Does Al Gore have it wrong?

[ClassWarrior]

Not about the climate crisis, of course. I fully support President Gore’s efforts to save the planet.

But the title of his new book is “The Assault on Reason.” In recent television interviews, he’s been speaking out against the dumbing-down of the national discourse. And while I obviously agree with this point of view, I’m wondering if Gore’s thinking in this area is outdated.

To wit, political linguist George Lakoff and his colleagues state, in their powerful book “Thinking Points”:

The discovery of frames requires a reevaluation of rationalism, a 350-year-old theory of mind that arose during the Enlightenment. We say this with great admiration for the rationalist tradition. It is rationalism, after all, that provided the foundation for our democratic system. Rationalism says it is reason that makes us human, and all human beings are equally rational. That is why we can govern ourselves and do not have to rely upon a king or a pope to govern us. And since we are equally rational, the best form of government is a democracy. So far, so good.

But rationalism also comes with several false theories of mind.

• We know from cognitive science research that most thought is unconscious, but rationalism claims that all thought is conscious.

• We know that we think using mechanisms like frames and metaphors. Yet rationalism claims that all thought is literal, that it can directly fit the world; this rules out any effects of framing, metaphors, and worldviews.

• We know that people with different worldviews think differently and may reach completely different conclusions given the same facts. But rationalism claims that we all have the same universal reason. Some aspects of reason are universal, but many others are not—they differ from person to person based on their worldview and deep frames.

• We know that people reason using the logic of frames and metaphors, which falls outside of classical logic. But rationalism assumes that thought is logical and fits classical logic.

Rationalism says that people vote on the basis of their material self-interest, that they are conscious of why they voted, that they can tell a pollster what their most important concerns are, and that they will vote for the candidate who best addresses those concerns.

But we know from Wirthlin (see Chapter 1) that this is false. The rationalist theory of voters isn’t true. Yet progressive pollsters still act as if it is. And progressive candidates take their advice. They run on a laundry list of programs recommended by their pollsters and act as if Wirthlin had never made his discovery.

If you believed in rationalism, you would believe that the facts will set you free, that you just need to give people hard information, independent of any framing, and they will reason their way to the right conclusion. We know this is false, that if the facts don’t fit the frames people have, they will keep the frames (which are, after all, physically in their brains) and ignore, forget, or explain away the facts. The facts must be framed in a way to make sense in order to be accepted as a basis for further reasoning.

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org

Is Gore wasting valuable face time condemning the “assault on reason,” when he really should be spending his airtime embracing, promoting, and using framing to promote his reasoning?

NGU.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1. Have you read his book? nt.

[ClassWarrior]

14. As I said, I base my comments on TV appearances I saw.

But with all the endorsements on this thread, I beginning to realize that I need to pick up a copy.

NGU.

[Nickster]

2. Interesting question. I've read a lot of Lakoff and I thought about what he said in

regards to rationalism and had the same questions you did. I don't think that he has it necessarily wrong, I think the points that Lakoff had are important, but in a different context from what Gore is doing.

If you look at Gore's book as a "campaign" book or his statement on policy, then I think he has an outdated mindset. He's only going to be speaking to his base so to speak. If he's a candidate, then he needs to work out the framing to get the message of Assault On Reason to the masses. I'm not sure where Gore is going, part of me thinks he's thinking about a campaign, the other part of me thinks he's just laying out his thoughts on our current situation and leaving it to others to get the "messaging" across or basically writing an outline for what we should be demanding of our next candidate.

Also, I do get the feeling from reading Gore's book that he did a decent job of identifying the framing that is being used against us, even if he didn't intentionally mean to. I guess it just boils down to whether he is using this book as a vehicle to attract voters, or to speak to readers that think the way he does.

[postulater]

3. I might have to read it to find out what a frame is.

[Nickster]

4. It's actually pretty simple. It's the difference between saying Death Tax or Estate Tax.

When you use each phrase, your mind thinks of the same thing but in different "lights" so to speak. Death Tax is bad and of course no one should be taxed on their death. On the other hand, estates are owned by rich people, rich people can afford more taxes, so that's ok. If your a republican, you want to use Death Tax, if your a Democrat, you want to use Estate Tax.

[ClassWarrior]

7. If you want to find out what a frame is, read...

..."Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff, or "Thinking Points" which I mentioned above.

NGU.

[unblock]

5. this is a great point. it's too long been the case that republicans could SELL better

the democrats have long had the better ideas, but republicans have long been better at selling theirs.

we might condemn their media manipulation and so on, but at the same time, the less ethically problematic of their techniques should be happily adopted by democrats.

some of it is just being better prepared for speeches, better style, more pomp and circumstance, etc.

[Cleita]

6. Yeah, I guess reason is outdated. It does date back

to those old fashioned Greeks more than two thousand years ago. They knew nothing. :sarcasm:

[ClassWarrior]

11. How far does...

...closed-mindedness date back?

NGU.

[YvonneCa]

8. He's not wasting...

...time or anything else. Gore's book is EXCELLENT. Please read.

[AlGore-08.com]

9. A.) Gore's not pushing classic rationalism B.) Gore is reframing the debate

Away from "Are the Democrats framing the debate effectively" to more important issues like "How can we restore a healthy, working democracy to America" and "How can we make sure our democracy survives future eras run by incompetents, ideologues and/or political cowards".

"Framing" is another way to say "Spin". Framing is the same technique used by McDonald's to convince folks that their food is part of a healthy lifestyle, or Jeep to convince folks that environmentally conscience folks all drive Hummers. Framing is what the Bush admin did in the run up to the Iraq war to convince the majority of Americans that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Framing is what the Nazis did in Germany and what the Soviets did in Russia, only they called it "Propaganda".

By itself, framing cannot defeat the framing of an opponent who has greater access to mass media and/or less critical reception from the mass media. It doesn't matter if you come up with the greatest talking point in history to sell the Democratic party's position on the Iraq war if George W. Bush gets 24/7 TV coverage of his every utterance, and all you get is a chance to stand at the intersection of county road six and U.S. 41 waving a hand painted cardboard sign. It doesn't matter if you come up with the most effective stump speech ever framing the Democratic party's position on poverty, if every time the mainstream media report on you that they turn your microphone off after three seconds and then spend ten minutes discussing whether your $600 haircut or your McMansion or your latest tax return has ruined your credibility as a populist.

To paraphrase Gore (which is always dangerous to do because he's a lot smarter than me) the point of the book is that American democracy is in trouble because the primary way our policies and campaigns are decided is through 30 TV ads (the ultimate framing device). These ads are a one way conversation from the politician at the voter, designed to manufacture the voter's consent. Manufacturing consent is, by definition, not democratic. But manufacturing consent is even less democratic when voters are intentionally mislead about what they're consenting to.

(Back to me and my thoughts.) A good example of why the question is much bigger than "Are the Democrats framing the debate effectively" occurred here in LA recently. We had a run off special election for where the only races were a couple school board seats and a couple community college board seats. My school district had one of the open seats, so I saw one school board candidate's TV ads run for three weeks straight before the election!

It was the same ad over and over (and I can't begin to tell you how sick I was of it by the time the election was held). The ad said: "The other candidate is on the school board and voted himself a huge raise. He opposes charter schools. Our candidate is a mother of school aged children and supports charter schools. Vote for our candidate." The frame was obvious - - the other guy was a corrupt career pol who voted for the special interests (in this case, the teacher's union); our candidate is not a politician, she's a real person, just like me.

There is nothing about political ads or the theory of framing that would ensure that this framing was accurate. As we have seen in over the last six years, it would have been easy for "our candidate" to have twisted the record of "the other candidate" to make something innocent like him voting for the first increase in school funding in twenty years sound like he is just in politics to line his own pockets - - and to strip a statement or vote out of context to make a life long advocate of charter schools look like an opponent.

So how did "the other candidate" frame his counter attack? "Our Candidate" was the mayor's choice to take the school board seat, and the mayor helped line up major funding for her. "The other candidate" did not have a political machine behind him, he did not have the funds to run TV ads, so his counter attack was not on TV. He didn't have enough money for radio ads. He went out and talked to voters and called reporters requesting interviews but the media did not cover him - - their attitude was why bother, it's only a school board race.

Is anybody surprised that "our candidate" won?

There you have a race won by superior framing. But democracy was not necessarily served. Was "our candidate" the better candidate? Was she more experienced? Did she have better solutions to our problems? Was she even remotely competent? We have no way of knowing, based on the one campaign commercial that was her campaign. After she's been in office awhile, we may know - - because if she turns out to be Bush level incompetent or corrupt, the local media will eventually notice. But if she's just run of the mill incompetent, or run of the mill corrupt - - or even if she turns out to be one of the all time great school board members in U.S. history, the media will never report on her.

My role in this process can only be passive. I am supposed to watch "our candidate's" TV ad, react emotionally to her framing ("That other candidate is a typical scumbag pol!" "Our candidate seems so authentic!" etc.), and take that emotional reaction into the voting booth with me. There's no place in this process for my feedback - - no way for me to enter the TV commercial and ask what's so great about charter schools in the first place or offer my own suggestions for improving charter schools or warn other voters that "our candidates" TV ad distorts the records and positions of her and "the other candidate".

The only way I can reframe this race is if I am rich enough to create and broadcast my own TV ads. (And sometimes, just having the money to pay for ads can't get you air time, as MoveOn.org has discovered in the past.)

What Gore wants us to think about (again, blame me for inaccuracies, not Gore) is how can we change the political system so that the primary political conversations are two way conversations between the voters and their Representatives? How can we change the political debate so that as many people as possible can participate, rather than just the super rich? How can we ensure that our national policy decisions are made by people who respect facts and respect other peoples' opinions, rather than by people who are too ideologically driven or too corrupt to listen to anyone else?

[ClassWarrior]

10. I'd suggest you read "Thinking Points."

Framing is not simply a McDonald's ad campaign or "spin." It's much deeper than that. Please pick up the book.

Again, I agree with the points Gore appears to be making. It just seems to me - from his television interviews - that he's complaining about the way it should be, rather than working with the way it is. And yes, I need to read "Assault on Reason" too.

NGU.

[Locrian]

12. thats my take

From what I see and have read in the book he is trying to break the frame that its all bush's fault. It is the decision / debate / information process that is broken. Not that he doesnt lambast bush - he does need to to show what is going on, but he's careful to say at the end that it SHOULNDT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAPPEN if we had a working system (decision / debate / information).

Its very easy to fall into the trap of blaming one person or group, and /or expecting one person or group to save us all. I think THAT is why Gore is on the fence about running. It WONT WORK if everyone expects him to just step in and save us if the SYSTEM does not change. Especially with climate change requiring EVERYONE to work together.

So I think Gore is trying to re-frame the issue from villan /saviour to the fact that we are all important and need to participate - or there WILL be villans or opportunists that step in and manipulate the system. A hell of a challenge and hell of a task but the only real solution.

[ClassWarrior]

13. That's an excellent message, and one that should be trumpeted.

I need to go out and get his book this weekend.

NGU.