Rove Rides Again -- With the Help of the Democrats

[SHRED]

Rove Rides Again -- With the Help of the Democrats
George Lakoff

For a while last week, the Democrats were doing better at framing the issues. The poll numbers showed that Bush’s approval rating was down, that around 60% of the voters had turned against the Iraq War, that support for Bush on his handling of 911 and terrorism was lower, but still pretty high. They correctly recognized in the numbers that the public had begun to separate Iraq from 911, and they recognized the relevance of the Downing Street memo in showing that Bush had betrayed the trust of the American people in sending troops into Iraq on false pretenses. They had begun to form an anti-Iraq-War caucus and to hammer home the consequences of these development. And even staunch Republicans were listening to their arguments and coming to Bush to suggest withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

In short, the Democrats had begun to use the basics of framing issues in terms of their own values and principles, the lessons arising from research at the Rockridge Institute. Had they continued to argue with unity on the difference between 911 and Iraq, and on the fact that George Bush betrayed our troops and is weakening our country, they might have made it impossible for Bush to once again link Iraq with 911.

Then they lost it. Karl Rove outsmarted the Democrats again. And he used the most basic trick in the book to do it.

The first lesson of framing is not to activate the other guy’s frame. Negating a frame activates it in the minds of hearers, as Richard Nixon found out when he said “I am not a crook” and everybody thought of him as a crook. The very title of my book, Don’t Think of an Elephant makes the point: if you negate a frame, it reinforces the frame.

MORE>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/george-lakoff/rove-rides-again-with-_3414.html

[depakid]

1. We need to lock up EVERY DEM and their so called "strategists"

in a hotel with this guy- and not let ANY of them out until they pass a battery of tests showing that they understand what he's talking about....

[Mass]

2. Huffington needs desesperately to retire

I sometimes wonder when she writes her BS if she knows all is not political strategy and that there are real people in America who work for a living. Her focus on trivial things like that make me doubt it.

The answer Democrats gave was obviously coordinated (which is a very good thing, because for once, they did not attack each others on trivial things but attack Bush. Obviously, A.H. would have preferred that the Dems attack each other and let Bush off the hook.

(last time she was complaining that Dems were speaking about SS and not the DSM, now she is complaining that they are speaking on how to get the troops out quickly without letting Iraq in the hands of terrorists (I understand that she wants them out now, but how realistic is this?)...

[SHRED]

3. Uhh...

Am I mistaken?
Isn't that a George Lakoff and not a Huffington article?

[Mass]

4. I should have read better, but I still disagree with the article.

[Larkspur]

5. Why because Lakoff nails Kerry for his incompetent response to Bush's

speech?

Compare Kerry's and the Hill Dems response to Dean's
Dean: Troops Deserve More Than Bush's 'Discredited' Rhetoric
http://press.arrivenet.com/pol/article.php/661706.html

Dean goes on the offensive immediately with his critique of Bush's speech.
Disappointingly, the President followed Karl Rove's advice last night and linked Iraq to 9/11 no fewer than five times in just over 35 minutes. He ignored the concerns that Americans have expressed about the war, and still refused to provide real answers or a clear path to success in Iraq. Even former Reagan aide David Gergen expressed that he was "offended" by the number of times President Bush mentioned 9/11.

"Despite being previously forced to back away from unfounded assertions about links between 9-11 and the war in Iraq, President Bush once again twisted a national tragedy to distract from his own failed foreign policy," said DNC Chairman Howard Dean. "Instead of offering the American people a clear path to success in Iraq, President Bush returned to the same defensive and discredited rhetoric. The American people, and most especially our troops, who are serving with great courage, deserve better than discredited, shopworn political rhetoric from their Commander-in-Chief."

Dean directly nails Bush and Rove for presenting propaganda as a plan. That's an excellent framing counter attack to Rove. Unlike Kerry, Dean doesn't putsy foot around, and he uses every day language to directly attack the content and lack of content in Bush's speech.

[depakid]

8. And that's is why Dean would have won the general election

and might well have taken the House and the Senate by nationalizing the campaign against Republicans in general- instead of playing pandering games like Kerry....

Rhetoric is an ancient craft that has been studied since the time of the ancient Greeks- though you wouldn't know it by watching most of the Dems in action over the 12 years.

Most of what Lakoff (a professor of linguistics and cognitive science) is saying isn't something new under the sun... and until the Dems figure out what people like Aritstotle, Demosthenes and Cicero knew- we'll be doomed to defeat, time and time again....

[Mass]

12. No as most of the article is about the Democrats in general

meaning starting with DEAN. He does not say Dean is a good guy. This is you personnal interpretation. And Kerry said exactly the same thing Dean said in the statement you quoted (too hard for you to read something about Kerry, I know).

I disagree because people once again think that they need heros and goatscape, and that this will avoid them to think and talk about the ISSUES. Here, Lakoff is not talking about an issue (leaving Iraq or staying), he is talking on how to frame it.

If the answer chosen to the issue is bad, no framing will be necessary (and note he chooses the same answers as those Dems he criticizes, stay in Iraq and win, not so much different than Kerry or Dean), and if the answer is right, the framing is only a small element of winning and Lakoff is largely overrated.

[ixion]

6. Lakeoff is right on the money... until the dems starting framing

the debate away from the rethugs, they will continue to lose one so-called 'debate'.

[wiggs]

7. Lakoff right again. So why did we take the bait?

More from Lakoff:

Rove managed to link Iraq with 911 again, and to delegitimate the Democrats in the process. And he did it with the Democrats’ help.

Rove achieved this brilliantly – in one sentence!
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

snip

But the Democrats helped Rove get Iraq identified with the war on terror again, characterizing the Democrats as unpatriotic naïve weaklings, and setting the stage for Bush’s address on June 28, 2005, in which he followed Rove’s lead and again framed the Iraq War in terms of 911 and the war on terror. This time John Kerry stepped in to help Bush, basically supporting the president’s position but offering policy-wonk modifications. The message: Bush is basically right, except for some minor twiddles.

end excerpt

There's more from Lakoff on what the dems SHOULD HAVE DONE if they were interested in providing a contrast to the administration's positions. Interesting stuff.

I can't help but feel sometimes that dems help the administration by offering weak objections, softening a more natural response of outrage and relieving some pressure. We get excited that someone MENTIONS the DSM in passing, when our congressmen should be pounding the damn table on the senate floor demanding an investigation.

Why did dem leaders take Rove's bait and play his game and why are we unable or unwilling to agressively take advantage of the opportunities this horrendous administration gives us every single damn day?

[K-W]

10. They are puppets who think they are free.

And since they dont see the strings, they cant anticipate thier opponants actions.

[K-W]

9. The dems need to embrace the leftist intelligencia again.

The democratic party has been crippled by the marginalization of the left in so many ways and to such a staggering degree it is hard to contemplate. We are left with shells of democrats in office. Democrats who arent democratic enough to upset the thought police.

But our society, and particularly washington are so immunized against enlightened thinking that im not sure what the solution is.

[scottxyz]

11. Digby "gets" the framing issue - same way that Lakoff does

Every Dem strategist should read Digby's article.

Basically Digby says that the Rovians are engaging in playground bullying, trying to portray Dems as wimpy (read: effeminate). If you respond to this kind of attack by defending yourself, it doesn't get rid of the wimp label. The only way to effectively respond to being labeled a wimp is to GO ON THE OFFENSIVE. Being DEFENSIVE looks, well... defensive, i.e. wimpy.


Limp

I've been reading around the blogosphere this morning quite a bit of advice that the Democrats should ignore Rove's comments. That by responding we are "playing into his hands" and "doing exactly what he wants us to do." I would reiterate what I wrote below and say that Karl's not playing chess; he's playing dodgeball.

Neither did Rove invent this technique of derisively referring to Democrats as liberal hippie fags and dykes. Republicans have been doing this for a long, long time. As long as we've been losing they've been doing it with gusto.

Dukakis didn't respond. Gore didn't respond. Clinton did respond, (although I suspect that the real reason it didn't work as well with him was because his womanizing problems made it difficult to subtly label him unmanly.) They just spent a hundred million dollars calling Kerry a "flip-flopper" which in case you didn't get it, was designed to make you think of a flaccid penis. These guys aren't very subtle.

The truth is that to ignore this stuff it is to play into Rove's hands. Because the whole point is to make us look weak. When you don't respond when people call you weak, you reinforce the charge.

Now, how you respond is the real question. I would like to have seen some Democrats say "Karl, why don't you say that to my face." I'd like to see women like Hillary and Pelosi pull out the ferocious mother card and angrily say "how dare you say that I would recklessly put America's children at risk the way you people have done!" No demands for apologies --- veiled threats. Bring it on.

Or we could respond with laughter and eye-rolling derision designed to make them look ineffectual and silly. The Republicans are also very good at doing this. I can't think of a single time we ever have.

This is ultimately about simple leadership archetypes. (The "gender studies set" will know what I'm talking about --- king, warrior, lover blah, blah, blah.) And we are failing to embody them on a very basic level. Asking for an apology is better than nothing. Hitting back in simple ways that convey strength and conviction is even better. If we could come up with something more sophisticated that would work, I'd be all for it. But ignoring it is the guaranteed wrong thing to do.

Republicans are very successful at connecting with the primal instinctive feelings voters have about people in charge. We aren't. It is their greatest weapon against us and it has nothing to do with policy or positioning or demographics. It has to do with the fact that a lot of people make their decisions about leadership on the basis of who looks the strongest. It's primitive shit. And the Republicans strip it down even more simply than it has to be. There is some room for experimenting with this in innovative ways if we would just accept that it exists and work within it.

It's very hard for me to believe that a party led by limp, myopic chickenhawks and closet cases is getting away with this, but they are. And they have for a long time. We are fools if we let it continue.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_digbysblog_archive.html#111971676221360314

More discussion of the Rovian "sexualized double-bind attack" and how to counter it can be found in the following DU thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x135032

This will be very interesting to Dems concerned with STRATEGY and COMMUNICATIONS. Dem POLICY is right-on but our strategy and communications are way behind the Repubs'.

[applegrove]

13. So true. n/t