RightWing "New Democrats" trash Lakoff

[eg101]

Word Games
George Lakoff--the Democrats' hottest new thinker--misses the meaning behind the message.

By Kenneth S. Baer
....


No matter how much Lakoff and the left want to reject and misrepresent what Clinton and the New Democrats accomplished, its power is evident in Don't Think of an Elephant. At the end of his book, Lakoff unwittingly embraces the New Democratic public philosophy, offering a “10-word breakdown” of what progressives believe that could have come from the lips of Al From: “Stronger America, Broad Prosperity, Better Future, Effective Government, Mutual Responsibility.” It's a shame that Lakoff is too preoccupied with justifying his own political biases to get the facts right, since his central argument—that a poll-driven, issues-based strategy is a non-starter—is valid and strong.

Therein lies the missed opportunity of this book. Throughout his essays, Lakoff offers up tidbits of useful advice to Democrats, from thinking strategically to warning that progressives need to explain to voters the values that inform their stances, not just the programs they promote. Democrats need to hear this. Since the end of the Clinton administration, the party has reverted back to a politics of materialism in which it promises an assortment of constituencies whatever it is they want in order to build a coalition. This may work in a congressional or even gubernatorial race, but it does not work for national offices—such as for senator and president—where larger, symbolic issues of what America stands for and what it should become are at stake. This strategy defeats itself since it ultimately undermines the overall Democratic “brand,” rendering the party label meaningless and the party's purpose obtuse. More than that, when a new issue arises—such as terrorism—it leaves the party without the intellectual framework to craft a compelling response.

Democrats looking for answers won't find them in the recycled New Left ideas printed, fittingly, on the chlorine-free recycled paper of Don't Think of an Elephant. Rather, Lakoff's book should serve as a wake-up call for Democrats to offer a vision that not only competes with the conservative one but is also positive, powerful, and appealing to Americans across the country—no matter if they are daddy's little girls or momma's boys.

more here:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.baer.html

[stray cat]

1. It is a great book: message, packaging and delivery are important

Republican operatives know this and do it well.

[DireStrike]

2. Al From &co would not bring any of those 10 words to America.

I don't know why this guy thinks the DLC stands for any of that.

[crispini]

3. Huh. Interesting criticism.

The author seems to want to endorse Lakoff on some points but criticize him on others. This paragraph for me kind of sums it up:

I agree with this last insight wholeheartedly: Democrats lose when they think that they can win elections on data points without offering an inspiring vision of the future. Indeed, Lakoff has stumbled upon the central problem facing Democrats since Bill Clinton left office, but his explanation of how he got there is unconvincing, and his advice on how to go forward is misguided. By reducing American politics to language, Lakoff ignores the context that gives meaning to those words. Language only motivates people if the ideas and policies it's connected to resonate with a majority of Americans. It has to be consistent with the realities of American history and the American national character. Throughout his book, Lakoff ignores this context, using his theories to push for an agenda that resonates with him (and possibly his friends at the fringes of left-wing politics), but reflects neither what most Democrats—nor most Americans—believe.

The author agrees with Lakoff's emphasis on values and vision, but seems to be arguing that Lakoff's position on the issues is too far left for the majority of mainstream Americans.

Yet, the author doesn't really make a coherent case for it. He ties this to two specific cases -- tax relief and foreign policy. With the "tax relief" example he points out America's historic anti-tax bias as a way to say that Lakoff is too far left. The author misses Lakoff's whole point of the "tax-relief" example, which is to show that it is a FRAME. What does the historical basis of the anti-tax bias, although interesting, have to do with anything?

Lakoff here is primarily concerned with talking about this issue in a current context, not in an historic context.

Anyway. It's an interesting article, but I think Mr. Baer has missed Lakoff's point. His beef seems to be that Lakoff's position on the issues and/or his vision is too far left, but Lakoff is pretty much just offering us TOOLS to articulate our vision effectively. Lakoff's framing is mental jiu-jitsu, it's not a vision or a set of issues in and of itself.

[gumby]

4. Nice analysis.

Kenneth S. Baer's article sounded like a turf battle to me.

[RogueTrooper]

5. It is a turf battle

the DLC, and their fellow travellers, would like to frame the debate as one between the "New Center" and the "Old Left". A frame with wich they have had much success in the past. However, the turf war is really between "New Democrats" and "Newer Democrats". Newer Democrats would include people such as Simon Rosenburgh, Howard Dean and Donnie Fowler. I have a suspicion that, by incorrectly understanding this new Democratic frame, they have already lost the turf war; but there will be a couple more battles before that becomes truely apparent.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. Sat nite, on "So What Else is New", Marty Kaplan interviewed Mark Warner

(that was on Air America Radio).
Warner was being touted by Sally Quinn as the front runner for the Dem nominee for President in 2008. Kaplan asked him about who should be head of the DNC. Warner said it should not be someone who would be seen as a "shrill partisan", and he also mentioned something about the Dems staying in the middle so as not to "cede the middle to the Republicans".
This is the letter I wrote to Kaplan, and copied to Warner.

Why wouldn't we want the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee to sound like a "shrill partisan"? If the Chairman of the DNC cannot not sound like a partisan, who should?

I do not believe that staying to the left, cedes the center to the right. Obviously, the Republicans do not believe staying to the right cedes the center to the Democrats, and they are correct. They have catered to their base, and it has worked to their advantage. I believe that the Democratic party better adopt the same philosophy if they want to hold onto what remains of their base.
As the Democratic party has moved to the "center", the Republicans have continued to move that "center" more and more to the right, and the DLC and some of the DNC have moved to the right with them.
If the Democratic leadership does not stop following the Republicans as they shift to the right, the entire Democratic leadership will be abandoning the base of the party, and will be left standing alone, with no base following it.
They better give some careful thought to this if they expect to have any success in the next few election cycles.
I, for one, as a lifelong Democrat, will NOT be following the Democratic leadership as they attempt to follow the "center" as it moves further and further to the right. The sad irony is that this hypothetical center is actually being moved by the Republicans, and the Democrats are pathetically following it like a donkey following a carrot.

[eg101]

8. Bush won because he did NOT go to the center

Bush won ONLY because he moved right. If the crats want to win, they should move left. But there is a cost to moving left--it may awaken a dangerous political consciousness in many Americans, one that could throw the bastards out of power.

[struggle4progress]

7. DLC strategy has eroded support for the Democratics nationwide

by identifying Democrats in voters minds as the "Me2" party.

"Republicans want NAFTA? Me2! Republicans oppose welfare? Me2! Republicans want the Defense of Marriage Act? Me2! Republicans want to investigate Whitewater? Me2! Republicans want the PATRIOT Act? Me2! Republicans want to invade Iraq? Me2! Republicans want ..."

No wonder half of America doesn't bother to vote.

Of course, the DLC is right when they say America is a centrist country. But the DLC's bizarre strategic conclusion from this observation is: "Call yourself a centrist, let no daylight show between yourself and the rightwing extremists, and babble condescendingly about 'triangulation' when real Democrats complain."

The complete failure of this policy can be seen in the election results following 1992.

There is good reason to wonder how effective the advice of the linguist Lakoff would be, especially if taken in isolation, without serious longterm grassroots organizing and without candidates who show a real willingness to fight for something beyond "Me2." And Baer is correct that Lakoff's specific advice may actually be politically naive.

But Baer's attack on Lakoff is heavily laced with rightwing crap: it attempts to terrify party regulars with a "leftist" bogeymen while sneering at "chlorine-free recycled paper" and, quite generally, at "liberalism." This is not evidence of centrism from Baer but rather evidence that he is attacking a traditional part of the party from a right-of-center position, a tactic that obviously cannot (and obviously has not) helped the party to gain and hold power.

:puke: