How to Talk Like a Conservative (If You Must) : Lakoff interview.

[madfloridian]

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/10/10_401.html
SNIP..."Last Thursday evening, about 150 people packed into the back of a Berkeley bookstore to watch the third and final presidential debate. As Kerry smacked Bush around onscreen, they munched on baguettes and brie and issued an occasional collective groan. But the night’s main attraction was the post-debate commentator, linguist and cognitive scientist George Lakoff. Lakoff, a professor at the University of California --Berkeley and a founder of the Rockridge Institute, has emerged as the left’s message guru, the go-to guy for anyone interested in understanding why conservatives are winning the language wars and how liberals can retool their message..."
The book is here.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1931498717/qid%3D1097888118/sr%3D2-1/ref%3Dpd%5Fka%5Fb%5F2%5F1/103-6270465-0668645

SNIP..."Liberals shouldn’t even bother trying to win over hardcore conservatives, says Lakoff. But he thinks they have a shot at the middle-of-the-road swing voters who share parts of both worldviews. To do this, Lakoff says liberals must reframe every issue from tax cuts to the war on terror. The Rockridge Institute, Lakoff’s Berkeley-based think thank, has started on this project. Yet, so far, some of the specifics are vague or off-target. For instance, Lakoff has recommended replacing the loaded phrase “trial lawyer” with “public protection lawyer,” a clunky construction that might make John Edwards blush.

But the left is listening to Lakoff. The blogger Kos gushed that Don’t Think of an Elephant “put things in perspective in a way I was previously unable to do.” Howard Dean, who made his staff read Moral Politics, called him “one of the most influential thinkers of the progressive movement.” And, at times, John Kerry has sounded a lot like Lakoff, challenging Bush’s claims on qualities such as strength, security, and integrity...."

[Kanary]

1. If the Dems, and Kerry, had an ounce of intelligence, they would have

hired this guy as an intense consultant.

:shrug:

Kanary

[grasswire]

4. I don't think....

...they've a smart strategist in Dem leadership, unfortunately. Kerry should be ten points ahead. The campaign has consistently failed to deal with Bush tricks and failed to (as Aaron Sorkin said last night on CNBC) speak in a way that "lifts hearts" and "puts a lump in the throat."

If Kerry had hired Lakoff and Will Rivers Pitt, he'd be looking at Bush in the rear view mirror by now.

[Kanary]

5. You're right, only I would have said more like 15 or 20 points.

but, of course, if there is a loss, it'll be back to blaming nader or something like that.

Never looking at faulty strategy. Heavens, no.

Oh well..... I'm not in control, and there's nothing I can do. It's their ballgame, and their win or loss.

I really pisses me off that Merkin politics has sunk to this level, and the country has to spend it's energy and $$$$ in a dirty fight like this. But given that's the state of the country, you'd think we'd have wised up in the last 4 years.

:shrug:

OH well, time to go have some fun........ t'ain't my worry.....

Kanary

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. "conservatives are winning the language wars"

No they aren't, they are winning the nitwit evangelical "left behind" war. Its a war that nobody wants to bother to engage them in.

[MatrixEscape]

3. They won't win it if ...

People become more generally aware of just how EXTREME the Religious Right's Dominionist agenda is. Right now, it is literally a wolf in sheep's clothing. They have a very wide-range of sects under their flag, but I doubt if a large part of that base knows the underlying doctrine.

The want it all and it would play out as Religious Fascism if they won. That is why it is a good idea to not estrange Christians who are not total wingnuts. The thinkers and the more liberal among them will easily see the deceptions.

[Rose Siding]

6. They are better at it.

It isn't just the fringe nitwits who accept for discussion the terms in this excerpt, it's mainstream nitwits too: media and all the repubs in Congress-

snip>
The key, he says, is not to shift rightward politically, but to lift a few moves from the right’s linguistic playbook. Lakoff is trying to teach liberals what conservatives have known for years: the skill of defining, or “framing,” issues in a way that makes it next to impossible for the other side to contradict you. By consciously and cleverly framing the terms used in the debate, you define the debate itself. “Clear Skies” and “partial-birth abortion” aren’t just catchphrases; they’re brilliantly self-contained arguments.
.............

I can't think of any terms that the left has promoted that have become universally acceptable, party-wide. I'm hopeful that "reality based community" will catch on but it's really more reactive than innovative.

[madfloridian]

7. I like this statement by Lakoff.

"MJ.com: If Bush wins, what do you think liberals should do? Should they be focused on keeping their base intact, or undermining Bush’s support among conservatives? "

"GL: First, they have to get their act together. Democrats have to unite. I think the Democratic Leadership Council has to be thrown out. You have to stop this thing about moving to the right and following the polls instead of leading in them and so on. Some united progressive movement has to be formulated, with complete framing on every issue and with a characterization of what a unified Democratic party ought to be. I think movement building is the first order of business. And building a real party that has a vision, that has values, and has political principles that people agree on is the very first thing that has to be done. We have to get ourselves together. We’ll also have to fend off the conservatives very powerfully and we’ll have to do both at the same time. I think what will happen is that the people who have organized for this election are not going to go away. We’ve never seen a progressive organization like this since the '60s."