Framing local issues

I joined about 100 other self-identified "progressives" on campus this evening for an event focused on how to win more arguments, and therefore more elections, for the causes we believe in. The gathering was focused on the teachings of linguist George Lakoff, of whom I am admittedly a fan. He is on a mission to help the left catch up with the billions of dollars spent developing right-wing think tanks and media outlets over the past 30 years.

Lakoff's linguistic research has focused on the difference between conservative and liberal moral values and on the subsequent metaphors used to express political ideas. He points out that our values are embedded in the way we "frame" issues. There are distinctly conservative and liberal frames but most people operate with both frames, using the ones that fit in various parts of their lives. Lakoff instructs us on how to re-frame issues to reflect our own values rather than our opponents'. For example: taxes are an investment in our society and our future, not an affliction that calls for "relief." I highly recommend his book Don't Think of an Elephant, which is a quick guide to framing and moral values. You can buy it for $10 at Internationalist Books and Community Center.

So I am very interested in discussing frames and values with respect to local issues. In the school merger debate, opinions were so strong and so disparate, you got the sense that people were having two very different experiences of the same situation. This is a pretty clear example of two groups with different frames. The location of the homeless shelter might be another example, where some people see it as an issue of compassion and others see the homeless presence as a threat to security.

What are some other local issues that call out for progressive re-framing?



Sounds like an interesting session!

I agree with your perspective on the school merger debate. I think there were several primary factors that contributed.

The first was the fact that a solution was being debated prior to agreement on what problems possible merger was supposed to solve - funding? social justice (which was never defined, just repeated in a Rove-like manner)? an attempt to overcome the OCS overbuilding blunder? the CHCCS underbuilding blunders? Had the problems been identified, then the opinions might not have been as disparate. If you are pro-merger, then it is more beneficial to keep throwing in a wide variety of arguments so that when a particular argument is effectively rebutted or the solution is not merger, you can move onto the next argument. For a while, this tactic of NOT framing the problems was an effective way to frame the debate. Once the "problems" are defined, then pro-mergerers are likely to get pinned down to a perfectly good non-merger solution to the "problems".

Another factor was that many of the arguments being made in favor of merger were not supported by the facts on the public record.

Perhaps the biggest factor was a completely undefined process for consideration of the merger question, which frustrated all citizens.

It looks like the topic of possible merger might be "reframed" to address something identified decades ago -- a difference in funding between the districts. Some argue that this is the essence of local control - the ability to make decisions on taxes vs. funding. Others find that it is inequitable. The commissioners unanimously agreed to consider equitable funding as a priority this year (I captured this in my notes from the recent commissioner retreat on )

In the meantime, you are going to see an "Educational Excellence" study, which the author (Dr. Madeline Grumet, good friend of Margaret Brown) explictly stated at the retreat is NOT considering the question of merger, used for just that purpose. Perhaps a different attempt to reframe?

Like it or not, in mid-February this is likely to start all over again.


Let's build the schools where the kids are.

Last night's event was a true grassroots effort. If you want to hear about similar opportunities, the best way would be to subscribe to the ProgressvieTriangle Yahoo group. If you're a Yahoo Group member already just send an email to

Another great resource for framing is

We had some discussions about local framing when we were organizing the event. Framing in general is difficult, and Lakoff's work is almost entirely about national issues. So we don't have many role models.

Another line of thinking that might help is a simple reminder that progressive language should promote "progress". Simple, eh? Well, maybe not.

A couple of local ideas:
-Our community values educational opportunity, that's why both school districts need adequate funding.
-Chapel Hill is a compassionate place, and we need to create stability and safety for our homeless population.

I'm all for highlighting the positive aspects of political issues, but I don't see much difference between Lakoffs' 'framing' and the "hidden persuaders' approach of conservatives. Shouldn't progressives be more about putting the whole issue on the table--the good and the bad--in order to support fully informed choices?

Part of the progressive problem in this community is that the conservative sector jumps out with arguments against something before it is even a real consideration, such as the homeless shelter. I'm not sure framing is going to solve that problem. For the issue to be framed, it must first be identified which precludes open discourse. If you dealt with this dilemma at your meeting, I'd love to hear more about the conversation.

That's a great point Terri. I think it's part of why framing is more difficult locally than nationally. National debate is much more rhetorical. At the local level, we have the opportunity for greater dialogue.

I think where Lakoff's work is most helpful in figuring this out is around how we state our values. Progressives often debate by using technical solutions (programs) rather than sharing values that support our position and broaden its appeal.

Can we identify the issue through a lens of progressive values? If we do, the facts will seem more relevent to people.

Let's use the homeless shelter as an example of how this could have been done Graig. My recollection is that the discussion began because downtown merchants were frustrated by panhandling. Then the Rosemary St shelter closed for renovation.

At what point did progressives have the opportunity to frame the issue in a way that could have enjoined more positive discussion? Creating a case might make this a more focused discussion.

Hi Graig,

I frequently see framing used locally. When it is done effectively, you don't know that you have been "framed".

One example was the recent school construction capital spending cap. Barry Jacobs improperly attempted to stealthily pass this in a work session, which earned him raspberries in the Chapel Hill News. Before there was even an attempt to include the public or the school boards in the discussion, Mr. Jacobs was able to persuade the Herald in writing a story which had no opposing views. As a result, the consideration of this matter was "framed". Once the city school board was given the opportunity to comment, it presented a number of very persuasive concerns with this proposal at the December collaboration meeting (I have requested an electronic copy of the document and can make it available when I get it). The stated concerns look at this proposal in a bigger picture, and ask what happens in some possible scenarios. However, the commissioners seemed to decide at the retreat not to consider (schedule a discussion about) those concerns. Thus far, the initial framing is successful and the public and other elected bodies have been duly excluded from the discussion.

I have several other examples from the last year.


One local/state issue that urgently needs reframing is sexuality education in our public schools. NC has a WUM (Wait Until Marriage) curriculum, though research clearly shows that this curriculum is not addressing the needs of many students and parents.
The 2003 Youth Risk Behavior Survey conducted by the NC DPI reveals 52.3% of all high school students and 73.5% of seniors have experienced sexual intercourse. 10% of the state's high school students have sex before the age of 13. The report also finds that nearly half of all new STD's and HIV infections occur in youth between 15 and 24 years of age.
Furthermore, an October 2003 Parent Opinion Survey of Public School Sexuality Education conducted by the NC DPI found that the majority of NC parents (90.5%) think a more comprehensive curriculum should be taught in public schools.
This is one of those clear situations where we have the opportunity to prevent serious diseases and unintended pregnancies, yet we stop short of effective preventive education because one side becomes fearful that the other side is encouraging sex and abortion.
For an overview of this issue, go to Read about the WUM curriculum.
Forgive the hijacking here, but if this issue concerns you, please write our 5th District SBE member, Maria Teresa Palmer, Principle, David D. Jones Elementary, 502 South Street, Greensboro, NC 27406-2299, and Howard Lee, Chair SBE, 6302 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6302. Tell your friends in other districts to write their SBE member too ( Ask your SBE member to expand the current Healthful Living Curriculum as recommended by the NC State Advisors on Adolescent Sexual Health (SAASH) report presented to the SBE in December 2004. Do it soon!

Here's an example of how framing has been used in an online forum such as Orange Politics:

The way I've read Lakoff (articles not the book) it required jumping out front and identifying in progressive language rather than responding to an issue that had already been framed in conservative terms. The reference above gives a more practical way of using the strategy in day to day conversation. I really don't want to turn the tables around and listen to progressive framing anymore than I do conservative framing--but I would like to hear more real give and take discussion.

Mark--I don't think poor (nonexistent) communications is a framing issue. The BOCC didn't adequately inform the public about the ceiling they were considering placing on distribution of taxes to school systems. Now they are in the position of having to respond to the way others have jumped on this. If they had taken the time to identify the aspects of county government that were being neglected (mental health especially) due to annually increases in school budgets, then we might have had an informed discussion rather than the reactive response that their poor communications received.


I agree that there was poor communication, but there was also framing along the lines of "schools are all caught up and have no further need", despite the fact that city elementary school #10 has been squeezed out of the plan after being approved in the last bond referendum (due to rising building costs on the more near-term schools).

The point I was really trying to make is that I have observed, on numerous occasions, framing of local issues being proactively performed via the local media. Though I didn't follow the animal shelter situation as closely as others, I think there was a lot of framing going on there, too.

I agree that the one who jumps out in front has the framing advantage. I also agree that you have to work on your framing in advance of being caught in a "sound bite situation".

I had read some of the links, and just read the one that you pointed to (some very good tips, many of which I already try to follow). I ordered the book and will chime in again once I have read it.

Are you talking about operating or capital budgets for mental health? It is my understanding that the state has stopped funding much of the operating budget for mental health.


It is important to remember that underlying the question of frames are the more tangible matters of interests and agendas. The shelter, for example, is widely accepted as a public good and necessity. But people consider it against their interest (property values, safety, etc) when proposed for their neighborhoods. Similarly, with school merger, a certain segment of the Orange school district saw merger as in their interest while much of the city district saw separate districts as in their interest. With the Carrboro annexation, there was probably no frame that would win over the aldermen to the annexees or vice versa. As Lakoff points out, framing becomes vital in communicating with the undecided or with those who are influenced by "both" sides of a disagreement.

Dan, You phrased that well. Framing is mostly relevant when swaying those who are swayable.

As Ruby said, Lakoff also points out that most people use both liberal and conservative frames. It sounds like Terri is tired of the type of rhetoric that Jon Stewart assailed on Crossfire. I am too. But progressives have to be able to make persuasive arguments that convince anyone who is "swayable" to support our positions.

Sometimes you can do this when you're out in front, but at other times you've got to respond to someone else's frame. When progressives use a conservative frame in their response, they give it more credibility. We need to develop and use our own frames. And, they need to be based in our values, not theirs.

When you get below the rhetoric, you have to examine the underlying issues and not just the technical responses.

So, back to the homelessness example:
Our community is compassionate, and we try to provide stability and safety for all of our population. A homeless shelter should help provide these things to the homeless and others in our community. An underlying issue for us all to consider is which segment of our community should take on the responsibility to host the new shelter. We need a shelter location that supports our efforts to help our homeless population become successfully integrated into our community.

Hey, I'm not the expert on framing, but I'm trying...

You're absolutely right that I am tired of the divisive rhetoric. I was flipping through channels when Stewart spoke out on Crosstalk and stood up and cheered him. And he wasn't only railing against dear ole Tucker.

Back to Lakoff. I understand his frustrations with always being on the defense against conservatives. But I just don't see how the Rockbridge Institute's approach to framing is anything more than doin' unto them what they've been doin' unto us. There is a very fine line between persuasion, propaganda, and outright manipulation. We've had that discussion on this very forum. As I said earlier, I don't see much difference between Lakoff's framing and Packard's hidden persuaders.

Using the Rockridge Institute's Strong Father vs. the Nurturing Parent frame is as divisive as anything I have heard from the conservatives. I don't believe we demonstrate tolerance or acceptance by turning those we believe differently than we do into the hard cold, authoritative people described by the Strong Father frame. If the outcome we want is to encourage community discourse then we need to be respectful of conservative ideas and positions. While I don't often agree with the positions taken by the conservatives on this forum, I don't believe they are wrong or evil in their positions, we just see the world differently.

The goal is to figure out how we live (happily) in the same community without always tearing each other down. I think that can be done by being aware of how issues have been framed (intentionally or unintentionally) and how that frame might be perceived by the other side (or how we might be perceiving their frames). We can use their tools without repeating their tactics.

Terri, I think you are making incorrect assumptions that are counter to Lakoff's own writing. He does not advocate giving the Republicans some of their own medicine in the form of progressive propaganda. He explicitly states that the kind of Orwellian double-speak that we see so often from the Bush administration is a sign of weakness and is not at all something to be imitated. What he is advocating is expressing our ideas in a positive and proactive way, rather than reacting to conservative framing.

Secondly, if you understand the two family models he outlines you'll see they are inclusive, not divisive. He says that everyone, even you and me, have both models in our thinking and that we simply choose to use them at different times. (I'm a pretty strict father with my cats, for example.) His point isn't to break people into categories, but rather to speak honestly about our progressive values so that we will activate that frame in the people who use both.

Anyway, let's get back to local issues... How about annexation? I think that the Town of Carrboro is trying to demonstrate that it values a cohesive and cooperative community. The physical planning (which was laid out decades ago) strives for a community that functions together, rather than as pioneers each protecting his or her own property out on the frontier of Orange County. The protesting annexees seem to mostly be opposed to paying more taxes and to being included in this cohesive community. Why don't they want to be good neighbors?

Terri--It sounds like you wish to live in the utopia of rational discourse defined by Jurgen Habermas (and others). In fact, all opinions are shaped by emotions and impulses. Truly laying out all the options of an issue leads to a bottomless abyss, and the impossibility of actually deciding anything. Lakoff's description of the 'strong father' mentality--right/wrong, winners/losers, the constant need for force, the dangers of generosity--acurately describes the conservative posturing of the Republican party (their actually policies are almost a pure corruption rampage that bears little resemblance to any principals). The nurturing parent acurately describes an alternative set of values/impulses/outlooks (and the sexism of the strong father vs. the gender neutrality of nurturing parent also resonates with our reality). Framing is important--unlike Karl Rove et al, however, I believe its crucial that you reference the real world when framing an issue, not simply the reality you wish we lived in (or, as the current administration boasted to a journalist, the world you believe the US is so strong it can actually create regardless of the reality out there).

But I also agree with Gar Alperovitz--the issue is not so much a question of framing as a lack of a vision of what we want. More later.

I'm with Terri:

"I don't believe we demonstrate tolerance or acceptance by turning those we believe differently than we do into the hard cold, authoritative people described by the Strong Father frame. If the outcome we want is to encourage community discourse then we need to be respectful of conservative ideas and positions. While I don't often agree with the positions taken by the conservatives on this forum, I don't believe they are wrong or evil in their positions, we just see the world differently.

The goal is to figure out how we live (happily) in the same community without always tearing each other down. I think that can be done by being aware of how issues have been framed (intentionally or unintentionally) and how that frame might be perceived by the other side>"


Ruby--You say I don't understand Lakoff. That may be true so I won't argue. However, I think there is some evidence on my side (such as lack of participatation by national Democratic leaders) that others think his approach might have some shortcomings. Please note that I'm NOT saying he is wrong, but that framing could be very easily abused. My basic point remains the same, civil discourse should be the goal.

The homeless shelter might be a less volatile example of how framing could work. Graig started it with "Our community is compassionate, and we try to provide stability and safety for all of our population. A homeless shelter should help provide these things to the homeless and others in our community. An underlying issue for us all to consider is which segment of our community should take on the responsibility to host the new shelter. We need a shelter location that supports our efforts to help our homeless population become successfully integrated into our community."

Since the phrase "homeless shelter" is already politically charged, I think we need a new phrase to make the frame work. Personally, I like the "continuum of care," a phrase that presumes that all homelessness is not solved by a homeless shelter. So here's my revision to Graig's attempt:

Our community strives to provide stability and safety for all. Our continuum of care program assists those individuals and families who find themselves in need of one-time, short-term temporary housing as well as those who need long-term housing combined with other treatment and service needs.

We are currently seeking a building site for our one-time, temporary housing facility. The site should be located close to city services, including the public bus line, in a neighborhood that is safe for children and single mothers."

Terri- Great vision. And hopefully, that's the reality.

One area of framing I struggle with is how we get our statements to be more concise. The right often develops wide ranging connotations with simple frames such as "war on drugs" or "ownership society." I want to figure out how we take big ideas like yours and condense them into simple understandings. "Continuum of Care" is a good start for this issue.

As somebody who's worked with campaigns and media, my take on "elephant" is to illustrate that the right stays on message better than most progressives. Everybody remembers " you're with us or with the terrorists", but try and encapsulate the democratic position....Granted, it's tougher to reduce a nuanced position into 10 words or less ( the magic # in campaign speak), but when I watch most progressive politicians, it seems that they are so impressed with their own intellect and "deeper understanding of the issues" that they just can't shut up, and no message at all resonates with the public.And that's the trouble, we tend to get mired down in the justifications and the explanations instead of making a susinct point.
For example...if you just call a shelter a shelter, or "low income housing" you get a generally bad reaction, which then requires a tome of explanation of why it's actually a positive for the community...but call it an " Emergency Housing Assitance Center", and talk about the fact that a significant pecrcentage of the population is one fire, hurricaine, or severe ice storm from being homeless ( Or needing emergency housing assistance) and it conjures up a different very few words.

The right does indeed stay on message.

When you have Truth on your side, it is very easy to stay on message.

A good example is John Chapter 3.


"Why don't they want to be good neighbors? " NICELY framed.

MAYBE they just don't want their taxesbumped up for...NOTHING. Actually, LESS than nothing, as their fire service is going to be less effective. Wonder how much their home owners fire insurance will rise? Since that is based, in part, on proximity to fire services...

I'd be irritated myself. Particulalrly since there isn't a fire station on that side of town. Might be nice to wait to annex somebody 'til you can afford to provide the amenities for them, or at least, have a PLAN. This way, the town gets their money, and provides them...what?

Actually, I think Mike Nelson did an absolutely "Bushesque" job of framing the annexation issue when he stated that he voted for annexation in order to "enfranchise the residents" and yet scheduled the annexation for maximum profitability and minimum political fallout....There's at least one progressive who can frame.

I, too, was wondering how deliberate the timing was.

I've read a fair amount of "don't think like an elephant" and I watched the Lakoff video on Sunday. I *want* to believe that we just need to talk differently in order to become stronger politically, but Lakoff's use of "framing" keeps sounding like a two-dollar word for "metaphor" to me. Lakoff's examples seem to consist of pairs of words strung together to create an evocative image. I'm afraid I don't see the "frame" built around them.

When Lakoff himself tried to find an antidote frame to "Tax relief", he got long-winded and used long sentences to construct a framework, but it that's what framing is, we're in trouble if we place our bets on it.

But I want to get into the positive spirit of this discussion (thanks so much, Ruby and Graig!), so let me try my hand at reframing "homeless shelter". How about "Economic storm shelter". That "frames" the shelter as protection - we all like protection. Think of things that it shelters people *from*, not *who* is being sheltered, because storms are beyond our control.

I have to admit, though, that I find it a lot easier to come up with ways to frame the bad guys. How about "Social Security Privateers"?? Get it?? Pirates trying to take our security away. Good, no?

Or "Contract On America"??? Or "Borrow and Spend Republicans"??? When I hear Kerry say "Pay as you go Democrats" in the second debate, I almost came unframed!! I hope that wasn't Lakoff's doing.... David Price is the only Democrat I've heard say "Borrow and Spend Republicans" and I'm proud of him for it.

Before going to see the Lakoff video Sunday, I had read a very interesting article in the NY Times about Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union ( Towards the end is this paragraph:

The big conversation going on in Democratic Washington at
the moment, at dinner parties and luncheons and think-tank
symposia, revolves around how to save the party. The
participants generally fall into two camps of unequal size.
On one side, there is the majority of Democrats, who believe
that the party's failure has primarily been one of communication
and tactics. By this thinking, the Democratic agenda itself
(no to tax cuts and school vouchers and Social Security
privatization; yes to national health care and affirmative
action) remains as relevant as ever to modern workers. The
real problem, goes this line of thinking, is that the party
has allowed ruthless Republicans to control the debate and
has failed to sufficiently mobilize its voters. A much
smaller group of prominent Democrats argues that the party's
problems run deeper -- that it suffers, in fact, from a
lack of imagination, and that its core ideas are more an
echo of government as it was than government as it ought
to be.

It's easy to see this same tension - is it progressive ideas or just their "framing"? - in our discussion. I can't help thinking that we need some ideas, too. Then, I suspect, "framing" will come much more easily.

I'm with you George. It's a both/and situation. We need the frames and the ideas. As I said earlier, Progressives should have ideas that promote progress - that is new ideas that help make our society stronger.

Another issue for the Democratic party is how to bridge the national/local divide. Progressives are much better at winning local issues- partly because (as Terri suggested) it's easier to have a conversation with some depth at the local level.

I do think David Price is a leader in having ideas and frames. So a local political question might be, why isn't he a more public/higher profile leader for progressive dems?

It is important to bear in mind Lakoff's discussion of how the right became successful at framing. It was done by raising a lot of money to set up think tanks and training programs and through high level strategy sessions that focused on points of agreement and that were coupled with protracted campaigns to get the message out. In other words, framing is not particularly relevant without resources.

My point is that we don't "just need to talk differently in order to become stronger politically" (as per George E, above) We need to talk better and organize better. And, as potent as blogs may be for reaching the connected elite, recent news indicates that we probably need to own our own media to get the message out.

There was a lot of framing going on with annexation—some positive, some negative.
Carrboro's framing didn't do much to convince most people that ‘we are all connected; we are one', especially when the framing quickly turned to ‘no free ride for rich people'. In fairness to Carrboro, the newspapers, not the aldermen, did most of the negative spin on the frame.
I agree with those who say that framing works best with people who are not paying much attention, but for people who are deeply engaged with issues like annexation, framing doesn't seem very effective.
For me, the biggest problem with annexation was that it felt so impersonal. I simply don't know many people in Carrboro and I don't spend much time there anymore.
Maybe Carrboro government just assumed that people in the NTA felt close ties with the town. It's obvious now that some of us don't. Nevertheless, it seems to me that what needs to happen now is some getting to know each other, not a lawsuit. My experience is that people change their minds about groups and stereotypes and issues when they sit down one on one and talk.
I hate divisiveness and I'm ready to get over my ‘community of interest' gap.
I read about the lawsuit in the paper. The paper said the lawsuit will probably be about fire protection, but I think it will really be about lack of personal connection. I think the lawsuit route is a mistake. It prolongs the alienation.

This is getting away from local politics, but I just read a reference to framing, the first I've encountered since reading this thread. It was used in a rebuttal to an article by Read both here. In this instance, seems to use the term framing to mean "we aren't being any more deceptive than the Bush administration."

That's a pretty low bar to hurdle, but to the point of this thread, it will be a shame if the concept of framing becomes a new word for spinning.

From what I've read here, framing should be a consise way to speaking the truth in a positive way. By that definition, "why don't they want to be good neighbors?" would not be a good frame. Maybe better: "Only by uniting and working together can we improve our community."

I don't know...still sounds like the spin doctor...

To follow up Dan's point, above, the right wing has a system in place for feeding their "framing" to a media that is either sympathetic or ignorant, while simultaneously decrying the evils of the liberal media. Similarly, by casting themselves as victims, they're able to at least partially obscure the fact that they're really the ones running things. It's a good game, and the whole "anti-establishment Republican" frame would be laughable if so many people in and outside of the media weren't buying it. Even NPR, that supposed bastion of the lib elite, doesn't seem to have a clue about how to respond to nonsensical Republican talking points... so they just repeat them like everyone else. More important, I think, than knowing how to "frame" issues, is to actually know what you're talking about and to be able to respond clearly to the wingers' talking points. You don't need framing to say that Republicans are lying about Social Security, for example. You don't need framing to say that torture is unacceptable, and that we don't want an Attorney General who is in favor of torture.

I will also suggest that everyone read Bob Somerby's Daily Howler.

It's always puzzled me how conservatives who make such strong claims to Christianity can oppose environmental protection. But it seems the tide is turning. There is now an Evangelical Environmental Network that "frames" its advocacy as creation care.

It is partly a question of frames--what are the values that our vision fits into? I think Lakoff is completely correct about that. John Kerry, whose most distinguished moment came thirty years ago when he told the truth about the atrocities committed by Americans in Vietnam, tried to outdo George Bush as a hunter-and-killer of terrorists. He never claimed any values as his own. But it's also a question of vision. What kind of world do we want to live in and how do we get there? If the choice is the one outlined in the quote in George's post above--between a dated New Deal vision and a lurch to the right to conform with present day realities, that's no choice. We need to ask--how do we create a genuinely egalitarian country/world? How do we meet everyone's needs? Not just ameliorate a few things. Locally, we should point out that while Chapel Hill is a very nice place with lots of nice liberal people, it's basically a car heavy city, with a downtown that alternates between rotten chains and empty storefronts, glaring inequality, etc. What sort of city do we really want? The stuff Sally Greene posted on her site about 'slow cities'is a vision. If you have a vision, you can think about framing it, and what steps move you on the road to that vision. I don't think its meaningful to talk about framing issues like a homeless shelter or redrawing boundaries. Although necessary, that is more a question of marketing copy. The right has been working for thirty years to convince Americans that social safety nets hurt people and 'we can't afford them'.. it takes time for your new frames to take hold.

The left since the sixties has been strong in academia, where it argues with itself. The right found academia inhospitable, and instead formed think tanks that reshape the national debate. It also doesn't help that there are no institutions on the left comparable to the evangelical churches, where people hang out together and figure out ways to work together for change.


Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.


Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.