Rightwing Libertarians trash Lakoff

[eg101]

The Man Who Framed Himself
How George Lakoff got trapped in his own metaphors




Like potholes after a snowstorm, when Democrats lose an election the linguist George Lakoff will surface to explain the defeat. Between the recall of California Governor Gray Davis and the failure of the Kerry campaign, he has had countless opportunities to make the case that Democrats must rethink how they frame their issues. Language matters, he argues; everyday phrases can come bundled with unspoken assumptions.

That much is common sense, and should be obvious to anyone who has spent time unpacking the rhetoric of politicans and the press. The best recent illustration I've seen was sketched by Steve Koppelman, a liberal blogger with a libertarian streak, as the Bush-Kerry race entered the home stretch:
...

If Lakoff's frame is limited, then so are his rhetorical skills. One reason to understand an opponent's frame, after all, is not to overthrow it but to hijack it—to make a case for your policies in the language of the opposition. The liberal pundit Matthew Yglesias, for example, has suggested that opponents of Bush's Social Security plan should reject the phrase "private accounts" in favor of "forced savings," a clever bit of rhetorical ju-jitsu that might have traction with conservatives skeptical of government requirements. (Of course, "forced savings" describes the status quo as well, except perhaps the "savings" part.) Lakoff himself notes that conservatives have learned to dress up unpopular proposals in liberal lingo, but he doesn't seem interested in teaching transvestism to the left.

Instead he proposes a full-fledged reorientation of the language, a project he is somewhat ill-suited to lead. Near the end of Don't Think of an Elephant!, he writes that conservatives "have figured out their own values, principles, and directions, and have gotten them out in the public mind so effectively over the past thirty years that they can evoke them all in a ten-word philosophy: Strong Defense, Free Markets, Lower Taxes, Smaller Government, Family Values." He proposes a similar ten-word philosophy for liberals: "Stronger America, Broad Prosperity, Better Future, Effective Government, Mutual Responsibility." Maybe I'm just missing the frame, but that sure sounds like mush to me.



more here:
http://www.reason.com/links/links011205.shtml

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. Most Libertarians are right wing racist, homophobic, bigots....

who like the idea of having government discriminate (hold back) against the disenfranchised.

[mattclearing]

3. That statement seems kind of prejudiced, though, don't you think?

I know a few libertarians who aren't any of those things.

Of course, there are some like that, but I don't know that hatred defines the Libertarian Party.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

5. There are a few decent Libertarians.

I emphasize that there are ONLY A FEW!

Literally a HANDFUL!

[crispini]

2. Well, Lakoff must be doing something right;

this is the second article I've seen posted today trashing him.

First they ignore you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.

[Demit]

4. I get that feeling too. Why the sudden spotlight unless they're worried?