George Lakoff on Pres Obama & "The Deal" - lefty counter to Frank Luntz

[housewolf]

If you only read one article today, make it this one. It's long, but it might be the most important article you've read in a long time.

Untellable Truths

But what is being ignored is that the answer to material policy questions depends on how Americans understand the issues, that is, on how the issues are realized in the brains of our citizens. Such understanding is what determines political support or lack of it in all its forms, from voting to donations to political pressure to what is said in the media.

What policies are proposed and adopted depend on how Americans understand policy and politics. That understanding depends on communication. And it is in that the Democrats -- both the president and his progressive critics -- have surrendered. The Democrats have left effective communication to the conservatives, who have taken advantage of their superior communications all too well.

From the progressive viewpoint, the president keeps surrendering in advance -- giving in to conservatives before he has to and hence betraying Democratic principles. From the president's perspective he is not surrendering at all; instead he is a pragmatic incrementalist -- getting the best deal he can for the poor and middle class one step at a time. Progressives differ on the reasons for the president's behavior. Either he has no backbone to stand up for what he believes in, or his actions define his beliefs and he is more conservative than those who voted for him thought.

I want to shift the frame to the major causal factor that is being ignored on both sides: the role of communication in shaping what Americans understand.

Helping the Other Side

As someone who studies how brains work and how language affects politics, I see things somewhat differently. From my perspective, there is a form of surrender in advance on both sides -- a major communications surrender. The conservative slogan activates the conservative view of taxes. But the progressive slogan "No tax cuts for millionaires" also activates the conservative view of taxes! The progressives are helping the conservatives. The conservatives have a superior message machine: Dozens of think tanks with communications facilities, framing experts, training institutes, a national roster of speakers, booking agents to books their speakers in the media and civic groups, and owned medias like Fox News and a great deal of talk radio. Their audience will hear, over and over, "No one should have their taxes raised." There is no comparable progressive message machine. But even if one were to be built, the Democrats might still be using messages that are either ineffective or that help the conservatives. Why?

...

so much more worth reading and considering

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/untellable-truths_b_794832.html

[provis99]

1. his article is a mixed bag.

his stuff on the cognitive structure of liberal and conservatives sounds good, especially when talking about rationality vs emotions.Since this is his area of specialty, his comments on the flawed thinking of political scientists vs marketing majors sounds correct. In his prescriptions of what to do, and how liberals behave, is where he stumbles, likely because this area is in fact the area of political science, one that he understands less.

From my political science point of view, and based on what I've seen done in voter research, Lakoff's prescriptions are politically naive, and even counterproductive. He is wrong I believe, in defining the independents as those who have conservative and liberal cross-cutting morality; he is thus confusing moderates with political independants, who are a partisan group. It would be like confusing liberal with Democrat, and conservative with Republican. Independents are distinguished from Democrats and Republicans not by having cross-pressured morality, but rather by having astounding levels of political ignorance when compared to Republicans and Democrats. Independents are essentially independents because they do not know enough about Democrats and Republicans to have any idea of what these parties are even about. Trying to reach them through moral sway won't work, since it is ignorance that is the problem, and not cross-pressured morality. Independents do in fact fall easily into strictly liberal or conservative camps when they become aware of political information; they are generally not cross-pressured.

His other observations in the It's complicated section are not complicated, but rather banal ("educate the press and pollsters..."; well no kidding!)

His Untellable Truths section is rather ironical, given his complaints that liberals are rational thinkers, while other voters are more emotional-oriented, in that he lays out a bunch of complicated public policy prescriptions founded on long, complex rational arguments. Thus, the Lakoff of the first section would tell the Lakoff of this third section that he is going about this in the wrong way!

We will never win over Republicans to mass support a Democrat, thus we must reach the independent voter, who are profoundly ignorant of politics, or even their own policy preferences. What works best for this group is simple, positive slogans. "Change we can believe in" is one such good, albeit vacuous statement. "Hope and change" is another; "Yes we can" is even better. Obama's advisors hit the trifecta with these three.

In order to win independents again next time around, we need simple, vacuous, content free slogans with vague, positive-sounding words: words like "Freedom!" or "God bless Something!", or slogans like "Moving America Forward", "Keeping America Strong", or "Small Town Values". It may sound like bullshit, but bullshit is what the independents want.

Politicians hate giving policy speeches on the campaign trail; they like photo ops, pictures with their family, appearing at events with their sleeves rolled up, shaking hands, smiling, putting their hand on their heart when singing "God Bless America", and stuff like that, because they know the truth: this silly stuff works, while policy speeches and rational arguments do not, in trying to persuade the ignorant independent voter.

[OHdem10]

2. The biggest mistake Liberals(and I am one) make is thinking

everyone is ignorant. Is this an excuse not to communicate?

Just today WSJ had an article in which Kerry was described
--my gosh you would think he is some intellectual elitist
who looks down on every one. It was not fair.

But there is a reason for the phrase "Liberal Elite" It is
an attitude that we need to get passed. You never hear
Conservative Elite.

I think Lakeoff is really saying. What is our vision for
the country. Have we painted a word picture interesting
enough that people would be willing to follow the path
to that vision? When we put out legislation do we explain
how this fits into the overall goal or vision.

[guruoo]

3. k&r

[mazzarro]

4. Liberals Disadvantages Need Quick Solutions

But the conservative message machine, over the past 30 years, has come to own the word "tax." They have changed its meaning to most Americans. They have been able to make "tax" mean "money the government takes out of the pockets of people who have earned it in order to give it to people who haven't earned it and don't deserve it." Thus, "tax relief" assumes that taxation is an affliction to be cured, and a "tax cut" is a good thing in general. Hence, conservatives make the argument, "No one should have their taxes raised."

The conservative slogan activates the conservative view of taxes. But the progressive slogan "No tax cuts for millionaires" also activates the conservative view of taxes! The progressives are helping the conservatives.

The conservatives have a superior message machine: Dozens of think tanks with communications facilities, framing experts, training institutes, a national roster of speakers, booking agents to books their speakers in the media and civic groups, and owned medias like Fox News and a great deal of talk radio. Their audience will hear, over and over, "No one should have their taxes raised."

There is no comparable progressive message machine. But even if one were to be built, the Democrats might still be using messages that are either ineffective or that help the conservatives. Why?

My take is that liberals/progressives have for so long been ignoring what has been obvious - the "unrivaled dominance" of the conservative messaging machine.

The conservatives have even made it look like the main stream media is liberal when actually it is conservative in ownership and the direction of message dissemination. Yes - there are a few liberal bright spots in the media but essentially it is conservative in control and messaging.

The same obvious disadvantage exists in the think tanks. The conservative upper hand in seminar and speaking circuits is unrivaled by the liberal counterparts and until these are addressed liberals will continue to play catch up all the time and never take the lead to set the agenda.

[housewolf]

7. I've long thought that communicatioins "deficit" of the left was a key factor

Our folks just can't seem to communicate to the populus in ways that win their resonate and call forth support as well as Conservatives can. They've spent years and millions (if not billions) of dollars building a communciations infra-structure.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. The part about their 'machine' and raft of speakers and such

stands out for me. I have long seen that the RNC sends the right speaker to events, they 'cast' the speaker, but the DNC hands out public speaking slots and TV slots as rewards for service. The DNC does not seem to acknowledge the special skills needed for communications. This is also part of what feeds the domination of news media by conservatives. They send talent, we send some House Rep whose turn to speak has come around.
This methodolgy seems to go to every level of the Party.

[wakemewhenitsover]

6. Sharp insights - K&R

From his mouth to the communal Democratic ear.