Finally, a theme for Democrats!

[Teaser]

As George Lakoff notes, the trick with reframing an issue is to do so in such a way as to close off certain possibilities and open other ones as conclusions. "Tax Relief" being the canonical example. Couched this way, who could be against lowering everyone's taxes...because taxes are something from which you want relief.
The most powerful critique levelled against the Democratic party is the notion that we are for "Big Government." That scary, orwellian phrase alienates a substantial portion of the population right away, and leaves us with little room to argue our policies.

So what to do about this? In light of Lakoff's theories, the answer is clear. Rhetorically close off the possibility of small government. Government is always big. The choice is in how the government happens to be big. Will it help you or hurt you?

There is good government and then there is Republican government. Democrats advocate good government. We want government that helps you, not controls you.

That, there is the operative phrase...government that helps you, not controls you. All our arguments about government should manifest that opposition. All our rhetoric should make it clear that there is no other option. Government will either help you or control you. Which party you vote for will be determined whether you want to be helped or controlled, whether you want to use the tool, or be the tool.

This is our rhetorical task. To make sure all our arguments are put forth in this context. Used this way, our language defuses the most powerful critique we have to face. Simultaneously, it provides the Democrats with a quick and easy bullet point that sums up the party, something many of us have been searching for for a while.

link

[LibInternationalist]

1. Makes sense to me

we want government that helps you, not controls you

[leftofthedial]

2. "Making government work for you?"

I agree we have no themes that resonate emotionally with the ignorant masses. (By "ignorant masses" I don't mean the usual perjorative slam, but rather that most Murkans don't pay close attention to the details of politics continually; they wait until an election and then let themselves be marketed to by the campaigns.)

What principles and policies we do have are easily turned against us by the repukes.

[zaj]

9. Much better...

[Teaser]

13. Not enough.

We have to simultaneously degrade the other guys concepts, while building ours up.

[zaj]

3. Too wordy...

"government that helps you, not controls you"


I love that while licking our wounds, people are starting to read and internalize Lackoff's ideas. But we need to get "good" at it. I don't know that we are there yet. But I guess we need to keep working.




(PS, I HATE that we have to turn to intellectually dishonest rhetoric like this in order to compete in politics. I don't want to become the thing I dispise... but I honestly don't see another way.)

[auburngrad82]

6. What's dishonest about that statement?

The policies of the GOP are hurting America. Huge deficits, going into debt to foreign interests, passing the tax burden on to the people who can least afford it, controlling health issues (such as abortion), moral issues (gay rights), isolating us from the rest of the world when we should be working towards becoming a part of the world, etc etc.

I don't see that "government that helps you, not controls you" is dishonest. Much of the GOP's rhetoric is quite dishonest but we can use the same tactic but use the truth rather than lies.

[zaj]

8. Then entire notion of "manipulative wording" makes me ill...

... it's what Bush/Rove had made their living with. I hate that we must sink to that level to complete. But I see no other way.

[auburngrad82]

10. I agree, I see no other way

And I have no qualms about using their tactics to fight back. I will make every attempt to back up rhetoric with facts, though.

[leftofthedial]

12. it is not a bad thing; it is what most Murkans want and need

they don't want to study issues, they want to swallow soundbites. If one doesn't give them heartburn, they vote for it.

This is a short-attention-span culture.

[sangh0]

21. "Manipulative wording"????

WTF are you talking about? NO ONE has said ANYTHING about manipulating ANYBODY or ANYTHING.

[zaj]

22. I'm guessing you haven't followed Lackoff or Republican politics...

... in the last 15 years or so.

[sangh0]

23. You may have read Lakoff, but you didn't understand it

Lakoff says nothing about us "manipulating" anyone either.

[zaj]

24. The entire idea of "framing" is about manipulation...

[sangh0]

25. No, it's not

I love the way your declarations from above lead to such enlightening discussions

The entire idea of "framing" is about manipulation..."

I didn't believe it the first time you said it, but the 2nd time...WOW I was sold!!

[Teaser]

33. All communication is about manipulation.

Unless you believe Jurgen Habermas. And even then, only ideal communication (Which we never achieve) isn't about manipulation. All other kinds are.

[chaska]

27. The easiest thing to remember from what I know of this subject...

and I got it from a discussion on liberal Pacifica radio about Lakoff. Everytime we want to make a point, before doing so, tell a story that illustrates the point.

STORY: Did you hear about that little girl who had her internal organs sucked out of her body by a swimming pool drain? She was nearly killed and will never be able to have a normal life. That swimming pool company had several such incidences occur before someone finally sued them into doing the right thing.

POINT: Don't tell me "Public Protection Attorneys" (trial lawyers, in GOPspeak) are bad for our country.

Game, set, match.

[sangh0]

30. " tell a story that illustrates the point." - Exactly

I don't know why ANYONE would call that "manipulative"

[kentuck]

4. "tax giveaways to the wealthy"

so that there is nothing left for the common folks.

[RafterMan]

5. Wealthfare!

[kentuck]

14. Good one !

RafterMan ! :) That one might stick!

[elsiesummers]

16. Wealthfare - terrific - coin that word - Congratulations.

That is first rate.

This takes John Edwards theme "reward work, not wealth" and sums it up in a one word accusation of the Republicans.

Daschle has phases like this. Things like "Osama Been Forgotton" (not sure if that is his - but he is good for this type of thing) - in that way I will miss Daschle's voice.

[xequals]

7. I don't like the idea of a government that "helps" me.

To me that sounds like a nanny state, to be honest. It makes me think of gun laws and smoking bans in night clubs.

I'm a moderate independent. You need something better if you want the independents. Talk about efficient government, human investment and other such "keywords" that appeal to the self reliant nature of most Americans. Dems need to get more concerned with accountability and results if they are to regain the confidence of the electorate.

[Teaser]

11. IT only sounds like the nanny state

because you've been brought up in the "small government is good" idea complex.

this is about developing a new complex...there is no small government. It just isn't possible. So with that in mind, would you rather have good government or controlling government?

Genius, if I do say so myself.

[auburngrad82]

15. Let's be honest. There are people that need help

At the turn of the 20th century old people almost invariable lived in abject poverty or were taken care of by their families. The few exceptions were the wealthy. There was no social security.

People's life spans were much shorter because they couldn't afford healthcare and what healthcare there was wasn't sufficient. By the way, if you think that we have the best healthcare system in the world, why are we ranked 48th in life expectency? (http://www.photius.com/rankings/life_expectancy_at_birth_0.html)

There is much that can be done to help people, not just in our country but in other countries as well. The AIDs epidemic in Africa needs to be addressed because it could effect the rest of the world. These days a person could hop on a plane and be halfway around the world in a day. If we don't fight AIDs in Africa (and other countries; China is struggling with their own AIDs epidemic) it will surely spread.

Being a world leader gives us ample opportunity to do good, rather than just wage war and make our cronies wealthy.

No one has ever talked about banning guns in America. That's one of the GOP's wedge issues that they have used so successfully to frighten people. As a non-smoker I don't want to sit next to someone puffing away on a cigarette in a public restaurant any more than I want to listen to someone carry on a phone conversation while I'm trying to enjoy myself. What you do in your own home is your business but there should be some courtesy involved when it comes to public places. If I smoked I would do like I do when I need to use the phone. I'd get up and go outside, weather be damned. That's because I have respect for the people around me and would like for them to have the same respect for me. Unfortunately, people tend to think only of themselves. That's why there are smoking bans and moves to ban cell phone use in restaurants, etc.

Not all government is bad.

[xequals]

31. I agree with sensible gov't regulation

and I agree with smoking bans in restaurants, but not where it doesn't make sense, like in bars and nightclubs.

And I agree with a safety net, as long as it is efficient and doesn't create a permanent welfare class.

[Fleurs du Mal]

26. Strict Father

The self-reliant, competitive view of America you espouse is exactly the strict father model Lakoff attributes to the conservatives. Why in the world would we want to adopt that?

[xequals]

34. Not strict father; good father or mother.

Dems need to stress accountability and results because the electorate no longer trusts liberal government programs, and not just because of conservative propaganda. Nobody - not even most Dems I know - likes high taxes that go to what they perceive to be wasteful spending. Dems need to show people that their programs can be smart, efficient and will produce results. They need to show the electorate that their taxes aren't simply going down the drain, but can be a good societal investment. Dems need to convince voters that their party can be trusted with taxpayer money, just as Repubs often have to convince voters to trust them with the social safety net (e.g. compassionate conservatism).

[meow2u3]

35. Forget the Strict Father and the Nurturing Parent models

We need a "good-enough parent" model--who knows when to be strict and when to be nurturing. The extreme of excessive strictness without nurturing leads to emotional crippling when we have to make choices, and that of excessive nurturing without any strict discipline when necessary leads to selfishness and lack of self-discipline.

[demwing]

17. This is an old issue in new clothing

For many years the debate has raged over whether the purpose of an elected official is to lead, or to serve.

Republicans like to act as if our elected representatives have a duty to lead us through a dark forest of sticky ethical issues, providing a morally guiding light.

They sneer at Democrats, saying we present government as a social mother figure, nursing us as if we were babies.

In essense, they claim that their role is to lead and mold society, not represent the views of the electorate, and serve those views.

The problem is that a government that proposes to lead the governed becomes less and less subject to those that it governs, and developes the mindset that the people are not capable of involving themselves in the decision making process.

Thus, you move from a goverment that leads morally to a government that enforces morallity.

Government should NOT be empowered by the will of God, the power of moral issues, or on the ability of the leaders to lead. Constitutionally, government relies only on one thing - the will of the people. We decide what is best for us, then elect representatives to, surprise!, REPRESENT us.

[Lex]

18. Until we have our own version of Fox News, it won't matter

WHAT our message is.

We have to be able to hammer our talking points through our own television station, or it doesn't matter how wonderfully we have fine-tuned our message.

[Kazak]

19. My wife and I came to the same conclusion the other night...

We decided that we should unite the country among those that oppose our government's slide toward Theocracy, considering this group would include not only Democrats, but also moderate Republicans and also various Christian groups that vehemently oppose Theocracy. We're still working on that catch phrase, without much luck so far. Ack!

[Teaser]

32. "Theocons"

a nasty epithet for the religious right.

[TheDonkey]

20. Democrats want to end big government spending and control

bring respect and freedom back to the country.

[chaska]

28. The easiest thing to remember from what I know of this subject...

and I got it from a discussion on liberal Pacifica radio about Lakoff. Everytime we want to make a point, before doing so, tell a story that illustrates the point.

STORY: Did you hear about that little girl who had her internal organs sucked out of her body by a swimming pool drain? She was nearly killed and will never be able to have a normal life. That swimming pool company had several such incidences occur before someone finally sued them into doing the right thing.

POINT: Don't tell me "Public Protection Attorneys" (trial lawyers, in GOPspeak) are bad for our country.

Game, set, match.

[juliagoolia]

29. The Peoples Govt

The peoples Govt Of by and For

[eridani]

36. Everybody in, nobody out!

Doesn't that sum up everything?

Universal health care--everybody in, nobody out!

Any constitutional amendment making any citizen 'less'--everybody in, nobody out!