Cyrus Dugger

Help: Neutral Term for ‘Tort Reform’

That’s the title of a post by Robert J. Ambrogi on the problem of re-framing the conservative vocabulary of tort “reform” on the Law.com Blog Network. He links to Tort Deform, but does so saying this:

So what should we label the debate over changes to our justice system? Lakoff’s suggestion is to replace “tort reform” with “destruction of the civil justice system.” For its blog about civil justice, the Drum Major Institute uses a name that Ralph Nader helped popularize, Tort Deform. These names certainly succeed in reframing the debate, but they get us no closer to neutral than where we started. (link)

Below is the full post, and a discussion about the challenge of finding a new vocabulary, as well as the limitations of using arguably charged responses like “tort deform.”

It’s a valid point, and it’s a really hard question. How do you describe the need for a civil justice system that allows persons with potential claims to fairly access the courts i.e. access to justice? But most people who hear “civil justice system” or “access to justice” have no idea what they mean. In turn, how do you describe the legislative campaign against this ability to access the courts without using that movement’s own slanted vocabulary i.e. tort “reform.”

Even after all this time, I don’t feel as if I have come up with any particularly compelling new catch phrases. It’s hard to describe in a few words all that is encompassed in the fight for access to justice, or in the dangers of (and I winch to use the phrase) tort “reform.”

I’ve contented myself with simply putting the “reform” in tort reform in quotes whenever I use it, but there’s got to be a better approach, because just quoting something isn’t the best re-framing one could hope for.

I can say that in picking the name for this blog, the concerns voiced in Ambrogi’s post were shared by us as well, but Tort Deform is what we ultimately went with, for better or for worse.

Very smart people have been struggling with this issue for decades, and have arguably come up short on finding vocabulary that really resonates with people and at the same time properly describes the issues and interests at stake.

But maybe you have the new vocabulary that everybody is looking for. If so please discuss it in a comment or email me personally at cdugger@drummajorinstitute.org

Here’s the full post:

Help: Neutral Term for ‘Tort Reform’

My previous post today mentioned Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch, an organization seeking to bring “balance, fairness and common sense to our civil justice system.” Of course, when it comes to the civil justice system, one person’s idea of “balance, fairness and common sense” is certainly not another’s. Groups such as I-LAW often refer to themselves as promoting “tort reform,” and bloggers and journalists often run with this label. But “reform” is a word that suggests improvement for the better, so to call revision of the tort system “reform” is tacitly to endorse it.

In an interview last year, George Lakoff, a fellow of the liberal Rockridge Institute think tank, argued that use of the phrase “tort reform” is part of the way conservatives have “cleverly framed the public discussion.” He said:

“[T]he very phrase ‘tort reform’ evokes a frame. In two words, it communicates that something is the matter with the tort system, which requires reform or correction. In this respect, the phrase is similar to another effective conservative phrase, ‘tax relief.’ Once the public accepts these phrases, they have bought into the idea that they need to be relieved from the affliction of taxes and that they need to fix the tort system. The debate then turns to the question of how and how much. At that point, progressives can’t win the debate; the best we can do is limit the losses.”

So what should we label the debate over changes to our justice system? Lakoff’s suggestion is to replace “tort reform” with “destruction of the civil justice system.” For its blog about civil justice, the Drum Major Institute uses a name that Ralph Nader helped popularize, Tort Deform. These names certainly succeed in reframing the debate, but they get us no closer to neutral than where we started.

Even the Wikipedia tort reform entry is tagged with a dispute over the neutrality of the title. So for those of us who wish to refer to the debate in a neutral manner, what should we call it, if anything? Help us, readers, come us with a neutral phrase for the often-acrimonious discussion about civil justice in the United States. (link)

Posted at 9:41 AM, Mar 23, 2007 in Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)