How do people feel about dems using language to manipulate?

[jdj]

There is a new book out (someone remind me of the name if you know it) that talks about dems losing the "war of words" with Republicans because we aren't as good at manipulating people with slogans.

I think this is because we don't necessarily want to manipulate people because we still believe, however naively, that the truth will prevail. Should dems come up with some nauseating slogan selection like "family values", "anti-americanism", "partial-birth" and all that b.s.?

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Unfortunately we need to

it is called PR and it is needed

[charlyvi]

2. We already have a slogan..

It's....Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Thomas Jefferson said it first.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. Are you talking about PRofessor Lakoff's work?

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/08/25_lakoff.shtml

I think language matters when it comes to making images stick for those that are not critical thinkers

[jdj]

12. yes, that's it, thank you.

[George_S]

24. The neocons propaganda is backfiring on them big time

We don't want to make that mistake. Slogans based on reality and facts are fine, but when they are nothing but propaganda, they can only work short term and will backfire eventually.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. It's not about slogans but about framing the issues..Reagan framed

welfare as WELFARE QUEENS...it stuck

[George_S]

27. Thanks for the link, btw

I'm buying Lakoff's book.

[The Minus World]

4. Pretty Poorly

Republicans require such newspeak to legitimize behaviour which would otherwise be rejected outright.

Participating in a "war of words" would be would simply be assent to the false idea that, just like the republicans, we would need to resort to lies and marketing strategies rather than truth to get our message out.

The truth is much more effective than a slogan anyhow.

[AVESGA]

5. Thesaurus

"Republican" = "Right wing"
"Corporate America" = "corporate elites"
"Death Tax (repeal)" = "sperm lotto giveaway"
"Conservative" = "Radical Extremist"
"School prayer" = "forced prayer"

[Heidi]

6. Hate it.

Should dems come up with some nauseating slogan selection like "family values", "anti-americanism", "partial-birth" and all that b.s.?

If double-talk becomes our language of choice, I'm done. Truth is the next new, old thing. We're onboard or we're not.

[drunkdriver-in-chief]

7. Hey dood - that's how the game is played

Issues don't really matter - it's all about personalities and mudslinging. Democrats (though not kerry himself) should always refer to bush as bring-em-on bush or cakewalk george or awol george or chicken-in-chief.

I'm not really being cynical but the fact is that we have to make things simple. Not because americans are dumb but because most americans have jobs and families and don't have time to stay on top of the issues.

[ThoughtCriminal]

8. It only works for a while

Eventually the disconnect between propaganda and reality becomes too obvious.

[feistydem]

9. I always believed ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS, but...

Republicans have turned that idea on it's head --when poor, unemployed people without healthcare support Bush.

I hope (Dems) we never join them as hypocritic liars. I'd have to quit this party if we became as ugly as the rightwing.

[peacetalksforall]

10. I believe in phrases - call them slogans, if you want...

Peace on Earth, Brotherhood of Man, Honor the Earth. Earth Protectors. Reach Out. Of the Peope, For the People, By the People.

[napi21]

11. I do think slogans work! I don't think either side has any good ones

for this election!

Remember the feeling you got when they kept playing "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow" when BC appeared?

Reagan had "It's morning again in America".

Every campaign tries to get some easily remembered phrase or song.

Unfortunately, few succeed.

[drunkdriver-in-chief]

14. In 2000 Bush used ERA OF RESPONSIBILITY

That was a good slogan but he sure as hell can't use it anymore. To hear george tell it, nothing is ever his fault.

[StupidFOX]

13. We don't need slogans, we have the facts.

[Fovea]

15. Reductionism is a great evil

But it is also the only way to
pack the message into the 10 second window of opportunity
provided by the news media.

(that is one reason they love the pugs so much)

We have done this too, but our mastery of framing has slipped.
We have to learn how to use slogans effectively, and attach them to larger policy statements.

We have policy that most people want, once you peel the Puglican label off them. We are starting to show the Pugs what it feels like to be wrapped in lables. And ours stick harder, because they are true.

Is reductionism a good policy? No.
Is is what we have been subjected to from the pugs since Reagan?
Yes.

Remember, Dukakis was a whimp, Gore a liar, Clinton was Hitler, Stalin, *and* Bluebeard. I want to leave you with a quote from a favorite play, 'The Lion in Winter' which sums up my feelings about the Republican Party currently.

"I could peel you like a pear, and God himself would call it justice. Nothing I could do to you is too much, nothing is wanton."

[greyfox]

16. WHAT!?

Hahahah, surely you jest! This from a group who has Mister Goof-Pronouncer himself as a "leader"? Gads, Shrub can't even TALK and they claim WE have problems? LOL

[skygazer]

17. It's called propaganda

And as George Orwell said, all propaganda is a lie, even when it's true.

I don't want my party trying to manipulate people and make them believe something they might otherwise not believe. When that starts happening, it won't be my party any longer.

[RC]

18. What ever happened to Truth and Facts?

Everything has to be twisted, manipulated, sloganized. The other side has to be slammed, demonetize, denigrated to make your side look good.

Just the facts, ma'am/sir.

[Nordic]

19. language is by its nature manipulative. Nothing wrong with using it

It's the art of persuasion, the art of poetry, the art of writing, or speaking, itself.

Yes, Dems need to be better at what is basically advertising.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. READ THIS..THIS IS DR LAKOFF'S FOCUS..it's about FRAMING issues

For nearly 40 years, George Lakoff has been one of the world’s best-known linguists. Professor Lakoff is widely recognized for his research on metaphorical thought, the embodied mind, and the structure of language. But in recent years, his application of cognitive science and linguistics to politics has brought him to national attention.

With colleagues at the University of California, Professor Lakoff founded the Rockridge Institute, a new political think tank dedicated to reframing political thought and political debate in this country. He has a new book to appear in August, DON’T THINK OF AN ELEPHANT! WHAT EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD KNOW ABOUT VALUES AND THE FRAMING WARS.

Professor Lakoff sits down with David Brancaccio to talk about how effective language is shaping the current election.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/lakoff.html

[Logansquare]

21. It's just taking control of the terminology or "reframing"

For example, our opponents really *aren't* "conservative."
They are right wing radicals or right wing extremists. There's nothing "conservative" about what they are trying to do to country.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. outsourcing the job to afghan warlords

i think we started

:bounce:


more shamefully: welfare to workfare: that was us too

[Bozos for Bush]

23. We must always stick to the truth, period.

We are no better than our enemies, if we resort to their methods.

And truth is on our side folks - just keep hammering away with those pesky facts and details, and don't let neo-cons spin their way out of the mess that they have created.

[UdoKier]

26. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

There was a time when labor and other leftist activists on the left knew the value of images and rhetoric and used it very effectively. The 20s and 30s were a good example - of course the times also made people more inclined to take a look.

The latter half of this century lulled liberals into thinking we lived in a civilized society and that everyone would just play fair.

Of course that was unbelievable naive. The ruling class has nnever and never will play fair. They killed people for tying to unionize, they created the red scare and branded any liberal celebrity a communist. They assassinated democratically elected foreign leaders they saw as a threat to their business interests abroad and even plotted acts of terrorism against our own people to mobilize support for wars against communism. (Operation Northwoods)

So yeah, if we have to take a few liberties with the language to win people over, it would hardly be a cardinal sin. We alrready to it to a degree anyway, we're just a lot more cclumsy at it than they are.

[Robbie67]

28. Well, Dems certainly try to catch up

"I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty!"

Sometimes it works, sometimes...

[Thurston Howell IV]

30. sometimes you need to respond to attacks before letting a month pass

Not suggesting that the Democratic Convention was the optimal approach, but I believe that letting the swift boat liars have their way for so long was a huge, easily foreseen mistake. They even knew they needed to respond to attacks -- they had some version of Clinton's War Room, but didn't act.

[chefgirl]

29. We must learn to use language more effectively

I would recommend Lakoff's book: Moral Politics, How Liberals and Conservatives Think.

I DO think Dems need to get better at 'framing' issues by using the most effective language. This is not to say that it has to be propoganda, just efficient use of the language.

You can still be truthful and choose one word or phrase over another to make your point more succinctly. After all, isn't that why our teachers made us study vocabulary in school?

As an example, not everyone will hear the word 'liberal' and think the same thing, but almost everyone who hears the words 'inclusive' or 'welcoming' would have a positive reaction.

To all those in this thread who think using the language to our benefit is dishonest or too Republican, I urge you to read the book and rethink the original poster's question.

-chef-

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. The idea rather bothers me.

If the only way to win is by resorting to linguistic trickery and Goebbelsian propaganda, then effectively no party may claim any moral superiority in means, regardless of differing ends.

[Thurston Howell IV]

32. See this video. Not propaganda, but communicating your values effectively

How Democrats and Progressives Can Win
http://www.webrebbe.com/rebbe/WindowsMedia9/VTS_01_1.wmv
http://www.webrebbe.com/rebbe/WindowsMedia9/part2.WMV

We need to understand these ideas and learn how to use them.
Lakoff warns against being taken in by Orwellian language, and certainly doesn't advocate that we use it. Use of Orwellian language comes from a position of weakness.

Some notes:
Values win elections. Conservatives have figured out their values, and how to communicate them. They communicate their programs in terms of values. Democrats and Progressives are not clear on their values, and do not communicate them effectively. They tend to talk in terms of programs, not values. And programs bore people. This approach is "true" but ineffective. Explaining your programs in terms of values is "true" but effective.

Examples of Democratic/Progressive values:
Empathy
Responsibility
Strength (to carry out that responsibility)

Protection
Fairness
Fulfillment
Freedom
Opportunity
Prosperity
Community
Service
Cooperation
Trust
Honesty
Open Communication

All proposed programs that progressives/democrats put forward come out of this set of values.

This barely scratches the surface. Check of the video, then get the book "Moral Politics." After the election is over, we all need to digest and integrate these kinds of ideas to more effectively communicate to a broader audience that doesn't already agree with us.

[leftofthedial]

33. the peace and prosperity party?

the good jobs party?

the perpetual orgasm party?

[madfloridian]

34. We must do it for now. Example: Liberal is our word, not theirs.

They have muddied it. Dean wrote the forward for Lakoff's book, and it was required reading for his campaign. He is trying to take back liberal now and keep us from being ashamed of it.