I believe that Kerry does know this. The article of course is right on.

The strict father model, the authoritarian view, the absolutist approach by Bush is the very thing that Kerry is trying to avoid in his own candidacy.
He is attempting to reframe the debate by ignoring the smear and fear tactics of the Republicans.

It's time in the reframing of the debate that we challenge Republicans directly.
We also need for them to see that they are shooting themselves in the foot
by an antiquated view of the world, that a hegemonic approach to foreign affairs can't be successful. and never will be. Iraq is just compounding the problem of Vietnam making the latter relevant to today.

"Terror" as a concept is another frame that needs clarification. Somehow it has become separated from the notion of criminal intent. Common criminals are not "terrorists" by this frame. "Terrorism" is somehow defined by the Republicans as being worse than other crimes because it involves the notion of "patriotism". You're either for us or against us. This simplistic view of "terror" is part of the problem we face in Iraq. Unfortunately, some Dems are buying into it. They are not seeing "terror" as another manifestation of criminality.

Republicans have defined Democrats as policy wonks because Dems have not articulated their vision as Lakoff suggests. There seems to be an accepted fact amoung Liberals that Republicans ought to understand the "issues" as being the important thing rather than ideology.

The so-called "Culture War" is about preserving the "strict father" idea.
This idea is also a frame. There is nothing inherently cultural about the "gays,guns and religion" issue. It's a trumped-up deal framed by Republicans to furthur their control.

In a sense, you might say that this "strict father" approach to control borders on fascism although the difference in Nazi Germany is that Hitler was more of a gang leader big brother than a strict father. It has been said that Big Brother Hitler was a rebellion against the German propensity for strict paternalism.

Reframing the debate involves attacking the language of the Right-wing.
For example, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a "bleeding heart Liberal" since the very notion is of compassion for human beings rather than the "dog eat dog" Neo-con view which basically mistrusts people. Liberal means generous. In terms of taxes, the betterment of society has to mean that everyone pays their fair share responsibly. Those that feel put upon by the Liberal's position are selfish and their self-interest will never succeed because there are too many people out there who are being short-changed by this ostensible "self-interest". It does not serve the poor and disenfranchised in America hence it might even be thought of as being un-American. Ultimately, it will not serve those self-interested people or companies because it doesn't promote the betterment of society.

Public service is American. Privatization that tears down public service is
antithetical to American values.   

Fighting a war so that corporations can control foreign companies is un-American. There can be no freedom in a foreign land if the people who live there don't have it for themselves. It can't be imposed by military bullies.

As long as gun control is considered a right, not a privilege (as driving a car)
there will continue to be crimes committed. The NRA has not managed to assuage gun violence in the US which is more pronounced here than in other countries.

If marriage of gay people is restricted, it will have the opposite effect, threatening heterosexual marriage instead of helping it because when you deny the notion of marriage based on love and nurturing relationships, you demean the institution. Also, you can't have civil rights for some and penalize others.

The state legislating abortion is a power play. Those who protest at abortion clinics bear little responsibility for child care. They have no solution for the myriad children who have "fallen through the cracks" in the system and are subjected to child abuse. Some of these Right-wingers are practitioners of child abuse as well because they subscribe to a violent authoritarian approach to child rearing.

This is going to be an ungoing dialogue and some of the assumptions that have been glibly asserted by demagogues on the Right will be increasingly challenged.

This is what I meant about a symbolic civil war that is going on now.

The only solution I can think of at this point is to realistically determine the approach that will benefit our society and world community and unfortunately there are too many who think of this as taking sides and shouting invectives against those they disagree with.

There needs to be a responsible dialogue coming from the Left as well. It can't be just about one side winning over the other. Platitudes and shiboleths need to be challenged from all sides and at times forcefully.

Frank