Lakoff's "Progressive Values in Ten Words"

Conservative values in ten words:

Strong Defense
Smaller Government
Lower Taxes
Free Markets
Family Values.

Most people can rattle those off pretty quickly, George Lakoff ("Don't Think of an Elephant") says, but can they make a similar list for progressive values? Of course not, because progressives have not made and propagated such a list as the wingers have theirs. But Lakoff nominates this list of his own for progressives:

Stronger America
Effective Government
Better Future
Broad Prosperity
Mutual Responsibility

What do the progressives here think of this list. What would you change or keep and why?

"Equal Opportunity" or "Level Playing Field" if Equal Opportunity evokes a negative frame in some.

Also... I believe "Healthy Environment" is/should be a core principle

I really like the frame set up by "Effective Government"

Equal opportunity, for instance, is incorporated in Broad Prosperity. I think it's definitely true are core progressive values, certainly. I think, however, that Lakoff is trying for the boradest umbrella terms possible. I don't know if he's succeeded or if your additions would be better than any of his--or if ten words are sufficient, even.

And that is also why I want Dean for Chair. I believe Dean really gets it when it comes to framing.

I understand the "Equal Opportunity" idea is intended to be captured in the "Broader Prosperity" frame and that "Healthy Environment" is part of the "Better Future" frame. But I think these are the two issues we can have the most success with in beating the right on and they need to be more prominent.

in Montana and Colorado, according to an article in this month's American Prospect. So I agree that it's potentially potent...if that's not redundant?

In fact I think it is necessary. People need to be constantly surrounded by these ideas. I think pushing the "redundant" variations on Lakoff's overarching frames reinforces those frames dramatically.

i'm not sure how "mutual responsibility" will play with the "i got mine; screw you" crowd, but this list is certainly better than anything i've seen from the democratic party.

i'm impatiently waiting to get lakoff's book from the local library. it's a hot property right now.

Just $10. It's also short, sweet and to the point. Designed for maximum impact.

Whoever can in the Democratic Party Leadership
should take heed and learn all they can from
Lakoff IMHO .

As opposed to a bully.

I completely agree.

has cost this country respect. We can win it back, while he is not capable of that.

is also a liberal value. I would change that label to something that suggests Strong Father, Strong Leader or Paternal Respect or maybe Traditional Family.

He argues that those concepts are already owned by the right, and I have to say I agree with him. Do you really think progressives are for "Paternal Respect" and "Traditional Family?"

terms. "Strong Father" is the rights model. I agree with Lakoff when he says we need to invoke the "Nurturant Parent". That is the parent (gender neutral) that guides and protects, not the father (male) that dictates and disciplines.

I'm not sure exactly what Lakoff is aiming for with that one. It's too nebulous.

"Personal Responsibility" resonates far more with me. Each person (and corporations are considered "persons" in a legal sense) must be responsible for her, his, or its actions. Taken in a broad sense, it's far more effective.

Most people, myself included, do not wish to be responsible for cleaning up brownfields created by faceless corporations. Nor do we want to be responsible for taking care of a serial fool who would rather drink or drug himself to death than get readily available help (which he would have in "Democrat World"). :D

We want them to think of the communities that gave them tax breaks and loyal employees before they pull up roots to head for new headquarters in off-shore tax havens. That's what the "mutual" means to me.

I wish there were some way to make that more clear.

Wow. This message thing is hard work.

Lakoff's two word messages won't resonate until we start using them in short descriptions of our agenda. It is after people have heard them over and over again that the two-worder begins to invoke the entire agenda. Then the positions of the left become part of our national psyche and part of the everyday language of political debate.

The right doesn't actually place a lot of value on the "individual" unless he is male. So there we can make inroads with "Personal." But with "Mutual Responsibility" I think Lakoff is trying to capture things like government regulation of industry and peoples right to sue industry when it harms them.

Lakoff is probably aiming for that. I just think that "personal responsibility" means being accountable. Regulating industry insures corporations will be held responsible for the things they do that harm others.

Here's a kind of lame example, but it's the best I can do in a hurry.

Say I were to shoot somebody in the leg during a footrace because I didn't want to get beaten. I'd be in deep trouble, ant that is perfectly acceptable and understandable. I should be held responsible for my actions and expect to face the consequences.

A corporation that does the same thing to its competition should have to face the same kinds of consequences. That includes everyone up to and including the CEO. They hurt not only their competitors, they hurt the entire economy and, therefore, the public at large.

Frame the debate this way and I think we have a winner.

Of course there are some tactics that are fair in competition and rules are required to ensure fairness. Absolute free markets are virtually devoid of rules, leaving only one: "might makes right."

This can bring "Effective Government" and "Broader Prosperity" into the same story. And I think this is what Lakoff would begin to call a "strategic initiative" because one part of your agenda automatically enables another.

Microsoft and Wal-Mart come immediately to mind when I think of fair competition. It's one thing to be smarter and work harder to get where you want to be, but quite another to use force - economic or otherwise - to gain your advantage.

The whole notion of "might makes right" is what plain folk understand as just plain wrong. The idea that every individual be accountable for his actions - be they person or business - resonates in people of conscience.

does not work. The corporate feudalists will turn it around and it risks being perceived as unwilling to help those who through the toss of the dice in birth, life or misfortune need the help of their fellow citizens and communities. The ditto heads already cry out for personal responsibility - as they bash people on unemployment and welfare.

We are talking about National issues and nationally, we need mutual responsibility and compassion.

They use it to bash the poor. They have co-opted it. They are utterly, completely wrong about what it means. All one has to do is look at the sheer hypocrisy of Bush, Cheney, and Republicans in general to see that they don't believe it applies to them.

I say use it as a hammer on them. Where is their personal responsibility?

"What about the WMD you said were there, Mr. President? Do you take 'personal responsibility' for that? Where exactly does the buck stop, sir?"

I think it cuts three groups. The first, and most common, is actually the LAST group that it needs to cut: the recipents of the welfare state -- mostly children, the elderly, the "infirm," and the mentally ill. These are the last people who need the "dose of responsibility."

The second group, you've been talking about, would be the corporations -- a mutual responsibility, shared responsibility, and PERSONAL responsibility for the shareholder, CEO, CFO, boss, etc.. And I think there's dialogue on that, and that that is DEFINITELY in order and should be part of the progressive platform.

Then, there's the third group -- that both Democrats AND Republicans don't want to tell and don't want to hear about who needs a few ccs of personal responsibility: the middle and upper middle classers, who have the money, the numbers, and therefore, the purchasing power. They're the ones who are screwing everybody by their refusal to 1. Question national branding and its impact on society 2. Question goods that are priced outside of their use value (why? Keeping up with the brand-name Joneses, of course), and 3. Refusal to launch or even be aware of successful boycott methods that could be used to keep companies in check.

Neither side wants to hear that -- the Republicans put their hands over their Darwinian ears and go "blah blah blah, I can't hear you," and the Democrats go, "let the government do it, because we want to shop and look cool, too."

"Personal responsibility" is over-used, and least likely aimed at the most offending group.

Personal responsibility extends to everyone, including the poor and infirm. Sounds bad, I know, but here's my take on it.

A healthy society is nurtured by developing the potential of its people - all of them. It's good for everybody when we take care of the basic needs of those least able to care for themselves. However, this means it is incumbent upon each person to develop to the best of their abilities regardless of limitations.

Think of Helen Keller who, in spite of all her afflictions, made an enormous impact on the world. Her brilliant mind would have been lost had nobody taken personal responsibility and cared for her. Same for Stephen Hawking, Chris Reeve, etc.

There are many more whose contributions are less well-known but just as important. I think of a person like Scott "Khephra" Lowery. His life was often one of unbearable hardship, yet he persevered and eventually became an amazing individual who used his talents to enrich us all. In the face of hardship, he became the best he could be. He did not lie down and play victim. Instead, he found his courage and took control of his life.

If we leave people like these behind, we risk losing the benefit of their minds, their art, their love, their wit and their compassion. By the same token, they must be encouraged to grow and develop as individuals. Government and charitable benefits are merely tools. Personal responsibility requires that you take these tools and try to create something worthwhile.

Neither society nor the individual is served by playing the victim. As long as there is life, there must be a willingness to grow and become better. To me, "personal responsibility" does not mean "for me and nobody else." It means I have a responsibility to better myself, my country, and my world to the best of my ability.

</rant>

I don't think the "unfortunate" should be absolved of responsibility, at all. I worked in social services for three years, and saw poor, mentally disabled people blow their entire EIC on GAP clothes and stereo equipment, when they had three kids, all shaved bald from lice, living in a roach-infested apartment with no electricity.

It's just that these people seem to get the "brunt" of the personal responsibility flak, when it seems, at least to me, that the transgressors are everywhere.

That's where we need to take back the debate. We've allowed the 'pugs to rave on too long. It's time for some truth.

BTW...your screen name is awesome.

Covers alot of ground from fiscal discipline to personal and corporate responsibility.

I know when I've been trumped. :thumbsup:

The individual/corporation is responsible to the government and the government is responsible to the individual/corporation (note the use of the word "to" not "for"). All are responsible for the public good.

and the corporation shouldn't be "responsible to the government" or vice versa.

The progressive corporation primarily serves three constituencies:

The investor
The worker
The consumer

and, since they reside in the U.S. and benefit from our infrastructure, they are, to an extent "personally responsible" for a few things:

1. Paying their taxes.
2. Treating their workers fairly -- which not only includes fair wages and good working conditions, but making decisions that promote the health of the company, and a dedication to returning some of the benefits of good productivity not only to the shareholder, but also the worker.
3. Being eco-friendly -- the air and water is community property, and the pollution of it is EVERYBODY's problem.
4. Providing a safe and reliable product to the consumer.
5. Returning a profit to people who invested in the company, that allowed it to hire workers, make the product and sell it tothe consumer.
6. Not entering into price fixing or manipulation of laws or lawmakers (lobbying) that LIMIT the free market, and put the corporation at an unfair ADVANTAGE over the worker and consumer.
7. Keeping to anti-discrimination policies.

If the corporation could do all of these things, then they would be meeting their responsibilities.

Here is what the corporation is NOT responsible for:

Solving World Hunger

Charity because they have so much money

Having to make tough, HONEST, decisions as the result of market changes, to meet the needs of the most of the company's constituents (consumer, worker, shareholder)

Monopoly

A "level playing field"

Marketing only responsible products (responsible in the "Girls Gone Wild," silly string, chia pet sense).

Now, these would be NICE things for them to be responsible for, and many corporations are charitable and whatever.

Now, here's what the progressive government is responsible for:

1. Making sure the corporation pays its taxes.
2. Fining corporations in response to price fixing, environmental ruin, false advertising or dangerous products.

And here's what the government is NOT responsible for:

1. Providing military back-up for corporate adventure.

2. Regulating everything to death.

3. Prohibiting the manufacture of offensive products.

4. Writing laws or negotiating government contracts in favor of the corporations, or "favorite" corporations.

5. Letting corporations make policy behind closed doors.

6. Bailing out or subsidizing corporations.


Here is what the union is responsible for:

1. Helping the worker maximize their benefits and pay, fairly.

2. Spreading the word on bad corporations who manipulate or treat workers badly, starting boycotts.

And here is what the CONSUMER and particularly the PROGRESSIVE CONSUMER is responsible for:

1. Keeping corporations in check by buying responsibly made or responsible products.

2. Buying goods that are priced close to their use value.

3. Boycotting obvious consumer and worker exploitation.

4. Buying products that will keep jobs locally, and provide good pay for American workers.

5. Keeping "irresponsible" products off the market by not buying them.

6. Buying from companies that donate a portion of their products to charity.

7. Buying environmentally friendly products, fairly-traded products, organic products, etc.

Here is the what the progressive worker is responsible for:

1. Good productivity and keeping to job description.

2. Joining unions and participating in solidarity.

3. Being active and participating in and lobbying for stock options, and a role in corporate decision making.

4. To be a discriminating laborer, and not to provide labor to unscrupulous companies.

****************************************

The reason that I typed this is because though I think most corporations are irresponsible, and that the government is corpo-fascist, that it is not solely the responsibility of the corporation and the government to fix everything -- the worker, the union and the consumer have a role.

If you have an alcoholic that beats his kids, and it's his wife that brings home the six-pack everyday, because he's lost his job and has no driver's license, his wife is what's called "an enalbler." In our society, the consumer, the ever-so-apathetic, greedy and self-gratifying consumer drone has become the "enabler." Corporations don't rob you of your cash at gun point. You give it to them, and the little register goes "ching-ching." It's the most pleasant sounding rape in the world.

... is more interesting, but the phrases themselves are hackneyed, trite and empty of real meaning. To most people, "Stronger America" means more defense spending, which, in actuality, is unnecessary and is killing us right now. "Effective Government?" For whom? It's mighty damned effective already--for the wealthy and corps. "Better Future?" How bland and devoid of content is that? "Broad Prosperity?" That's vaguely more specific than the previous examples, but it doesn't suggest anything about how to achieve it. And, besides, there's a core of poverty in this country which neither party has been able to dislodge, so it might be seen as disingenuous. "Mutual Responsibility?" In order to know what's "mutual," one has to know the participants in that agreement, and the phrase doesn't suggest anything in that regard.

Nope, snooze time on these. :)

;)

Corporate Responsibility
No Lying for War
A Living Wage
Full Employment
Open Government
Penalizing Outsourcing
Ending Cronyism
Preserving Social Security
Restoring Manufacturing
Fighting for Unions
Healthy Environment, Healthy Kids
Energy Independence
Respect for All
Respect for Rights
Freedom from Terror
Leading the World, Not Shoving It Around
Media Accountability
Ending Privatization
Rebuilding Our Schools
Honest Elections
Fighting Fascism


Pick a few.... :)

Stronger America
No Lying for War
Open Government
Energy Independence
Respect for All
Respect for Rights
Freedom from Terror
Leading the World, Not Shoving It Around
Fighting Fascism


Effective Government
Ending Privatization
Preserving Social Security
Honest Elections


Broad Prosperity
A Living Wage
Full Employment
Fighting for Unions
Restoring Manufacturing


Better Future
Healthy Environment, Healthy Kids
Rebuilding Our Schools

Mutual Responsibility
Corporate Responsibility
Penalizing Outsourcing
Ending Cronyism
Media Accountability

... see my other post--categorization, to me, creates additional complexity. It's like an unnecessary layer of management. :)

Cheers.

What Lakoff is talking about is taking 2 words to use that encompass some or all of these issues - it's "framing-up" - creating a context or frame that holds these issues. It's using 2 words that associate to some or all of these in people's minds.

Like "Oh yeah, Mutual Responsibility means Corporate Responsibility, No Lying for War, A Living Wage, Full Employment, Open Government, Penalizing Outsourcing, Ending Cronyism. Preserving Social Security. Restoring Manufacturing. Fighting for Unions. Healthy Environment, Healthy Kids. Energy Independence. Respect for All, etc."

... using a vague inanity to define something specific requires explanation, what was roundly described during the campaign, correctly or incorrectly, as "nuancing." That in itself was used by the Repugs to good advantage.

Going from the specifics, which we all know about here and rant about, to the general, leads one to a better general statement, i.e., that Republican neo-conservatives are ruining this country. If one starts by saying, this xxxxx policy is bad for the country for this xxxxx reason, and then ask, who promotes this policy?, the public can answer that question themselves.

Unfortunately, and this is the sad, subtle truth about all this talk of improving marketing skills, the Democrats get pointed to nearly as frequently as the Republicans, because of the way they vote in Congress and in the statehouses.

Democrats, broadly, cannot talk about a living wage, because they themselves have not fought for it, consistently. Democrats cannot roundly denounce the war as bad for the country's military, the national pocketbook and the country's reputation, because they themselves voted to enable it. Democrats cannot say that they are for the protection of civil rights, because they have voted for legislation to restrict civil rights. Democrats cannot say they are against rapacious corporations, because they themselves have taken campaign contributions from those same corporations and have voted to give them huge tax breaks and tax subsidies and to weaken regulation and oversight.

What I'm suggesting is, first, that if you talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. Ending cronyism, for example, means doing just that, and having specific policy in mind to implement that change. A "Better Future" is nothing more or less than lots and lots of wiggle room, besides being vague. Moreover, if you subordinate specific policy to a category which the public perceives as having no real meaning, as being politically contrived, that weakens the subordinate policy itself in the voter's mind.

How many times have we all laughed out loud at the contrivances of the Bush administration--most notably, the slogans plastered repetitively all over the backgrounds at Bush photo-ops? We laugh because we know it to be propagandizing, that it's PR meant to divert us from what the administration is actually doing, or what its intentions actually are.

A good, PR-savvy politician can sell ice to Inuits, but that doesn't mean he's done them a good deed.

Cheers.

buckets into which you organize the various progressive agenda items. When you use the frame "Better Future", you use while pushing one or more of the agenda items.

Progressive are for "A Better Future" where our children have a healthy environment.

Progressive are for "Effective Government" that ensures our water and air is clean and fosters alternative energy to do so.

Progressives are for "Broad Prosperity" through an equitable tax structure and affordable public education and universities.

... "frames" is just another empty marketing concept to me. It comes off as marketing to me, rather than as sincere and direct. Plain speaking is required--that's how the Bushies have been as effective as they've been, even if they end up doing precisely the opposite of what they say.

Each one of your examples seems to require explanation. Why is that? And how long does it take to say it? The average sound bite today is, what, nine seconds?

What would be the resonance today of saying, "We'll put election fraudsters in jail?" Or, "No More Lies for War?" Or, "We'll fight for unions." "We want a living wage for all."

My problem with the examples you cite is that they are so general that they can be spun, just as the Bushies have done for years--those phrases are virtually identical to what they have been saying to the public themselves, even if none of it reflects their true policy intentions. That muddles the message.

Additionally, the biggest problem the Democrats have had is that they are not simple and specific because they don't want to be pinned down, nor do they want to alienate corporate contributors, and that's why they've been losing. What was the phrase that got repeated endlessly by the media in this past election? Kerry's a flip-flopper. Not necessarily because he was, but, rather, because almost everything he said required some qualification. The fact that he's very good at nuance is lost on people who are either intolerant of it or impatient with it, and very often that includes the press.

That's not to say that one has to abandon policy details--they simply have to be reserved for when time allows, when one has the time and space to be articulate about them. And those policy details had better jive with the short and quick political stand.

Really, what's necessary to win is taking a firm stand and then backing it up with workable policy. What put Clinton in office in 1992? One simple, direct statement: "We're gonna focus on the economy like a laser beam." Behind that was a fairly well-crafted policy to do so. The results could have been better, but when allowed to be expansive, Clinton could articulate the reasons behind that policy.

Cheers.

but as a marketing concept, I think it can be used to convey ideas IMO. And maybe you are also right in that the suggestions listed are not specific enough. I argued similarly earlier in this thread.

But I do believe that there is value in getting people to think of things on our terms and that is what Lakoff is after. I agre that we need to be firm and clear as well.

That nefarious right-wing pr person and pollster who came worked with Newt Gingrich and GoPac to craft conservative-positive messages beginning in 1995. They've been working on this issue for 10 years now and we are lagging behind in countering this effort.

His memo to gopac "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" taught them how to purposefully use language to shape and control the response to their messages. A major portion of the document included specific negative words to you to paint negative portraits of the opposition (us).

Over the past several years the Republicans have been trying to co-opt the issue of the environment away from the Dems. On Luntz's advice they are in the process of reframing the debate from "global warming" to the less emotional "climate change." Here is a excerpt from one of Luntz's memos on the subject:

"The environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general- and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable. A caricature has taken hold in the public imagination: Republicans seemingly in the pockets of corporate fat cats who rub their hands together and chuckle manically as they plot to pollute America for fun and profit. And only the Democrats and their good-hearted friends from Washington can save America from these sinister companies drooling at the prospect of strip mining every picturesque mountain range, drilling for oil on every white sand beach, and clear cutting every green forest.
The fundamental problem for Republicans when it comes to the environment is that whatever you say is viewed through the prism of suspicion. As with education, Social Security and so many other issues, the Democrats have been expert at constructing a narrative in which Republicans and conservatives are the bad guys. And if Americans swallow that story, then whatever comes later is mere detail.
Indeed, it can be helpful to think of environmental (and other) issues in terms of �story.� A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth. The popular movie Erin Bruckovich presented a courageous woman fighting against an impersonal corporation that poisoned the public with cancerous chemicals with impunity. The Wall Street Journal and investigative journalist Michael Fumento later conclusively demonstrated that the real-life E M Brockovich�s legal case was full of holes and contradictions, but no matter: the public had it�s emotional story, and no number of exposes will ever come close to matching the power of that story.
...
'Facts only become relevant when the public is receptive and willing to listen to them'"

----

I understand your abhorrence to the manipulaltion of pr-meisters. It's something Democrats are inherently distastful of. But the truth is, we (the Dems) are being steam-rollered through the use of these techniques. They are powerful techniques and it is in our interest to make good use of them. It is an advantage we can not longer cede to the Republicans, imho.

----

Here's an article with links to the Luntz memos and other sources on the subject
http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/123103-the_power_of_languag.php

... a lie well-told is politically effective (even Luntz's example of the "truth" in the Hinckley/chromium-6 case is misleading). Using the slickest approach to success makes all imitators suspect.

The answer to that is not more PR, but, rather, the truth, made as simply and directly as possible. Being good at PR can't substitute for that. :)

The Democrats are losing, not because they can't afford better packaging, nor because the Republicans are better at PR. It's because so few of them are speaking the truth, simply and directly, that those that are appear to the public as kooks and fringe elements. That simple rule has to apply to one's votes, as well as one's speech.

For example, we now know the USA PATRIOT Act has emboldened the Bush administration to broadly cripple rights as we know them in this country, and to embark on a campaign of secrecy about their abuses, the scope of which is unique in this country's history. Only one Democrat, Russ Feingold, voted against that legislation. Now, was he prescient in a way that no other Democratic Senator was? No. The remainder, many of them the high lights of the Democratic Party, decided that the Repug PR surrounding a no vote might harm them politically, and now say, in one way or another, that they didn't realize that they were acting as enablers of a corrupt and dictatorial administration. Some continue to say that the bill only needs a bit of tweaking.

Feingold was also one of only twenty-three Senators to vote against the Iraq war resolution.

The Repugs put a huge amount of effort and money into portraying Feingold as unpatriotic, as unfit; Tim Michels ran a very negative campaign against Feingold, even before the primary was complete, and tried to use Feingold's votes against him. Feingold told his constituents, basically, that recent history justified his votes on those bills.

What happened? Feingold won with 56% of the vote. If the rest of the Democrats in the Senate had simply spoken the truth, had not been worried about how their votes might influence PR against them, politically, the complexion of the Senate might be quite different today.

Here's something no one wants to talk about, either. Had Kerry voted against the Iraq war resolution--and then defended his position in the campaign by saying the war was wrong and all one had to do was look at the evidence for proof of that--he might well have won by bulletproof margins. Instead, he voted for the resolution, then said the war was wrong, opening himself to all the PR flak used by the Republicans during the campaign.

Had Kerry spoken truth to power with his vote, as he did to Congress with his mouth in 1971, he would likely be President today. But, Kerry is not the same man now that he was then--he had become part of the power structure, and could not speak the truth by his vote. In truth, how many times and to how many people did George Bush say, "first he's for the war, now he's against it" in those exact words? How did that statement resonate with the voters?

Democrats aren't losing because their PR isn't up to snuff, or because they aren't using Gingrich's distortions of language (of which I've been aware for some years). They are losing because they no longer believe in speaking the truth, or in simple common sense, or that, above all, the citizens' interests come first. There are exceptions to that rule, but even in the Democratic Party, those exceptions are seen as out of the mainstream. That's a measure of the extent to which the Democratic Party has been corrupted by the political process itself, as it's been defined by the post-Nixon Republican neo-conservatives.

Cheers.

At least from one perspective - take phrases that do not connect to a specific meaning and create the meaning. That's what "framing" is about - it's not just about using words and letting people make up for themselves what the words mean but using the words and assigning a meaning that's positive to your agenda. It's taking words like "Stronger America" and defining what that means over and over again until people get it and it becomes a "meme" and associates with a meaning and image that you've defined.

That's what conservatives did with terms such as "pro-life." What did it mean until they defined it to mean "anti-abortion?" "Pro-life" was a meaningless term - it could mean anything. Same with "moral values." When and how did it become associated with "anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-sex, racist, pro-christianity?" How did "family values" become associated with "pro- right-wing christian?" See what I mean? These terms could have meant anything - until the conservatives co-opted them and created a meaning for them.

and some of you still don't get it. You are already squabling about how something "doesn't quite do it for me." What the words themselves are is less important than the meaning YOU ASSIGN TO THEM though a well organized delivery machine and then getting them repeated over and over and over and over again.

I mean, do you really think every ditto head got "activist judge?" But when was the last time you heard a "cheap labor conservative" talk about a judge giving a ruling they disagree with without using the terms, "activist judge?" Next to never.

"Mutual responsibility" doesn't go far enough for me. Maybe something like "mutal respect and responsibility" or "respect for all."

I also think "stronger America" still has military overtones--which I personally don't care for. What about "American leadership" or "A Fair America"?

You forgot that the other side also owns that chestnut "culture of life" which can also be countered by a "respect for all" or "dignity" meme.

;)

Seriously, the "culture of life" frame is the grossest right wing lie. Lakoff points out that anti-choice is rooted in the womb-hating strict father philosophy that guides virtually all conservative thought. There may be some anti-abortionists who subscribe to the culture of life, but they tend to be leftists who oppose the death penalty and war as well.

As for "stronger America," I know what you mean. I think of that one as a way of saying the US has to be strong and secure enough so that it doesn't feel threatened in a way that makes it act detrimentally to the health of the world, as it has done consistently since 9/11. Sort of like the man who's secure enough in his masculinity that he doesn't feel threatened by a strong woman or homosexuality to respond irrationally. :shrug:

"responsible spending"
"mutual respect"
"fair play"

in place of "better future," "mutual responsibility," and "broad prosperity."

That gets us back to 10. I think we still need to work on the whole defense thing. How about "secure America?" or "safe America?"

the differences between us and them. I don't know if it replaces one of the others, but I like it more than most of them. It is also one of the first moral concepts we learn as children.

I think it has deeper resonance than MR, myself. I agree with you.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if we were a whole lot weaker. I think the world would be a better place.

But I'm a whacko, I guess.

For the masses, though, I feel sure "stronger America" would imply greater military power. Normally when you say strong, you think of physical strength (if you were to do word association, for instance). As much as I'd like to think "strong" equals "strength of character," I don't think it pops to mind automatically. Plus, don't the Republicans use that phrase? Didn't Bush in the debates? It sounds GOP-ish to me.

Maybe "better America" would be a, um, stronger frame.

It's still really, really vague, though. It's a vaguer frame than those Lakeoff lists for conservatives. Smaller gov't, lower taxes--those are pretty specific things. Does anyone know why he chose such unfocused phrases to respond to some fairly focused ones?

I like your "fair America" phrase, if we have to go with vague.

that the Democratic Party is the one who VALUES FAMILIES and fights for them.

As opposed to GOP who simply sprinkles the words into their empty rhetoric.

Other than that... I agree and really appreciate Burtworm's posting this.

:kick:

Don't feel constrained to 10 words: the message frame is the important issue. I personally think that "Stronger, respected America" is better, and would also prefer "mutual respect and responsibility".

I think the biggest thing to get from Lakoff is NOT to fall into the trap of using right-wing terms like "death tax" and "tax relief". And to try to frame things in very simple, easy to remember terms.

I think they could be highly effective.

He's good as a linguist, and a decent nice man. But anyone who thinks he's out of the ordinary in terms of political insight is just kidding themself, IMHO.

I know he's very much the flavor of the month with some sections of Democratic Party activism. However, I've read his stuff, & heard him speak several times. He isn't anything special -- just a standard Dem Party backer, like the American Prospect. I have little enthusiasm for that sort of very tired material.

to power?

probably too big to take on in the few minutes I have for lunch break today. But generally speaking, most of the party is dominated by corporate elements, and there's absolutely no hope as long as this remains the case. In the election, you had a nominee who basically didn't even mention most of the astounding crimes committed by the Bush administration, out of fear of alienating "moderates" or corporate elements. I mean, Kerry simply failed mention these things. Did he make an issue of how deeply un-American Abu Ghraib was? Did he make an issue of creating a global chain of American gulags? Did he make an issue of Enron? (Halliburton was mentioned -- but only in quick one-line references that would not have been understood by those who didn't already know.)

Considering how much half the country loathes the Bush admin, it was astounding to see the so-called "opposition party" virtually fail to criticize it! They had unbelievable riches of material at their disposal, and simply decided not to use most of it, because "using it" would have offended the corporate powers, and most of the party refuses to do that.

These kinds of things can't be covered up simply by a more clever use of language.

And yet Lakoff's larger point is that the prgressives are on board. How do you build on that base without losing the progressives. In other words, how do you turn the country into a bastion of progressive values?

Have you read his stuff? I don't want to repeat it if you have, and if you haven't, you should so we're talking about something concrete.

in terms of framing the debate? There is no question that the republicans have taken ownership of the language. Lakoff is there to help us take it back. Even if he isn't the best man for the job (and I think he might be), his think tank will allow the best ideas to float to the top. There needs to be a clearinghouse for this stuff.

I have some experience with advertising. You toss stuff around and work it like a terrier until something comes together. It's not about one guy; it's about a process. And I think we desperately need this process. I, for one, will not sit still and allow myself to be painted as an "tax and spend tree hugger" (or whatever the insult du jour is).

Welcome to DU, by the way, JoshK! :toast:

No question, one cannot afford to simply concede the entire turf of language to the rightwing. One must be skillful in the use of language. On the other hand, this, by itself, is not enough.

BTW, one thing I heard Lakoff say in mid-November was that although the Kerry campaign had requested his advice, they did not (in his opinion) use hardly any of it. He said, "I'm afraid they just didn't get it."

it's all over. Nobody wants to be fighting their way out of a corner.

Like everything else, language is a tool. But...it's such a powerful tool that the republican control of the message allows them to talk the talk without even pretending to walk the walk. It's one of the most staggering examples of cognitive dissonance in history. Right up there with "arbeit macht frei."

You're right. Language isn't the only thing. One needs money too, and good hair :-)

...acceptance speech, but that was pretty much it.

I believe he also said that Bob Shrum was impossible to convince that something Shrum didn't come up with was worth considering.

I may be misremembering this. I wrote about it here at DU when I heard it, but the archives are down so I can't confirm it.

OK. Mine is that Lakoff is at the point of a very large sword. Soros and his billionaire buddies are in the process of a funding strategy for progressive think-tanks to counter Richard Mellon Scaife's army of RW shills.

Lakoff is but one of many individuals who will run on the "fuel" provided by these backers and will help shape the message and get it into the mainstream.

Furthermore, his ideas may seem tired to you, but they are exactly the kinds of ideas the Republican noise machine has used to great effect for 30 years. Now that they control every segment of government in the United States, it may be time to trot out some of these tired ideas ourselves.

Using language more cleverly is one thing. It's a skill, a tactic, which may be employed to advance very admirable goals, or very deplorable goals.

Fundamental orientation and definition of principles is something entirely different.

My feeling is that the Dems' problem goes a lot deeper than merely its use of language.

...as you have already done so in reply to BurtWorm. You make some excellent points.

I think you're seeing into the heart of the problem. That's good. I also think what Lakoff is doing is superficial, but it's necessary. Image is all too important in our media-driven culture and it's important that we understand how it works.

That said, it is vital that we rebuild and strengthen Democratic core values. Image is important but the common people aren't stupid, either. They know in their hearts that Bush is wrong about most things, but they also know that the Dems at the top don't stand for anything much different. In order to prevail we must stand by our most fundamental values and beliefs.

Lakoff himself may be overrated. But, I think he has hit on a critical component of the Republican's success in federal elections. I believe that the Republicans have reaped more benefits from their think tanks and strategic forces than we have. They've also managed to do a better job of simplifying their message into easily disseminated soundbites, for consumption. Lakoff elaborates on this in his work.

...things he says are so obvious they actually come across as not be very intellectually rigorous. But given that nobody else is saying them, you have to give the guy a lot of credit.

I would also say that his book Moral Politics is a little disappointing because -- although I don't dispute the conclusions he came to -- he's very vague about the intellectual process that led to his conclusions. In the afterword of the revised edition he does some of the analysis that should have been in the body of the first edition, but you can tell he doesn't give it the effort it deserves. Some of it isn't even written in full sentences.

I also disagree with some of his political analysis (like the role Nader had), but then he's not really a poltical scientist.

Having said all that, Lakoff is absolutely right about one thing:

People do think about politics the way he describes it. They have a set of priorities in their mind, and they have perceptions of what Dems and Republicans believe that are based on all sorts of things -- like what the media tells them, history, mythology, etc. The Republicans have done a great job of both creating and harnessing popular culture and mythology to influence the way people think about Repubs and Demos and to create a set of priorities in people's minds that puts Republicans on top.

He's absolutely right that Democrats need to start thinking about electoral politics with the same focus: they need to talk about big pictures, they need to understand how people think, they need to work on helping people prioritize differently. And Democrats have all the facts and all the arguments on their side (which is probably why they've been so lazy about the big picture for the last 30 years).

GOP proposition

People immediately know the general topic we are talking about, and we can point out the clear differences between our focus and results and the Bush failures.

Let them be known for ridiculous color code alerts and the failure to take meaningful action.

It also points out the wreck they are making of our economy. (Another record trade deficit in the latest report, with no end in site.)

and means, a future worth paying for. It implies investment. It is vague, I agree. "Future" is a good, strong word. "Better" is too vague.

I'd replace it with Reciprocal Diplomacy.

Sex, Drugs & Rock 'n' Roll

:headbang:

ago but better late than NEVER!

Link to Lakoff..
snip~
Why was the Rockridge Institute created, and how do you define its purpose?

I got tired of cursing the newspaper every morning. I got tired of seeing what was going wrong and not being able to do anything about it.

The background for Rockridge is that conservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing. Even the new Center for American Progress, the think tank that John Podesta is setting up, is not dedicated to this at all. I asked Podesta who was going to do the Center's framing. He got a blank look, thought for a second and then said, "You!" Which meant they haven't thought about it at all. And that's the problem. Liberals don't get it. They don't understand what it is they have to be doing. end snips~


More at..
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1492448
I think Clark has thought a lot about this. Last year when he took his campaign South, he started his "True Grits Tour" in which he declared Democratic values are family values.

some National media that weren't screw our words up!

and Jobs?

And IIUC, he says we don't get those things because we talk about those things mechanically without fitting them into a cognotive framework that helps people understand what Democrats value.

The guy sounds like a snake, and wants us to ape Republicans. If we truly want to take back the country again, we're going to turn politics back into an honest calling. After all, that is our frustration and ultimate goal. Otherwise we're Rethug-lite or DLC.

Lets begin by telling the truth. Heres our list of what we really want, and Im not afraid of telling it to American over and over again:

a. Equal rights
b. Higher taxes
c. Less military
d. Natural environment
e. Real jobs

If you run away from any of those, you dont believe in our core and should contact Karl Rove to subcontract out some of his spin.

Wondering if you have seen his book or seen him on TV? I am reading his book but haven't seen him, so I was curious if you have? He definitely doesn't want us to "ape Republicans" as you say. One of his points is that we need to present a picture of who dems are - one that doesn't list issues but focuses on defining what makes us dems.

I think that's his theory. Not sure I buy it either, or that "framing is some magical cure for our ills, but so far I don't think he is a snake.

And for the record, your list doesn't reflect what I would define as my key issues - and I'm a liberal. Guess it is hard to come up with a summary of our diverse group!

He's not at all about "aping Republicans."

First of all, Im for reclaiming the language. Im a liberal, always have been and dont have to hide behind a different bland label because Im ashamed.

Word twisters appeal to the corrupt. But in our case, they appeal to our timid side. We have the issues. Hell, Bush won* in 00 because people thought he was compassionate, for Gods sake.

Liberal governments won in Europe and Canada by being upfront. Sweeping programs and taxation to pay for them were aggressively promised. But we, insecure and unsure, "bland" up our platform - ergo, Republicans end up sounding like something close when they're not. Nothing Lakoff does solves that problem. Christ, as other posters have pointed out, his 10 fucking words are Bland Central Station, with a yellow racing stripe on it.

Have you read Lakoff or not? You're very sure of your opinion of him. Is it based on your reading of him or prejudice?

This has been well reported here and on the Framing Board. I have a strong difference in philosophy. Im optimistic and self assured and think that our party will win if it is too. Self-confidence is lacking, has been for awhile, leading to the nomination of bland presidential candidates (minus Clinton) seemingly afraid to fight on the issues.

If success of aggressively liberal candidates had not been so openly obvious elsewhere, I could see where we would have to hide behind parsing specialists. But going along with their GOP counterparts in fuzzing up our platform with platitudes doesnt mesh with my character. To others it may, and I grant that. A difference of opinion.

BTW, I said that Bush won with an asterisk in my previous post. He did so by being Lakoff in reverse.

This is about convincing people to get off their asses and vote for Democrats. Lakoff is not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. He is not arguing that Democrats should lie about their programs. He is merely arguing that words matter more than Democrats seem to realize. If Democrats talk like Republicans, then the Republicans are in charge of the debate--even when Democrats put "nots" in front of every "positive" the Republicans talk about.

"Framing the debate" has become an overexposed, faddist phrase of the moment, but there is something real and profound that Lakoff is talking about. It doesn't do to make pronouncements about it if you're basing your opinions on what other people say about it rather than on the thing itself. Then you're participating in the degradation of the idea into a piece of pop ephemera. I'm not arguing that Lakoff is gospel, just that it's pointless to argue over what he's about with someone who only thinks he knows what he's about.

Criminy. Liberals there promised universal health care, free college, and a generous safety net by saying so directly, not beating around the bush. Whats wrong with my list of similar honesty:

a. equal rights
b. higher taxes
c. less military
d. natural environment
e. real jobs

Those were the encompassing themes that swept progressive programs into existence in Europe. They were confident about the appeal and acted like it. Instead, we have mealy mouth quarter-measures that republicans can easily co-op with eighth-measures. Lose, lose.

higher taxes unless it's necessary.

less military is vague, and it'd be a mistake to weaken national security right now, it's about smarter, more responsible policy when it comes to national security and foreign relations/policy

natural environment doesn't happen with out our protection of it.

Real jobs, what exactly does that mean?

Lakoff is not bad, he's not spinning, he's taking back the language from the right, and helping us to get off the defensive about things. Read the book.

As a counterpoint to "family values," which does little more than undermine civil liberties.

I don't like this idea of the government as a parent at all, whether strict or nurturing. Wotthehell is the matter with everybody dealing with each other as adults, consulting with each other about the public sphere. We're supposed to BE the government!

http://www.counterpunch.org/smith05052003.html

Customer' and 'consumer' were not the only words being used to change the nature of citizenship. David Kemmis, the mayor of Missoula, MT, pointed out that the word 'taxpayer' now "regularly holds the place which in a true democracy would be occupied by 'citizen.' Taxpayers bear a dual relationship to government, neither half of which has anything at all to do with democracy. Taxpayers pay tribute to the government and they receive services from it. So does every subject of a totalitarian regime. What taxpayers do not do, and what people who call themselves taxpayers have long since stopped even imagining themselves doing, is governing."

Then there was growing use of the term "stakeholder" that covertly diminished the citizens' role to that of a minor participant.

Ironically, 'stakeholder' literally means a person who holds the money while two other people bet. Whoever wins, the stakeholder gets nothing.

Another phrase that started cropping up was 'civil society,' a patronizing description of people who, in a democracy, are meant to be running the place. The term has come to used in elite circles with roughly the same condescension of a bishop talking about a church altar guild.

"Customer' and 'consumer' were not the only words being used to change the nature of citizenship. David Kemmis, the mayor of Missoula, MT, pointed out that the word 'taxpayer' now "regularly holds the place which in a true democracy would be occupied by 'citizen.'"

We seldom hear the MSM refer to "citizens" anymore. Thinking of ourselves only as "customers" or "consumers" is particularly dangerous. It really points out where we are in the political/economic food chain.

Thanks.

I'm not sure how to word it but maybe just, "Respect for all Americans" or something.

What we're fighting against, now, isn't a "small government, free-market" faction -- no matter how they want to say it, they're corpo-fascists, which is very, very different from the free market.

I think making this distinction is important to separate some of the libertarians from the fundies. Lew Rockwell, and many of the LP talking heads already get it, and it should be shouted from the rooftops. "Reduced government and free market" are words that should be nowhere associated with the Bush administration.

It's too close to "liberals are in favour of kittens and rainbows and being nice to people", it doesn'y give a specific set of policies for improving the world.

Broad Prosperity and Mutual Responsibility at least hint at an underlyting philosophy, but Stronger America, Effective Government and Better Future don't actually mean anything, they're slogans, ratgher than policies or values. While I don't approve of the values the conservative has stated, I think the statement of them is excellent: concise, clear and meaningful.


I'd try something along the lines of

Altruistic Foreignpolicy
Strong Society
Redistributive Taxation
Equality of Opportunity
Compassionate Values

I have read the book and am very pleased with the road he is going down because we need our own first principles that are easily explained. I have recommended the book to many friends, and I just got the DVD last night and am looking forward to watching it.

The "nuturant parent" model will be a difficult sell to the american public. I suspect that the answer is that instead of a Strict Father that the Right uses we should use a "Smart Father" model.

A Strict Father sends his children into a dog eat dog world.
A Smart Father makes sure everyone is has an equal chance to win in life.

The more I read about the problem with the media, the problem with our message the more I believe that the fundamental problem is a cercerted single message on issues. We have lots of think tanks, but when an issue comes up we don't speak with one voice. I appretiate Lackoff and I am supporting Dean partly because of his support of Lackoff concepts. I believe that this, combined with Rob Stein's Phoenix project is the hope for the future of American progressive politics.

For dissent on Lakoff you can goto http://semanticcompositions.typepad.com/index/2004/09/maybe_try_think.html

My commentary on this here: http://lookinforward.blogspot.com/2004/12/framing-debate-lakoff-and-debate-about.html

must be on any list of progressive values.