|
Reviews from Amazon.com
Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives (Paperback) by George Lakoff, Howard Dean (Foreword), Don Hazen (Introduction)
Amazon.com
In the first of his three debates with George W. Bush, 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry argued against the war in Iraq not by directly condemning it but by citing the various ways in which airport and commercial shipping security had been jeopardized due to the war's sizable price tag. In so doing, he re-framed the war issue to his advantage while avoiding discussing it in the global terrorism terms favored by President Bush. One possible reason for this tactic could have been that Kerry familiarized himself with the influential linguist George Lakoff, who argues in Don't Think of an Elephant that much of the success the Republican Party can be attributed to a persistent ability to control the language of key issues and thus position themselves in favorable terms to voters. While Democrats may have valid arguments, Lakoff points out they are destined to lose when they and the news media accept such nomenclature as "pro-life," "tax relief," and "family values," since to argue against such inherently positive terminology necessarily casts the arguer in a negative light. Lakoff offers recommendations for how the progressive movement can regain semantic equity by repositioning their arguments, such as countering the conservative call for "Strong Defense" with a call for "A Stronger America" (curiously, one of the key slogans of the Kerry camp). Since the book was published during the height of the presidential campaign, Lakoff was unable to provide an analytical perspective on that race. He does, however, apply the notion of rhetorical framing devices to the 2003 California recall election in an insightful analysis of the Schwarzenegger victory. Don't Think of an Elephant is a bit rambling, overexplaining some concepts while leaving others underexplored, but it provides a compelling linguistic analysis of political campaigning. --John Moe
From Publishers Weekly
Lakoff, a cognitive scientist and linguist at Berkeley, believes he knows why conservatives have been so successful in recent years and how progressives like himself can beat them at their own game. This slim book presents a simple, accessible overview of his theory of "moral politics" and a call to action for Democrats mourning November’s election results. Lakoff’s persuasive argument focuses on two ideas: what he calls "framing," and the opposition of liberals’ and conservatives’ concepts of the family. Conservatives, he says, have easily framed tax cuts as "tax relief" because of widespread, preexisting views of taxes as burdensome, and liberals have had little success conveying the idea that taxes are a social responsibility. In Lakoff’s view, conservatives adhere to a "strict father" model of family, in contrast to liberals’ "nurturant parent" view, and he sees this difference as the key to understanding most of the two sides’ clashes. His writing is clear and succinct, and he illuminates his theories through easy-to-follow examples from current politics. Although the book has been updated since the election, many of its sections were originally written long beforehand, so some comments are outdated (at one point Lakoff wonders, for example, whether George Bush’s support of the gay marriage amendment will help him keep the White House). However, the process of regaining power may be a long one for Democrats, and Lakoff’s insights into how to deal with conservatives and appeal to the general public are bound to light a fire under many progressives.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Foxes in the Henhouse: How the Republicans Stole the South and the Heartland and What the Democrats Must Do to Run 'em Out (Hardcover) by Steve Jarding, Dave Saunders, Bob Kerrey (Foreword)
From Publishers Weekly
Those who stayed up late to watch with worry or woke in dismay after the November 2004 presidential elections will welcome this answer to "How in the Hell did this happen?" as the first chapter, aptly titled, promises to explain. In this humorous discussion of what went wrong and how to change it, Harvard professor Jarding and Virginia politico Saunders present a method to secure a Democratic victory by gaining the lead in the South and the Midwest. The book encourages Democrats to open their minds to the rural culture of "Bubbas," or blue collar, religious folks who despise government intrusion, have been voting Republican and would respond to political "NASCAR marketing." Jarding and Saunders keep it lively, interspersing low-blow jabs at Republicans with statistics, political history and strategies for Democrats to connect with Bubbas over contentious issues like gun control, environmental protection, gay marriage and abortion.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Review
"I am not sure the Democrats are the solution, but I do know that the Republicans are a problem. This is one hell of a book. I like angry, especially when it knows its target. And this one is dead-on. No one is spared. It's an eye-opener. Both sides should read it and weep."
-- Lewis Black
"If Democrats are brain-dead, the surgeons are here. Steve and Mudcat show how their party could again be something Andy Jackson would recognize -- a party of the people. If Democrats don't start listening to these guys, they should move to Canada."
-- Craig Crawford, Congressional Quarterly and author of Attack the Messenger: How Politicians Turn You Against the Media
"Steve and Mudcat know the South and rural America and they show they know how to connect to it. Their interest and their commitment to rural communities is smart and good politics. It is also personal -- they both come from rural America."
-- Virginia governor Mark Warner
"Foxes in the Henhouse is a kick-ass and take-names primer on how to clean up the Republican corruption in Washington and get back to old-fashioned Democratic values. Does the Democratic Party want to get back to winning in rural America? Well, here's the playbook. Steve and 'Mud' are good ol' boys who have won big in what the 'experts' said was Republican territory for keeps. This is a must-read for Democratic candidates and strategists, but especially for anyone who is interested in replacing the special-interest politics of the GOP with the public-interest priorities of the Democrats."
-- Ben "Cooter" Jones, former Georgia congressman and Dukes of Hazzard star
"There has been plenty of ink spilled about the problems Democrats have at winning elections, but if step 1 on the road to recovery was identifying 'what's the matter,' step 2 is identifying a solution. Jarding and Saunders outline a very persuasive blueprint that's already proven successful."
-- Chuck Todd, National Journal
What's the Matter with Kansas? : How Conservatives Won the Heart of America by Thomas Frank
Amazon.com
The largely blue collar citizens of Kansas can be counted upon to be a "red" state in any election, voting solidly Republican and possessing a deep animosity toward the left. This, according to author Thomas Frank, is a pretty self-defeating phenomenon, given that the policies of the Republican Party benefit the wealthy and powerful at the great expense of the average worker. According to Frank, the conservative establishment has tricked Kansans, playing up the emotional touchstones of conservatism and perpetuating a sense of a vast liberal empire out to crush traditional values while barely ever discussing the Republicans' actual economic policies and what they mean to the working class. Thus the pro-life Kansas factory worker who listens to Rush Limbaugh will repeatedly vote for the party that is less likely to protect his safety, less likely to protect his job, and less likely to benefit him economically. To much of America, Kansas is an abstract, "where Dorothy wants to return. Where Superman grew up." But Frank, a native Kansan, separates reality from myth in What's the Matter with Kansas and tells the state's socio-political history from its early days as a hotbed of leftist activism to a state so entrenched in conservatism that the only political division remaining is between the moderate and more-extreme right wings of the same party. Frank, the founding editor of The Baffler and a contributor to Harper's and The Nation, knows the state and its people. He even includes his own history as a young conservative idealist turned disenchanted college Republican, and his first-hand experience, combined with a sharp wit and thorough reasoning, makes his book more credible than the elites of either the left and right who claim to understand Kansas. --John Moe --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
From The New Yorker
Kansas, once home to farmers who marched against "money power," is now solidly Republican. In Frank's scathing and high-spirited polemic, this fact is not just "the mystery of Kansas" but "the mystery of America." Dismissing much of the received punditry about the red-blue divide, Frank argues that the problem is the "systematic erasure of the economic" from discussions of class and its replacement with a notion of "authenticity," whereby "there is no bad economic turn a conservative cannot do unto his buddy in the working class, as long as cultural solidarity has been cemented over a beer." The leaders of this backlash, by focussing on cultural issues in which victory is probably impossible (abortion, "filth" on TV), feed their base's sense of grievance, abetted, Frank believes, by a "criminally stupid" Democratic strategy of triangulation. Liberals do not need to know more about nascar; they need to talk more about money and class.
Copyright © 2005 The New Yorker --This text refers to the Paperback edition.
Stand Up Fight Back: Republican Toughs, Democratic Wimps, and the Politics of Revenge (Hardcover) by E.J. Dionne
Amazon.com
One thing all can agree George W. Bush deserves credit for is creating a groundswell of bestsellers in the run up to his 2004 reelection campaign. Most of the anti-Bush tomes of the time are marked by a sense of outrage and anger. It says something that even E. J. Dionne, Jr., a radio and print columnist noted for a generally placatory left-center tone, allows a clear sense of outrage to creep into his take on the Bush II era, starting with the title. Indeed, Dionne's discontent grows more pronounced with each page, though ultimately Stand Up, Fight Back maps out practical responses to what the author sees as the two maladies that infect contemporary politics--resolute conservative maliciousness and irresolute liberal defensiveness. The Washington, D.C.-based scribe chronicles the three-decades-long ascendancy of the right in response to Democratic complacency. The key for the G.O.P. was its "clarity of purpose and a certainty about the moral superiority of their creed." Dionne, however, finds gaping holes in right-wing morality, notably when chronicling the 2000 Florida debacle and the "grotesque" Supreme Court decision that handed the presidency to the second-place finisher in the popular vote. Dionne wraps things up by outlining a program to stall the precipitous shift to the right. It would be engineered by a moderate and liberal alliance that emphasizes fairness, compassion, justice, and the common good. Not particularly original, and certainly there are bolder perspectives on the current political landscape, but by navigating the practical path, Dionne may have penned one of the season's most influential reads. --Steven Stolder
From Publishers Weekly
Syndicated columnist and NPR commentator Dionne (Why Americans Hate Politics) outlines a sound plan for a Democratic takeover of the White House in 2004. He first criticizes Bush's "compassionate conservatism," arguing that most of it, the tax cuts, for example, was much more conservative than compassionate. Indeed, he says that President Bush's administration was floundering until the September 11 terrorist attacks, which gave it a focus in policy and the mid-term 2002 elections. The newfound focus on homeland security not only gave the administration some momentum, it also put the Democrats on the defensive: unwilling to appear soft on security, he argues, they kept relatively quiet. As a result, Democrats were "complicit in the strategy" propagated by the White House and big losers in 2002. Dionne proposes a two-pronged solution: First, Democrats must develop think tanks and talk radio outlets similar to those used by the right because these sow the seeds of new ideas. The Democrats' solution of relying on the "grass roots" only splinters the party into special interests. Second, Democrats must reframe arguments into the middle ground so that the party is seen as being for both government and individualism, for free trade, but with environmental and labor protections. The new liberal Air America Radio network may be one test of Dionne's theories. Beyond that, Democrats may hope that fallout from Iraq and the economy will accomplish their goal without enacting Dionne's solid ideas, which could have more long-term effects. Dionne proffers perhaps the most cogent analysis to date of why Democrats have lost the battle to the right, and how they might regain control of the debate.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
