Just Words.
I think one of the reasons the Republicans have been so successful (I mean in terms of winning elections!!!) in recent years (yes, excluding 2006 congressional seats) is their way with words.
It occurred to me this morning after reading the post about Johnson and global warming. I remembered seeing some guy on the Daily Show awhile back, talking about how the Republicans have successfully put phrases into the American psyche that seem to have taken hold more forcefully than their counterparts. I couldn't remember who it was though.
So I went back to look this up, and it turns out the guy was none other than everyone's favorite poll man, Frank Luntz. He literally wrote the book on the subject: "Words that Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear".
He was the architect of the attempted switch from "global warming" to "climate change". Ironically, he did this to help Bush get elected b/c they knew the focus couldn't be on the environment, but Luntz later distanced himself from Bush and acknowledged that we were contributing to global warming.
Sure, some of his attempts at painting a different picture with words have been laughable: Redefining "Orwellian" as "to speak with absolute clarity, to be succinct, to explain what the event is, to talk about what triggers something happening...and to do so without any pejorative whatsoever." Per Wikipedia, the more common connotation of the word: "the political manipulation of language, by obfuscation; doublethink; revisionism of history; or references to 'Big Brother'."
His complete willingness to manipulate serious policies and differences is quite often scary. "A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth...the facts are beside the point."
Here's another one: "Energy Exploration". Yeah! That's exactly what we need. Until you realize he's talking about drilling for oil.
The Republicans have been winning this war of words for years. Perhaps it's because of their penchant for Orwellian logic, and blatant disregard of the facts. Some more examples of "framing the argument": (Some have been more successful than others, and not all are out of the mind of Frank Luntz.)
Pro-life vs. pro-choice? Pro-life gets the better end of the stick on that one: it's a more potent and vivid image they paint.
"Illegal aliens" vs. "undocumented workers".
Social Security? No, Retirement Security.
Estate Tax vs Death Tax.
Globalization/Capitalism? No, A Free Market Economy.
Tort reform vs. "Lawsuit Abuse Reform".
School vouchers/choice vs. Equal Opportunity Education.
Tax relief, partial-birth abortion (no such medical procedure!), small government, strong defense, etc, etc, etc.
You want a frightening insight into political rhetoric and the almost unbelievable willingness of the American public to buy into it? Read Luntz's playbook, here.
Anyway, in looking for information on this topic this morning I stumbled across some interesting articles. Luntz has been around for years, helped Gingrich frame the "Contract with America" back in 94, and we all know him as a friendly face on Fox News. Apparently, the Democratic party has in recent years found a counterpart to Luntz: George Lakoff, who wrote, "Don't Think of An Elephant."
This article I found particularly good, as it makes the points both for this type of semantics and against it, and discusses Lakoff's role. And here's another good one.
Marc Cooper wrote a scathing criticism of Lakoff's book in The Atlantic back in April of 2005, in which I believe he misses the point entirely. Not only does he spend most of his time criticizing the Democrats as a whole rather than the book or Lakoff's assertions, he writes it off as some kind of a search for a magic pill to cure all that ails that Democratic party. In fact, he spends so much time raving about lattes and Volvos it's hard to see where, if at all, he takes issue with the actual book. (And when did Volvos get such a bad rep?) His biggest criticism seems to be that the Democrats don't know what they stand for, that the party is divided on priorities and has no coherent platform. That argument seems particularly irrelevant in this election, where it has been widely noted that the policy differences and priorities of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are quite similar. You can argue that point, but I'd still say that the Democratic party is more united on principles at this point than the Republican party, which seems to be splitting on three lines this year: fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and McCain's moderate conservatives. We saw that in the last three candidates to be standing in the Republican race.
My point is this: I don't think this is the silver bullet, the answer to all our problems, nor do I think it's the pathway to the White House. But it is most certainly a factor. Only 20% of Americans read blogs regularly, and I'd wager a guess that an even smaller number spend as much time on them as some of TPM's regulars. A lot of our country still gets their news from newspapers and the major cable news. And it is an unfortunate fact that talking points, sound-bites, get boiled down to fit between commercials for Viagra and Clorox or condensed to fit the left column under the fold.
When I heard that Obama had made the comment about his grandmother being a "typical white person," I cringed. No, not because it became suddenly clear to me that he is a closet racist, but because I knew it would be the sound-bit for the feebleminded Fox News for that cycle.
The most striking quote from the article on Lakoff was this: "I can describe, and I've always been able to describe, what Republicans stand for in eight words, and the eight words are lower taxes, less government, strong defense and family values," Dorgan, who runs the Democratic Policy Committee in the Senate. "We Democrats, if you ask us about one piece of that, we can meander for 5 or 10 minutes in order to describe who we are and what we stand for. And frankly, it just doesn't compete very well. I'm not talking about the policies. I'm talking about the language."
In any event, it's interesting to think about just how much words matter, and not just in epic speeches like Lincoln's and FDR's, but in everyday politics.
It occurred to me this morning after reading the post about Johnson and global warming. I remembered seeing some guy on the Daily Show awhile back, talking about how the Republicans have successfully put phrases into the American psyche that seem to have taken hold more forcefully than their counterparts. I couldn't remember who it was though.
So I went back to look this up, and it turns out the guy was none other than everyone's favorite poll man, Frank Luntz. He literally wrote the book on the subject: "Words that Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear".
He was the architect of the attempted switch from "global warming" to "climate change". Ironically, he did this to help Bush get elected b/c they knew the focus couldn't be on the environment, but Luntz later distanced himself from Bush and acknowledged that we were contributing to global warming.
Sure, some of his attempts at painting a different picture with words have been laughable: Redefining "Orwellian" as "to speak with absolute clarity, to be succinct, to explain what the event is, to talk about what triggers something happening...and to do so without any pejorative whatsoever." Per Wikipedia, the more common connotation of the word: "the political manipulation of language, by obfuscation; doublethink; revisionism of history; or references to 'Big Brother'."
His complete willingness to manipulate serious policies and differences is quite often scary. "A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth...the facts are beside the point."
Here's another one: "Energy Exploration". Yeah! That's exactly what we need. Until you realize he's talking about drilling for oil.
The Republicans have been winning this war of words for years. Perhaps it's because of their penchant for Orwellian logic, and blatant disregard of the facts. Some more examples of "framing the argument": (Some have been more successful than others, and not all are out of the mind of Frank Luntz.)
Pro-life vs. pro-choice? Pro-life gets the better end of the stick on that one: it's a more potent and vivid image they paint.
"Illegal aliens" vs. "undocumented workers".
Social Security? No, Retirement Security.
Estate Tax vs Death Tax.
Globalization/Capitalism? No, A Free Market Economy.
Tort reform vs. "Lawsuit Abuse Reform".
School vouchers/choice vs. Equal Opportunity Education.
Tax relief, partial-birth abortion (no such medical procedure!), small government, strong defense, etc, etc, etc.
You want a frightening insight into political rhetoric and the almost unbelievable willingness of the American public to buy into it? Read Luntz's playbook, here.
Anyway, in looking for information on this topic this morning I stumbled across some interesting articles. Luntz has been around for years, helped Gingrich frame the "Contract with America" back in 94, and we all know him as a friendly face on Fox News. Apparently, the Democratic party has in recent years found a counterpart to Luntz: George Lakoff, who wrote, "Don't Think of An Elephant."
This article I found particularly good, as it makes the points both for this type of semantics and against it, and discusses Lakoff's role. And here's another good one.
Marc Cooper wrote a scathing criticism of Lakoff's book in The Atlantic back in April of 2005, in which I believe he misses the point entirely. Not only does he spend most of his time criticizing the Democrats as a whole rather than the book or Lakoff's assertions, he writes it off as some kind of a search for a magic pill to cure all that ails that Democratic party. In fact, he spends so much time raving about lattes and Volvos it's hard to see where, if at all, he takes issue with the actual book. (And when did Volvos get such a bad rep?) His biggest criticism seems to be that the Democrats don't know what they stand for, that the party is divided on priorities and has no coherent platform. That argument seems particularly irrelevant in this election, where it has been widely noted that the policy differences and priorities of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are quite similar. You can argue that point, but I'd still say that the Democratic party is more united on principles at this point than the Republican party, which seems to be splitting on three lines this year: fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and McCain's moderate conservatives. We saw that in the last three candidates to be standing in the Republican race.
My point is this: I don't think this is the silver bullet, the answer to all our problems, nor do I think it's the pathway to the White House. But it is most certainly a factor. Only 20% of Americans read blogs regularly, and I'd wager a guess that an even smaller number spend as much time on them as some of TPM's regulars. A lot of our country still gets their news from newspapers and the major cable news. And it is an unfortunate fact that talking points, sound-bites, get boiled down to fit between commercials for Viagra and Clorox or condensed to fit the left column under the fold.
When I heard that Obama had made the comment about his grandmother being a "typical white person," I cringed. No, not because it became suddenly clear to me that he is a closet racist, but because I knew it would be the sound-bit for the feebleminded Fox News for that cycle.
The most striking quote from the article on Lakoff was this: "I can describe, and I've always been able to describe, what Republicans stand for in eight words, and the eight words are lower taxes, less government, strong defense and family values," Dorgan, who runs the Democratic Policy Committee in the Senate. "We Democrats, if you ask us about one piece of that, we can meander for 5 or 10 minutes in order to describe who we are and what we stand for. And frankly, it just doesn't compete very well. I'm not talking about the policies. I'm talking about the language."
In any event, it's interesting to think about just how much words matter, and not just in epic speeches like Lincoln's and FDR's, but in everyday politics.
Advertisement
Leave a comment