If you're a movie buff, you've probably seen a picture of a director thumbs

joined together index fingers forming a square showing the camera operator how to frame the shot.

The camera can't see everything, right? The art of directing is framing every shot,

so the audience sees exactly what the director wants them to see.

We all do something like this in making arguments, whether personal or political.

It's not necessarily a bad thing. We only have so much time to make our points,

but there is a downside. Often arguments end up unfairly skewed by the information they include

or leave out. If you understand how framing works, you'll have a better chance of seeing

through-week arguments and appreciating good ones. Let's look at some examples. Take socialism.

Socialism is enjoying renewed popularity, especially among young people. Why is this,

given the failure of the socialist model in places like the former Soviet Union, Cuba, and Venezuela?

The answer is that socialism has been very cleverly framed by its proponents.

Socialism, we are told, is morally superior because it makes people more equal.

Those who have more than their fair share have to give it back. What could possibly be wrong with

leveling the playing field? Who's against equality? When framed that way, socialism is made to

seem the only moral choice. So if you're opposed to it, you are framed as regressive, selfish,

and pretty much a jerk. Another example of framing is the issue of religious freedom.

The American Civil Liberties Union website says that the free, exercise clause of the first

amendment gives you the right to worship or not as you choose. The government can't penalize

you because of your religious beliefs. It sounds good, but only because of the framing.

The Constitution doesn't speak about the right to worship and to hold beliefs. Those are

it given. The Constitution specifically defends the free exercise of religion, and that means freedom

...