To me, rather than seeking to define new "frames" for our "messages," it is more healing to see our task as seeking to identify simple truths and moral positions that cut through the distortions that are so often inherent in the accepted terms of a given debate.

Lakeoff's insights into how our thinking and emotional reactions are shaped by metaphor are significant, and I'm delighted that his work is finally getting the attention it has long deserved ("Metaphors We Live By" was published back in the '80s, long before "Moral Politics" or "Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate").

Unfortunately, "framing" and "re-framing" are fast becoming overused, and misused, buzzwords.

I'm sure people don't intend to shift the focus off morals and values when they talk about re-framing, but I'm seeing that happen. You may not be falling into the trap, but for many, the "Moral" part of "Moral Politics" and the "Know Your Values" part are getting lost as they focus on how to "Frame the Debate."

Words shape thinking. We can avoid pitfalls if we stop to consider how new buzzwords may be shaping our discourse and thought.

As you point out, the former task can be defined as a form of the latter, but when we skip over the fact that we are talking about some basic truths here, we risk getting caught up in a world where "message" trumps meaning or reality.

The insights that come with understanding the emotional context we create with the language we use can help us boil things down to the basic truths that guide action. If the goal of analyzing the context or "frame" is to manipulate -- and that is what many seem to focus on -- we are in trouble.