For honest intellectual inquiry or for mere debate, it is vital that discussion be framed correctly.  I recently wrote about the problem of thinking about gun violence with a rifle approach instead of a shotgun approach.  In other words, there is no one action or “silver bullet” that will solve such a difficult problem like gun violence.  Just because one suggestion will not solve all problems, it can still be part of a package of solutions.  Discussion of gun violence needs a wide frame.

For a discussion of tariffs, we need a more narrow frame. Most every economist will cite the principal of comparative advantage and oppose tariffs.  That does not mean individual trade abuses cannot be addressed.  Clearly, China has cheated on certain trade agreements.  That should not be ignored and should be confronted.  But conflating that discussion with a NAFTA renegotiation is misleading and counter-productive.  They need to stand apart and to be discussed apart from each other.  Discussion of tariffs needs a more narrow frame.

For a discussion of North Korea, a narrow, rifle frame of the “they must de-nuclearize” is a waste of time.  An honest discussion must include how the Kim family stays in power, support for their huge but poor population, and how to verify everything they say.  The areas of disagreement are obvious.  Widening the frame of discussion could reveal more areas of agreement.