Hey Lakoff - Don't FEED The Elephants!

[sandnsea]

And my list grows ever longer. My friends know about my list, it’s the “People Who Ought To Be Glad I’m Broke” list. If I had money, I would spend every last penny hunting them down for the pure pleasure of tweaking their noses and calling them idiots. Whoever authorized Kerry’s goose hunting trip, YOU, you’re on the list! (Go to the mirror and give yourself a tweak, even if it’s the Senator)

To the point, Mr. Lakoff, if “don’t think of an elephant” means not using their words and strategies to help them further their agenda, why in gods green earth DID YOU JUST DO IT?? I don’t even know what his recent blog is about, because Bush has pissed the country off by linking Iraq to 9/11 again. Even in Kansas.

After pretending that Bush has been successful in resurrecting the Iraq-9/11 meme, Lakoff goes on to offer up his words of wisdom which is nothing more than the EXACT things Democrats have been, and still are, saying.

A sampling from the last few days:

In some respects, the Downing Street memo is the least problematic of the lot. The most problematic, in my view, is the memo leaked just a few weeks ago that expressed alarm at the Bush Administration's lack of planning for post-Saddam Iraq. (Sen Salazar)

The Administration's view of the war in Iraq is divorced from reality… the White House continues to distort the facts today. As we have all seen from the Downing Street Minutes, this pattern began before the war started. (Sen Kennedy)

Admitting mistakes is a necessary hurdle and a constructive tool for this Administration if it wants to build the strength necessary to get it right in Iraq…And that includes acknowledging that Iraq today is something it wasn't before the war: a breeding ground for jihadists. (Sen Kerry)

There is a growing feeling among the American people that the President’s Iraq policy is adrift, disconnected from the reality on the ground and in need of major mid-course corrections. “Staying the course,” as the President advocates, is neither sustainable nor likely to lead to the success we all seek. (Sen Harry Reid)

There is another side to “don’t think of an elephant” and that would be “don’t feed the elephant”. If you don’t want Americans to think Democrats are incompetent, quit saying they are. If you don’t want to get drawn into ideological debates, choose words that don’t reflect a known controversial ideology or words that have already been framed by the right. Most importantly, never ever ever say Democrats and Republicans are the same; that is a rose on a silver platter.

I suspect Mr. Lakoff would prefer to see words like "exit strategy", "withdrawal" and "timetable", words that are very popular with the anti-war left. As much as Mr. Lakoff claims to understand the moral values of Kansans, one value he either doesn’t understand or doesn’t share, is the simple value of cleaning up your own mess. You simply cannot tell Kansans, or Americans, that we destroyed another country for no reason, and expect them to think the solution is to say “oops, sorry” and abandon them. You cannot tell them that we have turned another country into a breeding ground for terrorists who will kill people around the globe, and expect them to say “not my problem”. You certainly can’t tell Americans that asking others to die for our mistakes is an honorable solution.

The Democratic leadership understands this, which is why they have chosen words like "milestone", "benchmark", "finish the mission" and plain old "Iraq strategy". This in no way “supporting the President’s position,” and that out and out LIE caused more harm last year than any combination of supposed mistakes the Kerry campaign or Democratic Party made. I am horrified that anybody who purports to want to hold the Bush Administration accountable for getting into this mess, and to get us out as well, would continue to say such a singularly stupid thing.

Bush’s Iraq policy, terrorism policy and foreign policy is horrific. Democrats have done nothing but say so for months. What exactly does Mr. Lakoff think the fight against Ms. Rice and Mr. Bolton, for instance, were about? What does he think “miserable failure” meant? What does he think the “most important election of our lifetime” was all about? Bush is building permanent bases, Kerry is calling for an unequivocal statement against permanency. How could the difference be made clearer?

Head to the nearest mirror, Mr.Lakoff and tweak, hold on…. don’t let go…one final twist…. aaaahh, that’s better.

On edit: Nose tweak for me. This isn't the Kansas guy. Same principle though.

LINKS:
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=1190

[TayTay]

1. The Dems are looking for a simple solution

to their electoral woes in 2002 and 2004. Lakoff comes along and says, "It's the language, stupid." Since it's a simple solution that posits that the American people are stupid, a lot of Dems think to themselves, "Great, we'll tweak the language and then we will win."

It's not that simple. There are NO SHORTCUTS to winning back the American people to the Democratic Party. Lakoff makes some sense, but some of his frames suck. There is no friggin way I'm going to the mechanic who changes the tires on my car and tell him that he needs to vote for the 'Mommy Party' because we are the nurturing people who make sure the trains run on time and make everyone feel good. This is simply stupid.

I went canvassing last year in New Hampshire with 2 shrinks and a Cambridge therapist. Nice enough people, but kind of clueless when it came to talking to some people. We came to a neighborhood of modest homes and double-wide trailers. The folks I was with were clueless about how to talk to these people. Just fucking clueless. They emphasized the wrong points, made inappropriate jokes about Bush and generally made themselves look like parodies of the liberal stereotypes. This has to stop. It indicates a lack of respect for our voters.

The people who push Lakoff seem to me to be the same damn thing. We are not going to woo voters back to us with just a tweaking of the language. The American people are not that dumb. Lakoff has some good ideas, but he is not the messiah that is going to lead the Dems to the promised land. I am so tired of liberals who look to books, seminars and college professors to try and figure out what 'the voters' want. Why can't these people just spend some time with ordinary Americans? Then they might be able to figure it out. These are not 'bad' or 'dumb' or 'evil' people. They are hard-working Americans who expect an honest talk. We have to honor them, not invent gimmicks for tricking them into supporting us.

There are NO SHORTCUTS to getting back into power. There is only the difficult work of re-connecting with the American voters. This starts with listening to the American voter and respecting them. Everything that doesn't start out from that premise is doomed.

[BlueIris]

17. TayTay, you are so right.

Don't EVEN get me started on the frames I don't like, the post would be like nine paragraphs long.

[karynnj]

2. Lakoff actually is falling into a RW frame himself

when he says Kerry's plan is only a tweaked version of Bush's. That was the Rove point all last year.

Bush has never told us his plan, but his actions don't line up with leaving Iraq stable and getting out. I think the best parts of Kerry's speech and interviews are when the differences between what he outlined and what Bush has done were highlighted.

Kerry's plan is logically consistent with leaving as soon as possible with a semi- stable Iraq. The clearest differences with Bush are:
- Permanent bases - this is so clear, obvious and easy to explain. I hope all Democrats mention this every time they get time.

-Training - I loved it when Kerry described people mystified by the US rejection of assistance on training

- Borders - When Kerry said the sealing the borders was safer than being in Iraq, it answered the question I always heard (and agreed with) of why would any country come tp help us now that we've ruined it.

What's strange to me is that Kerry's words show far more responsibility, concern for the Iraqis, and especially concern for our soldiers than the Lakoff words which to me fall into the trap of making the Democrats look weaker.

[TayTay]

3. I agree. And I also don't think that the *ies own 9/11

They did at one time. But they have screwed it up. Did you see the WaPo article today about the horrendous abuses in the TSA budget? Something like half their budget went for outrageous expense, including $1,000 for 20 gallons of Starbucks coffee, $1100 for a telephone call and other awful and arrogant expenses.

9/11 is not a political football. It is an instance of mass murder of American citizens. Rove is treading on a graveyard and using the bones of the dead to beat political opponents. This is not a good thing, it is immoral and wrong. I was grateful to Sen. Kerry last week for pointing this out. And I was also happy he spoke out about the abuse that Rove was heaping on our military. This is not weakness or 'bad framing.' It was true and Sen. Kerry was right to take the floor and express his outrage.

My Mom used to tell me, when I was a little girl, "If you have your head up your own ass, don't be surprised if all you see is shit." (Good old Mom, what a nurturing presence.) Some of the GD libs are angry at Kerry when they think he is silent. Then they are angry with him for being a moderate. Now they are angry with him for strongly speaking out. Duh!

[karynnj]

8. well, given their consistent anger,

I missed the article - they really got a lousy price on the coffee.

I really thing that during the campaign the only time Kerry wasn't at his best is when he took someone else's guidance on what to say. Since the election, he's been so incredible when he is himself.

I realize that how you say things is important. Your comments on New Hampshire were really interesting. (I could picture some of the DU liberals doing similar things and have read that that kind of insensitivity to local behavior was what made Dean's hordes of volunteers somewhat annoying.) However, here the problem is not "wording" but what action is called for. Layoff's expertise is language. I am confident that Kerry is recommending what he thinks is the best plan, considering the interests of the soldiers, the US and the world.

I absolutely loved the clarity on permanent bases, because I think it has the potential to wake up an already somewhat disenchanted with the war population. Hopefully, people will be outraged at how many Iraqis have been trained in two years especially as Bush turned down help.

It would be great if the Democrats take a few succinct differences and repeat them so they can sink in as a Democratic plan. The question is how many other Democrats agree with Kerry's plan. I know months ago, Kerry and Kennedy both said they are not far apart and this might hold true for most of the more liberal Senators. It would be the most interesting to see who disagrees with with what suggestions.

[wisteria]

4. This guy is just anti-war, and nothing less than picking up and leaving

will be good enough for him. He is as bad as republicans in that he sees things in black and white only. There can be no grey area for him. Either you are with him and his rigid positions or you are against him. To suggest that we adopt Republican tactics to win is just deplorable to me. Why would we want to mislead the public as Tay Tay mentions.We should be better than that. I agree with both of your posts. Sandnesa is correct when she says The Dems have effectively been speaking out and bringing attention to many differences between us and the Republicans. And as both of you mentioned, we need to connect with the middle class more effectively. We Dems have to redefine ourselves to the classes. We have allowed the republicans to label us and we have not effectively fought back and denied those characterizations. Mr.Lakoff doesn't explain why we were wrong to speak out against Rove's definition of liberals after 9/11.
A hint of bias against Kerry is very noticeable too. His conclusions concerning why Kerry lost are ridiculous and confirm that he has no understanding of the middle class and what drives them to vote for one person as opposed to another. He may think Kerry would have won as the anti-war candidate, but this demonstrates his utter ignorance and understanding of what actually motivated people to stick with Bush-the war and fear for their own safety and well being.

[TayTay]

5. I agree with you on that

There is no evidence to show that if Kerry had been stridently anti-war that he would have won. Absolutely no evidence except wishful thinking. All the reputable polling that I read on the election showed that Kerry lost because of the narrow group of people who thought we should not change horses in mid-stream. (And it was a narrow win for the Shrub. We must never forget that.)

The Lakoffian faction at DU, DKos and other places is swallowing this stuff whole. I think Lakoff has some good ideas. I liked his frame on Tax Reform. (I hated his frame on Tax Investment. That's not going to work. He needs a better one than that.) But this is not the magical cure-all that is going to restore the Dems to power.

The Dems are the PArty of the People. We will not come back to power until we reconnect with the people. It's not done just in focus groups and at seminars. IT's done by talking with the people. Sigh!

[wisteria]

6. Absolutely!

We have got to get down from our high horse, so to speak, and connect with real people. I can relate to your experience canvassing with out of touch hard to relate to people. They meant well, I'm sure, they just don't have that down to earth, average American appeal.

[TayTay]

7. Some people work overtime and triple shifts

to be able to get to buy a piece of land and put a double-wide trailer on it. I'm not going to laugh at these folks or think 'down' on them. I'm there to congratulate them and wish them well as they try to get enough money to build up and to get their kids good schools and so forth.

This just frosts my butt. It's a pet peeve of mine.

[wisteria]

11. I agree, I try to live by respecting the person, not the belongings.n/t

[karynnj]

9. I think that he is crazy if he thinks Kerry would have done better running

as an anti-war candidate. He was running against Bush. There is no way that a legally sane anti-war person, no matter how angry at Kerry, could really in his heart think that Kerry would be a dangerous war monger like Bush. His history was there for all to see

[paulk]

10. I have Lakoff on my "to read" list

that he's that out of touch makes me wonder if I should waste my time.

[jillan]

12. Lakoff's book is a must read, it really is BUT

I don't agree with his comments on Kerry.

First I think the worst thing this party can do is to bash other democrats publicly. It makes us look weak.

Second, I think it would have been a mistake if we were silent on Rover's comments. It would have been like the swifties. Silence would have been the wrong thing to do.

I still can't believe that Rove hasn't apologized yet!
Why are we letting him get away with that? When Durbin said what he did, the r's made him crazy until he apologized.

Great post btw!

[Mass]

13. Lakoff is just another excuse for the Dems not to do their homework

and have a real discussion on what Dems should stand for.

Framing is just a mean to promote an idea, but if you do not have the ideas or if the ideas are wrong, framing is useless.

As long as the dems will not have decided what they stand for and how they will organize on the ground, Lakoff and people like that are largely overrated.

[karynnj]

14. Absolutely agree

I find the idea that we can greatly shift the number of people who vote for our candidates just by changing the words to be extremely condescending and arrogant. It's out of the same mold as the concept that excellent advertising can sell products we really don't want. As someone old enough to remember many friends with pet rocks, I don't rule out some impact, but I really think that on some key issues, people know where they are and will not be swayed by it being called something else.

On Iraq, I think he is off base. First of all, it's not how he said it but what Kerry proposed that he is complaining about. Lakoff's expertise and knowledge of what is feasible in Iraq is not anywhere near Kerry's. I also don't think Kerry made his speech to get political brownie points. I think he is serious about trying to identify things that can be done to get us out.

[sandnsea]

16. True, framing has a place though

Take health care. When most people think of a Democratic health plan, they think of Canadian style single payer. Bush was able to take that firmly engrained "frame" and use it against Kerry, even though his plan was totally new and different from single payer. What was most baffling to me was that Bush has a "clinic in every county" health plan, which is the exact kind of government health care people don't want. So framing matters.

But deciding what we stand for, that's important too. I don't understand how Democrats let Bush get away with his "clinic in every county" last year, and didn't just slam him on government health. Instead, they praised it. Everybody in rural America knows these clinics don't help when you live 60 or 100 miles away from them. It's part of that organizing on the ground thing too. Even if you can get the state level people to listen to rural voters, you can end up with a handful of local Democrats who aren't representative of your community whatsoever and don't even know it. Like the CAFTA vote here in Oregon, how can our Reps be against it and our good Dem Senator be for it? Definite disconnect that no amount of framing will fix.

[BlueIris]

15. I'm becoming increasingly disenchanted with Lakoff.

The list of issues raised by critics in this thread are just the tip of the iceberg for me. He's really not the genius/prohpet the Left would like him to be.