UC Berkeley professor to help Democrats master language, message

[NEOBuckeye]

We need this guy. We really, really need this guy...

---

The scholar, UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive sciences George Lakoff, is a hot item in liberal circles these days as he argues Democrats must develop a message that resonates more deeply with voters. His latest book, "Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate,'' is on best-seller lists in Washington and the Bay Area. Before the Nov. 2 election, then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, who heads the House Democratic Policy Committee, distributed hundreds of copies of Lakoff's book to their colleagues and staffs.

"It's all about words and craftsmanship,'' said Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel, of Lakoff's advice. "He shows us that we ought to take the Republicans' words and show why they don't work, why they just aren't so.''

---snip---

"The Democrats need to be clear about their messages and to find a common vision, express it well and stick to it,'' said the professor. Lakoff helped create the Rockridge Institute, a Berkeley-based think tank that in its own words seeks to "reframe the terms of political debate to make a progressive moral vision more persuasive and influential.''

During the 2004 campaign, Lakoff suggested that instead of talking about how Bush had run up the national debt, Democrats should label it a "baby tax'' the Republican president had imposed on future generations. He has suggested that same-sex marriage should be referred to as "the right to marry.'' Trial lawyers like vice presidential nominee John Edwards should instead be called "public protection attorneys,'' and the term environmental protection, which brings to mind big government and reams of regulations, should instead be termed "poison-free communities.''

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/05/MNGDIA6N3I1.DTL

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. kick

[LizW]

2. Ooh, this is awesome

George Lakoff's book is amazing. He makes you understand why the Bush voters think the way they do. He explains it and you think, "Oh, my gosh, now I get it."

[Sweet Freedom]

3. "Pro-life" should be changed to

"pro-birth" because repubs really don't care what happens to people after they are born.

[Donna Zen]

4. How about

"Anti-all-living entities"?

Yes, they only are pro-birth and after that it's: you're with us or will take you out.

[DjTj]

5. Great ideas, but...

"baby tax," "public protection attorneys," and "poison-free communities"? ... come on, he can do better than that.

I always liked the word debt, and I think "borrow and spend Republicans" or "mortgaging our future" or "making our kids pay for our problems" are all better than "baby tax" which is really just confusing.

I think John Edwards did find running as a small-town lawyer, which I feel has a much better connotation than big-city lawyers. The best strategy there I felt was always to distinguish Edwards from the other lawyers rather than try to rehabilitate trial lawyers as a whole. You'll never get people to like lawyers.

And "poison-free communities" is way too over the top to stick. Clean water, clean air, clean parks, clean communities. Safe water, safe air, safe communities...

I really like Lakoff's general premise, but we'll need slightly better marketing. The Republicans do it all the time though - they throw out ridiculous terms and later backtrack to something more reasonable. It's all worth a try I think. If the Dems in Congress start making their own talking points, it'll start getting interesting.

[Eric J in MN]

6. On the one hand, I appreciate

what Geoge Lakoff is doing.

On the other hand, I believe the Democratic Party needs more populist POLICIES(limit excessive CEO pay) and not just to re-phrase exisiting positions.

[housewolf]

7. Co-opting language

The Republicans co-opt language all the time. Take the words "death tax" replacing "inheritance tax." "Pro-life" vs. "pro-abortion" - this one really gets me - it's a completely false and a mis-characterization. Where did "pro-choice" go??? They won both sides of that labelling issue.

Here are a few more: "Reform" replacing "elimination" ("tax reform" "medicare reform" "social security reform"). "Pro-growth" meaning "anti-labor", "anti-worker", "anti-union" and "anti-protections". "Free trade" meaning "anti-regulation." "Climate change" replacing "global warming."

They are masters of reframing issues. They have brilliant consultants like Frank Luntz telling them how to do it.

We can't just roll over and die in the face of this kind of attack. And that's what it is... an attack against our issues (aka our values). We need to not only counter their attacks but to take the offensive and re-frame our issues ourselves, in ways that express our values.

It takes creativity and out-of-the-box thinking to begin to look at old issues in new ways, but we're up to the task.

It seems to me that the biggest reason we lost this past election is because we were anti- almost everything; we didn't have a clear focus of a vision that was inspiring and could lead people. That's what we need to develop. New languaging is one tool that can help us get there.

[Radical Activist]

8. Framing the message is important

and I like a lot of what Lakoff has written. I think its important that we have policies that are right, and not just the right language.

I prefer what Thomas Frank has written on the subject in What's the Matter With Kansas. They have similar themes. Frank writes with the authenticity of someone from Kansas who still lives in the midwest. I think a Berkley professor might be limited in his knowledge on how to appeal to heartland voters.

[Supersedeas]

9. Pelosi need your help Professor--get her a quick language prescription

[Rambis]

10. This is the biggest issue

The repugs have studied this for 30 years in think tanks etc and they have blown us out of the water. It is time to get back in the game and this is the way to start. The only place to start-