My problem with Lakoff

[eridani]

I think that the whole 'framing' issue has been seriously compromised by the success of the corporate media in, above all, making so many people passive. That way the first step in reaching them is couched in terms of political parties framing their issues as if the government is supposed to be our parent.

I think what we should be looking for instead is adulthood. The government isn't really supposed to be our parent, whether nurturing or strict. WE are supposed to be the government! That is we, as equal adults, consulting with each other about how to manage the public sphere. (Given that these management tasks are specialized, in practice it means overseeing the practices of those specialists.)The Repubs, of course, think that the public sphere shouldn't really exist except to transfer as many public goods as possible to their private cronies.

A framing that I particularly like--

http://www.counterpunch.org/smith05052003.html

'Customer' and 'consumer' were not the only words being used to change the nature of citizenship. David Kemmis, the mayor of Missoula, MT, pointed out that the word 'taxpayer' now "regularly holds the place which in a true democracy would be occupied by 'citizen.' Taxpayers bear a dual relationship to government, neither half of which has anything at all to do with democracy. Taxpayers pay tribute to the government and they receive services from it. So does every subject of a totalitarian regime. What taxpayers do not do, and what people who call themselves taxpayers have long since stopped even imagining themselves doing, is governing."

Then there was growing use of the term "stakeholder" that covertly diminished the citizens' role to that of a minor participant. Ironically, 'stakeholder' literally means a person who holds the money while two other people bet. Whoever wins, the stakeholder gets nothing.

Another phrase that started cropping up was 'civil society,' a patronizing description of people who, in a democracy, are meant to be running the place. The term has come to used in elite circles with roughly the same condescension of a bishop talking about a church altar guild.

[Kolesar]

1. adulthood--I like it

I have had trouble with the nurturing or strict analysis. Since I am critical by nature, I tend to judge political issues individually. I look for causal relationships and decide which solution is best.

[quaker bill]

2. Another poor frame

Republicans have worked quite hard to build a frame where "government" is the "enemy", or the "other" that holds "us" back. "if we only got government off our backs"...

Government is in fact that which creates the conditions for anything that resembles the "american dream" to occur. A free and universal quality public education is the foundation on which private success is built. Businesses thrive on an educated workforce.

Government also builds the infrastructure on which business depends and thrives. It provides an infrastructure for transportation of raw materials and finished goods. It provides the stable and secure market place and financial system that business requires.

Government is in fact not some "other" thing. It is composed of people like you and me. It is composed of people who have dedicated their careers toward public service.

They need to make "government" the enemy. It is the only way we will let them kill it.

[atommom]

5. It's my hope that they'll trip themselves up now that they genuinely

ARE making Government our enemy.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. My problem with Counterpunch

Though the article made several good points, Sam Smith, the author, was unable to refrain from liberal-bashing for more than a few paragraphs, even equating Bill Clinton to George Bush (describing both as "deeply corrupt governors").

In fact, a good chunk of the article was a thinly-veiled celebration of the superior political acumen of Sam Smith. And here was the mandatory gloating to us liberals with yet another post-Nader "I told you so!" that now "informs" Counterpunch's editorial opinion.

It wouldn't be the first potentially good article ruined by Counterpunch-drunkenness.

--p!

[eridani]

4. I was more interested in the citizen vs. taxpayer thing

What Smith thinks of Clinton isn't relevant to that point. I thought the notion of taxpayer corresponded to childhood, and citizenship to adulthood.

[rman]

6. How's that a problem with Lakoff?

Is it because Lakoff does focus on the framing issue while there are other aspects to the problem?
If so, i'd say Lakoff is a linguist, not a man who has all the answers.
Of course there's much more to the problem then just framing. Effective framing will get us only so far if we can't even get a decent amount of airtime in the mainstream media. But the takeover of the media by corporatist interests is not Lakoff's expertise.
I think Lakoff is invaluable if only for pointing out the issue of framing in the first place.
For some additional background i'd recommend Chomsky for academic analysis of the media and David Brock for a look inside the machinery.

[PurityOfEssence]

7. Well said

And since we're talking about linguistics, that's quite appropriate. (You'll note that Chomsky is also a linguist by trade...)

In short, Lakoff is a tactician, not a strategist, and this is easily just as important. I can't tell how many idiotic conversations I've had with working-class dupes of the right who spout the catch-phrases of the day ("9-11 is riddled with errors", "Kerry flip-flops", "we've got to fight them over there", etc.)

Lakoff seeks to give clear, ringing words to the spirit of progressivism, and he's really on to something. That doesn't mean he's got his finger on the pulse of the world, just that he's addressing the battle from a trench warrior's perspective.

[sadiesworld]

8. Just wait until they start calling us "clients".

(World Bank/IMF code for "the end is near")

:scared: