Wednesday News Roundup

Written by: DFA Intern on Jul 12, 2006 6:00 PM EDT

Saturday Night Fever

San Diego Democracy Fest planners have put together a great party for Saturday night. If you're in the area, be sure to check out DemStock, which San Diego for Democracy Chair Charlie Imes describes as, "Our own version of Woodstock, only with no mud, much better food and bar service." You can still sign up for DemFest online.

Just To Clear Things Up

Today, Robert Novak explained his role in the Valerie Plame affair. Although he never revealed his sources publicly, he volunteered them to the FBI. He writes that Special Council Patrick Fitzgerald already knew the identity of his sources, so he felt no qualms discussing them. Novak avoided going to jail by cooperating with investigators. David Corn reminds us the importance of Novak's column: Bush has yet to follow through on his promise to dismiss anyone responsible for the leak.

Lakoff's Discussion

For those of you who missed Professor Lakoff's visit to BFA today, here's a recap of our conversation:
Welcome!

Hello everyone and welcome to our live online discussion with George Lakoff. We're honored that Professor Lakoff set aside some time to join our ongoing conversation here at Blog for America. If you have questions, simply post them in the comments, then refresh the page to see the latest responses.

Once again, thank you for coming!

by Tara Liloia on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 01:58 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: 2

______________________

Note

Professor Lakoff will be here in just a few minutes -- but feel free to begin the discussion.

by Tara Liloia on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 01:59 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

Dean is first

but we're glad this George is here.

by Monica Smith on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 01:59 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: 1

______________________

Alternative Framing

OVERALL MESSAGE: Strong Families. Strong Communities. Strong Nation. (In that order. Follow the money, dude.)

Liberty VS the radical right's "Freedom"
Islamo-fascist VS terrorist (let's be specific about the bad guys here)
Illegal employer VS illegal immigrant
fair trade VS free trade
tax investment VS tax relief
Paris Hilton bill VS death tax bill
Save Our Soldiers VS anti-war

by June S Taylor on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:01 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

Hey folks! Thanks for being here today. It's really great that George was able to stop by and spend some time with us. He's at the forefront of using language and faming to change election outcomes. So if you have any questions... shoot!

by Jim Dean on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:01 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

Hello and Welcome

I was honored to meet you at the 2005 Take Back America conference.
I read your book and soon after was voted in as vice chair of our democratic city committee for the 3rd district of Va.
I wanted to become part of the change in this so called conservative state.
I am met with almost monthly confrontation with my democratic friends over the need for complete change in our democratic party, locally and nationally.
Besides reading your books, what tools do I need, to try to change the system?
I am dancing as fast as I can.

by linda b on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:02 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: 2

______________________

Where do we go from here?

Professor Lakoff,

Thanks so much for coming! In your book you mention how radical conservatives have coopted the word freedom and how we need to make it mean what it used to. How would you suggest starting that conversation in our communities, when most households get their news from Fox?

by Julia Marden on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:03 PM | Avg Rating: 1.5

______________________

Progressive Handbook

I would like to ask Mr. Lakoff when we can expect the Progressive Handbook to be released? Will it be availailble for download and/or purchase?

by Debbie Marquez on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:04 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

Framing Freedom and Democracy

Hi Mr. Lakoff

As patrons of liberty what is the best approach we can take locally to frame our ideals of freedom and democracy.

by TeatimeTim*in*NEOhio on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:06 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: 2

______________________

Welcome!

Thanks for being here! You always make great points. There is a lot of meat to chew in your books. I can't wait to read the new one.

by Charles Chamberlain on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:06 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: 0.5

______________________

Obedience is freedom

That's what the sign at the entrance of a military base says in the documentary "Sir! No, Sir."

That's not what democrats understand as freedom. Democrats believe in self-reliance and responsibility.

Of course, if obedience is considered the highest good, then there's no need for personal responsibility. The act is always responsive to direction.

That's how George Bush can assert that Saddam Hussein is responsible for the American agression against Iraq.

by Monica Smith on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:06 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: 1

______________________

I have a problem...

...with the concept that I need to change my language in a way that does not appeal to me (or voters like me) in order to attract voters not like me. At the same time, I am supposed to accept that this language framed to appeal to voters not like me must be acceptable to me, otherwise we're trading one "language group" for another "language group."

The assumption seems to be, abuse those in the minorities in order to appeal to the majority, since the minorities (and in this case, minority can be used to mean progressives, secularists, intellectuals, reason-based voters, etc.) have nowhere else to go and will just "take it."

Quite frankly, I have no more desire to be offended than the middle america we're supposed to frame our beliefs to appeal to.

by rich^kolker on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:08 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: 2

______________________

Progressive Handbook

Hi,

We'refinishing the draft in two and a half weeks. The paperback will be out by the end of September, or sooner. We will also give it away online, and we'll start realeasing that earier.

George

by George Lakoff on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:08 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: 2

______________________

Jim

while we are waiting thanks for hiring Charles

nice to have someone who is familiar with DFA and can hit the ground running

send him to CT some in the next weeks

by Phil Specht on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:08 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: 0.5

______________________

Progressive vision v "conservative" vision

Professor - thanks for stopping by! You are obviously onto something when you recognize the right's powerful use of but a single phrase - "defending freedom" - to galvanize the fight on many issues at once.

If the right succeeds w/a single phrase, why then do progressives need to produce "a coherent and articulated vision" in response. Why can't we succeed with a single phrase that galvanizes our fight?

by Jeff Gardner on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:11 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: 1

______________________

Freedom & Liberty

You discuss in your book Bush's 2nd inaugural and the several references to "freedom" and "liberty."
How can we use those terms to our own benefit?
Thanks!

by Annalouise Venturella on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:12 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: 2

______________________

Framing to be heard

I agree that changing our lanquage may be needed but altering it just to reach certain people may not work. Just who are we reaching and can't it just be met with more abusive language from the other side?
Just asking.

by linda b on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:12 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

How do you start in conservatrive communities?

In the new book, WHOSE FREEDOM? I discuss "biconceptuals" -- people who identify themselves as conservatives but who actually have progressive views in many areas of life: they may love the land, be progressive Christians, like progressive communities, or be honest, ethical businesspeople. In short, they may have very important areas of their lives where they agree with uss inh a deep way.
You find out those areas by asking what they care deepply about and what commitments theyu have to it.

You can start talking about freedom by using the uncontested core of freeedom (see the book), then finding where their partial progressive heart is and going to that version of freedom.

George

by George Lakoff on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:13 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: 2

______________________

website

Mr. Lakoff,

Do you have a link you can give us to your main website? Is it the same one that is posted above for Whose Freedom?

by jc on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:13 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

If obedience is freedom

then "defending freedom" is merely making people obedient. Gives a new meaning to "law and order" doesn't it?

by Monica Smith on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:14 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

It is ironic that many Americans accept the idea of curtailing our freedom at home in order to bring "freedom" to other parts of the world. I'm not sure that framing can cure stupidity.

by jc on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:17 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

What tools do we need to change the system?

There are the usual organizing tools, but you also need framing tools, like our Handbook. But you also need to organize a SpeakOut group on the activist network Rockridge will be forming soon. We'll be advising on organization.

George

by George Lakoff on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:18 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

My republican friend

...is about as progressive as I am and she is on the city council.
I asked her why any woman would be a republican and she agreed with me that she shouldn't. but she still is.
so how do I bring her to the progressive side?
and what is keeping her there? she keeps saying she wants to quit her city committee.
just askin.

by linda b on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:18 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

George

could you give any suggestions for language to appeal to those citizens not now voting because "there isn't any difference between the two parties" ?

by Phil Specht on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:20 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: 2

______________________

"there hasn't been another attack" is the most common answer I get when visiting with Republicans about why they support the Bush defense policy of pre-emption.

what is the answer to that?

by Phil Specht on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:24 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

Obedience is Freedom

Thanks for sending that Monica. In WHOSE FREEDOM? I discuss the Pope's version of that -- "You are most free when you follow the dogma of the church." These are right out of the conservative view of freedom, where there is a moral authority with force behind it, and obedience means not only that you don't have to think, but also that nothing in the institution will get in the way of your actions -- you won't encounter a counter-force that will interfere with your actions.

See the Chapter on RELIGION AND FREEDOM.

George

by George Lakoff on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:24 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

Is this really about changing our lanquage?

"I have a problem......with the concept that I need to change my language in a way that does not appeal to me (or voters like me) in order to attract voters not like me."
by rich^kolker on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:08 PM
_______

I think if we understand the alternative frame, then we have the tools to tweak our OWN WORDS to make our points in a way that gets through that frame without losing our morals or goals.

I agree that if we just try to change our words and speak in their frame then we play into their dialogue.




by Charles Chamberlain on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:25 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

Obedience to a higher authority...

is a core value for many people, especially here in Utah. How can we unlink "authority-respect-obedience" in folks' minds?

by June S Taylor on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:26 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

Saul Alinsky

I live in the red part of a blue state. One of the mistakes I see fellow progressives here make sometimes is to immediately confront conservatives in a way that simply confirms their opinion of us, but more importantly, fails to persuade persuadable people. I'm reminded of Saul Alinsky's talking about approaching people who might not agree with you where they are, and respectfully, with the understanding you can always convince them by starting with something they already think. Do you think that's on track?

by Rosi Efthim on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:26 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: 2

______________________

yes, and then being born-again

by Monica Smith on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:28 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

"I have a problem......with the concept that I need to change my language in a way that does not appeal to me (or voters like me) in order to attract voters not like me."

I have the same problem, and we don't have to change. If you're talking to voters who see themselves as conservatives, you will usually find that they are in some parts of thier lives. Find out about those parts of their lives by asking what they care aboiut, and then talk to those in the center the same way you talk to the base --maybe slighly different words but the same ideas.

George

by George Lakoff on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:30 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

New computer not as responsive as one might like. LOL

Doesn't know when I've made a mistake.

by Monica Smith on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:31 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

"Conservatives Without Conscience" . . . John Dean


Welcome Mr. Lakoff. All of us in our Dem Club loved your book on DVD, "How Democrats and Progressives Can Win" which we played at a meeting.

John Dean's book just came out yesterday, but from his interviews it sounds like more of the reality of what the extremists are trying to do.

Just wondered if you had any comments yet about the book.

by Joan* In*Florida on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:33 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

Psychographic Polling...

MyDD recently did a netroots-funded poll that dealt with psychographic polling...

I was wondering if you were familiar with the poll and what your thoughts are about how psychographic polling might be useful in crafting frames.

by Vermonter on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:33 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

Charles,

But if how language is used is important to the cognitive appreciation of the ideas behind that language, then forcing me to walk away from my frame to some frame which is palatable to others IS changing what I am saying and believing.

You, or the Professor, might argue I can make a change so small that the "difference is no difference," but I disagree. What I see is a demand that the reason-based community walk away from our language and beliefs to "get the votes" of some other group. We are left to accept that our core frame is wrong.

I disagree with that.

by rich^kolker on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:33 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

a single phrase

If the right succeeds w/a single phrase, why then do progressives need to produce "a coherent and articulated vision" in response. Why can't we succeed with a single phrase that galvanizes our fight?


They didn't succeed with a single phrase. They built up a system of deep frames over 35 years. The deep frames characterize their values and political principals. We haven't built up a system of deep frames that the single phraqses can hook onto. We have to start immediately.

George

by George Lakoff on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:34 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: 2

______________________

Can you give an example of a liberal "Deep Frame" we can start to build?

by Ari Fertig on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:36 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: 2

______________________

My Phrase...

"We believe in a Strong American Family."

Strength, Community, Family Values and Patriotism, all in three short words.

by Vermonter on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:37 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

We haven't built up a system of deep frames that the single phraqses can hook onto. We have to start immediately.

George

by George Lakoff on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:34 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -
..

what would you attribute this to? I dont necessarily disagree in fact I am thinking I agree with you, but the question is in my humble opinion why this has not been done. I have my own answer, but I am curious for the one you have.

Robert

by Rocky Jones on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:38 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

"We believe in a Strong American Family."

Strength, Community, Family Values and Patriotism, all in three short words.

by Vermonter on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:37 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -
..

as does the GOP...just read their slogans.

Robert

by Rocky Jones on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:39 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

Vermonter, who doesn't believe in a Strong American Family? Yet somehow, when Republicans say "family" they mean something very different than liberals, because liberals take into account that families aren't all the typical nuclear family.

by Ari Fertig on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:39 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

In an election year I want to be steering people to the idea of voting and I ask "do you vote for the party or the candidate", and if they say "candidate" ask them "what kind of candidate gets you to split your ticket?"

and THEN start discussing values in a way that shifts the frame

Does that make sense as a sequence to you George?

by Phil Specht on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:40 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

Rich

I'm thinking more along the lines of understanding the frame so you can find the common ground. Then use that common ground to bring them into OUR frame.

Otherwise I agree with you. If we just move our message to their frame then even if we win the fight we lose the war.

However, the other issue you bring up is logic vs. gut (I think) and I DO think progressives need to consider the gut/heart/emotional side of communicating a message and not rely completely on logic/fact/reality. Too often we don't do that well.

by Charles Chamberlain on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:40 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

Reason-based community

What I see is a demand that the reason-based community walk away from our language and beliefs to "get the votes" of some other group. We are left to accept that our core frame is wrong.

I advise the opposite -- to say what you believe.

About the "reason-based community" -- Conservatives are just as smart as progressives. They just reason in a different set of frames. What is needed is a discourse genre in which we can discuss alternative framings and which ones we believe and why?

George

by George Lakoff on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:41 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

as does the GOP...just read their slogans.

Robert, that's the thing.

When they say it they mean one thing, when we say it we mean something different. There is a battle in the marketplace of ideas for concepts like freedom, family, patriotism, even American.

by rich^kolker on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:42 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

And we believe in...

...defending freedom...

I'm not sure I understand why using a simple phrase that everyone would agree with is a bad thing. Isn't that what we're trying to accomplish?

And Mr. Lakoff, thanks so much for being open to this kind of dialogue!

by Vermonter on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:43 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

Framing the debate

Since September 11, 2001, the political debate in this country has been focused on national security and the threat of terrorism. How does a progressive question the policies being justified in our country on the basis of security without being branded as being sympathetic to terrorism?

by David Gilley on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:43 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

main website

www.rockridgeinstitute.org

LOts of stuff to read there.

George

by George Lakoff on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:44 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________


However, the other issue you bring up is logic vs. gut (I think) and I DO think progressives need to consider the gut/heart/emotional side of communicating a message and not rely completely on logic/fact/reality. Too often we don't do that well.


by Charles Chamberlain on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:40 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -
.,.

Charles...with all due respect...I think that "progressives" need to consider a logic/fact/reality based message instead of just swinging with their "gut". I think indeed that one of the problems with a "deep frame" message or lack of same is that progressives swing to frequently with their gut and dont think things through.

As an example...leaving Iraq completly out of it. I dont for the life of me understand the "civil unions" part of the "marriage" debate. The only way to argue that marriage is not "the nuclear idear" is to argue the 14th Amendment.

Otherwise one gets into a debate on morals and lifestyle.

The 14th either means what it says for all citizens or it doesnt. Even the right buys this discussion since The Reverend (HMMHMM) Fallwell conceeds that there needs to be an amendment in The Constitution because of the 14th.

Robert

by Rocky Jones on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:45 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

A little around the edges of the subject, but...

...I used reason-based as an antonym to faith-based. I'm not calling the other side stupid, I'm saying they tend to come to their conclusions more through a faith-based view of the world (perhaps you'd call it "strong father", Professor) than through analysis and reason based on evidence.

by rich^kolker on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:45 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

The discussion is excellent so far. Just a heads up that we'll be wrapping up here in just a few more minutes. Now is the time to get any last questions in for Professor Lakoff.

by Tara Liloia on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:46 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

Lamont versus Lieberman

Mr. Lakoff, I am wondering if you are at all following Ned Lamont's challenge to Senator Lieberman. Sen. Lieberman and many in the press dismiss this as simply being a 'single issue' campaign. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions on how progressive Democrats in Connecticut can better communicate key issues about the Lamont campaign?

by Aldon Hynes on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:47 PM | Avg Rating: 1

______________________

Expanding freedoms

You discuss in your book Bush's 2nd inaugural and the several references to "freedom" and "liberty."
How can we use those terms to our own benefit?

One of the most interesting things I found in doing the book is that Americans demand that their freedom be expanded --
more freedom from spying, more education (freedom of access to knowledge), more freedom fr,more civil rights, etc.

In building a progressive populism we have show how we can be free from conservative oppression -- economic oppression, but also oppression in all areas of life: ecological oppression, obression by right-wing religion, oppression by a giovernment sopying on its people, and so on.

George

by George Lakoff on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:51 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

I think common ground is the key phrase here.

I often see progressives shooting themselves in the feet by using very knee-jerk reactive terms that set up an equally reactive response in the person listening.

We will never be able to change the basic beliefs of certain groups of people any more than we want to change our own beliefs. But by listening carefully to the language that we use that can be misunderstood by the other side, we can sometimes find ways to find the common ground needed to reach a compromise that will benefit both sides, especially those who seem to be voting against their own best interests.

Let's face it, almost half the country holds beliefs that are antithetical to ours. If we want any PROGRESS on the progressive front, we are going to have to find common goals to work on, or else we might as well concede the fight to the other side, the ones more experienced in crowd manipulation!

by Nancy Mandowa on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:51 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

Thank Your George L

for taking the time to be here today. I look forward to your new book.

by linda b on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:52 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

Until progressives have our deep frame system...

Until progressives succeed in building up a system of deep frames might we do well to attack or unmask conservatives' frames?

"Terrorist Surveillance Program"

Are frames inherently manipulative? Marketers use frames and they thrive on manipulation. Conservatives market their ideas. Empirical evidence is often the enemy of marketers. Undo frames and insist the media discourse relies upon evidence. Just a thought.

by Frank Tanzosh on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:52 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

all Americans believe we should leave no child behind

by making the LEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND a federal unfunded testing mandate the rovian spin now leaves Democrats who dislike this program of underfunding of education as an attack on the values that all Americans agree on of universal education

and leaves us weakened on an issue that is a Democratic slam dunk, and if it gets simplified down to funding becomes even worse as the "teachers union" becomes just another "special interest", which blocks a discussion of "special interests" they have like big oil.

I agree. They are one step ahead of us on framing.

by Phil Specht on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:53 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

Thanks for your time

Let's do this again some time.

by rich^kolker on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:54 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -
Thank you!

We've just about reached the end of our time with Professor Lakoff today. Thank you for joining us!

by Tara Liloia on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:56 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

Mr. Lakoff, I am wondering if you are at all following Ned Lamont's challenge to Senator Lieberman. Sen. Lieberman and many in the press dismiss this as simply being a 'single issue' campaign. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions on how progressive Democrats in Connecticut can better communicate key issues about the Lamont campaign?


---

tWO POINTS: Iraq is not just any issue. It brings together the key issues of our time. Beyone war and peace, there is oil, there is the idea of American domination through force,
there is the theory of "free-market freedom" (see the book),
there is the militarization of our society, there is the outsourcing of military function, there is torture, trhere is openness and honesty, and much much more.

Second, Lieberman departs from central progressive values on many issues (e.g., vouchers, separation of church and state,...). Lamont should question his overall values.

George

by George Lakoff on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 03:00 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

I live in the red part of a blue state. One of the mistakes I see fellow progressives here make sometimes is to immediately confront conservatives in a way that simply confirms their opinion of us, but more importantly, fails to persuade persuadable people. I'm reminded of Saul Alinsky's talking about approaching people who might not agree with you where they are, and respectfully, with the understanding you can always convince them by starting with something they already think. Do you think that's on track?

--

I agree. Take a look at the last chapter of the DON'T THINK OF AN ELEPHANT on how to talk to conservatives.


Bye now. Gotta go do some interviews. Thanks for the opportunity. Special thanks to Jim Dean for all that he's working for.

George

by George Lakoff on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 03:02 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

framing, semantics and advertising

I admire your work and am a long time student of General Semantics. But I fear that we progressives will continue to base our approach on the false to fact notion that peoples minds are changed by logic, reason and facts. Advertising has mastered the technology of changing minds. They use terms like "new and improved" for soap and "protecting the traditional family" to persecute the GLBT communities. I strongly believe that our reframing must pay as much attention to semantic loading as to reason and logic--more emotion.

by Crawford Irvine on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 03:05 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

When they say it they mean one thing, when we say it we mean something different. There is a battle in the marketplace of ideas for concepts like freedom, family, patriotism, even American.

by rich^kolker on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 02:42 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -
..

precisly.

And like any market place the "idears" you are selling have to be marketable to the people who one is selling them to. And in some cases that means changing brand loyalty. Which means if one is going to be the "reason based community" (and I dont necessarily agree with that but going forward) then one has to explain why that brand change is necessary....and a good thing.

And that is part of leadership, but the biggest part of leadership is really being the leader!

Look at how FDR, JFK and RWR ran for the Presidency. FDR in his first campaign (ok things were horrific then but...) he didnt roll around the country ticking off alitmus test of what he was going to do as POTUS. He didnt work the CCC, the NRA, etc into his campaign speeches. He talked about changes in terms which would leave him manuevering room when and if he became POTUS.

Dems right now are "issue oriented" all because of their emotions. And thats why they lose. Their "issues" become the pivot points for the other guys and the inevitable flaws surface and bang shows over.

Thats gonna happen in 06 I think BTW.

Get elected then govern, and lead The REpublic whereever you can take it while you are in office and then see where that is when you stand for reelection.

Forget the polls, just govern and then stand for election.

You have to get elected to define things.

Robert

by Rocky Jones on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 03:06 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

______________________

thanks

Thanks George Lakoff and DFA, hope to see more of these in future.

by Nancy Mandowa on Wednesday, 07/12/06 @ 03:06 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

Tags: