The "Right" Fears Lakoff...and the Truth

[jefferson_dem]

Check out this bit from a circle-jerk blog on the other side...

George Lakoff is the self-appointed guru who has helped create and feed the Democratic frenzy over "framing," which is code for revamping rhetoric once ideas and people have repeatedly failed. To which one says: good luck with that. If the Dems can win an election touting higher "civilization fees" in lieu of taxes, then the American people deserve them in high office. Reality and history will not be so kind to Lakoff: as a man once noted, ideas have consequences, and the language you dress them up in does little to affect that. It's noteworthy that long before modern conservatism began advancing its lexicon in the public discourse, its core ideas had spent the previous few decades under development and debate. The American left is indeed purchasing real estate in the vale of tears if it seeks to advance directly to square B through "framing." The irony here, as dKos regular Armando noted to me this past weekend, is that Lakoff is directly responsible for one of the worst bits of framing to afflict the Dems in recent memory: the casting of the GOP as the "strict father" party, and the portrayal of the Democrats as the "nurturant mother" party. The idea was that voters liked dear mum more -- warm cookies, no paddlings! -- but guess who they wanted in their corner in wartime? Turned out to be dad and his quick temper and his rules.

Lakoff family dynamics as policy: bad move. Negative effect on Lakoff's standing: zero.

So in the happy interim between idea and consequence, Lakoff is taking his celebrity to the fetid watering-hole of the modern Democratic Party: the Daily Kos, where, like most of the party eminences (more on this in a bit), he is casting his pearls of wisdom before the swine online. And this bit of -- well, framing -- cast as an enunciation of core Democratic principles, jumped out at me:

We want to protect life all the way from birth up until the edge of death.

Indeed. What's missing here? Why not value and protect life on "the edge of death"? Why not value and protect life before birth? Not long before, mind you: five minutes or so will do. I leave it to the intrepid reader to draw inferences as he will. For my part, I will be generous and say that despite the failings of his one big idea, Lakoff has here captured, framed and hung a core principle of the Democratic Party and the American left with admirable and awful clarity.

Bunches and bunches of blathering on the comment line too, if you care to wade though the sickening muck - http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/4/16/1551/75635

[classof56]

1. I'll take a pass on wading through that muck, but thanks for posting.

Didn't realize til now that I'm hanging around the "fetid watering-hole of the modern Democratic Party." Pretty amusing! I guess I'm not getting the "five minutes or so" before birth idea. Perhaps I'm not intrepid enough to know what inference to draw from that. Now, if the writer was talking about five minutes before conception, I'd figure it was the "don't have sex, people" caution, except that of course, they have such wacko views on sex that I can never quite figure out whether they think it's just plain evil or only evil if it's engaged in for anything other than procreation. I still won't read the article, because I long ago figured out that there is just no reaching these people with anything resembling logic, common sense and oh, yes, the truth. That's why I think the Lakoff "reframing" idea is not going to work, either. Those on the right wing fringe of things are beyond all hope.

Tired Old Cynic

[Gyre]

4. I'll second that motion.

I'm sick of wading thru their swill, in what is always a vain attempt to locate something of substance.

Gyre

[JAbuchan08]

2. To the idiot who wrote this: framing is what won 2000 and 2004

(depending on your definition of "won") so you CAN dress up terrible ideas in pretty language and it makes a difference. Words are powerful things - they define ideas and thats pretty important.

[JAbuchan08]

3. To the idiot who wrote this: framing is what won 2000 and 2004

(depending on your definition of "won") so you CAN dress up terrible ideas in pretty language and it makes a difference. Words are powerful things - they define ideas and thats pretty important.

[La Coliniere]

5. The Frame Game

You say liberal
We say progressive

You say conservative
We say regressive

Lakoff is correct, and brilliant as well. It seems some Dems are starting to act in accordance with his analysis and recommendations as to how powerful the frame of language can be, and how we need to use it to our advantage.

Thanks Mr. Lunt for showing us your hand. We're learning how to play the game you know so well.

Word