now talking about the CIA scandal in basic good and bad terms that everyone can understand. While the details of the investigation may be complicated, the public debate is no longer complicated. The President leaks and that is bad. Fix him or replace him.
GOP Controls Many Aspects of Debate Using Metaphors
The larger lesson of the Leakgate scandal, however, is not about President Bush, per se, nor even about the need to replace him. He will be replaced, sure enough. The issue is: How to spot when metaphors control a political debate.
The GOP, to the credit of their political leaders, has long recognized that to control a debate it is essential to anchor an issue with a single core metaphor.
Consider the following issues that are dominated in public debate by metaphors supplied by and pushed by the GOP.
Immigration: The GOP talks about building a 'wall' on the border, invoking a metaphor of [immigration] as [water]. This metaphor controls the debate as everyone talks about it being bad for foreigners to 'flood' across our borders.
Social Security: The GOP talks about 'personal accounts,' invoking a metaphor of [social security] as [cash]. The metaphor controls the debate.
Education: The GOP talks about not 'leaving behind' students, invoking a metaphor of [school] as a [train]. The metaphor controls the debate.
Energy: The GOP talks about 'oil addiction,' invoking a metaphor of [gasoline] as [narcotic]. The metaphor controls the debate.
Healthcare: The GOP talks about 'frivolous lawsuits,' invoking the metaphor of [healthcare] as [a market]. The metaphor controls the debate.
National Security: The GOP talks about 'war on terror,' invoking the metaphor of [terrorism] as [an army]. The metaphor controls the debate.
Just about every aspect of our national political debate is dominated by metaphors controlled and dominated by the GOP. Therefore, when Americans try to talk about the core ideas in our government’s policies -- when we try to talk about what is good or bad, we use the ideas supplied by the Republicans. We do this not because the Democrats lack ideas, but because the Democrats have not cast their ideas using metaphors.
What might be some Democratic alternatives to the GOP metaphors? These take time to generate, for every issue, but the core metaphor that defines the important issue of 'leadership' is at our fingertips and already being used by the American people.
Bad leadership 'leaks' while good leadership does not. As the Democrats move forward towards 2006, the key to controlling this crucial aspect of debate -- the question of good and bad leadership -- could very well be to stick with the leak metaphor.
© 2006 Jeffrey Feldman
Jeffrey Feldman is the Editor-in-Chief and Founder of Frameshop. First established in late 2004 on several large blogs and launched as an independent website Jan. 1, 2005. Dr. Feldman has a Ph.D. in Cultural Anthropology which he applies broadly to the analysis of politics and communication. He lives and teaches in New York City, conducts workshops on framing throughout the country, and is s a regular guest on the national syndicated radio show The Thom Hartmann Radio Program.