Instead of George Lakoff, how about Sun Tzu?

[derby378]

I'll admit it - I'm on another Sun Tzu kick. But maybe it's about time.

I have nothing but respect for George Lakoff. His ideas on framing and campaign communications would have really benefitted the Democratic Party if more Democrats at the top had heeded Lakoff.

So maybe it's time for Democrats on the front lines to take a deep breath and consult a strategist who predates Lakoff by two and a half millenia.

No more bipartisanship. No more compromise. No more contenting ourselves with scraps from the master's table. This applies to health insurance reform, DADT, environmental protection, abortion rights, etc.

Politics is like war. Lakoff is a great communicator, but Sun Tzu was a great tactician. And his approach towards war is something that I, as a Quaker, can appreciate. To Sun Tzu, the best way to win a war was to win without fighting. His preferred approach was to attack the enemy's plans and strategies. If that didn't work, the next best approach is to attack the enemy's alliances. If that didn't work, the next best approach is to attack the enemy's army. The very last resort was to attack the enemy's cities.

And that's part of the problem with letting the Tea Parties and FreedomWorks and all these corporatist types take control of the health reform debate - they've succeeded in chopping the bill into something that many Americans can't stand but Republicans secretly love, even if they're not going to vote for it anyway. We failed to attack their plans and alliances, and we failed to head off their army at the pass. So they stormed Congressional townhall meetings, and that was that. The Democrats lost the momentum.

"Therefore, to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

Sun Tzu was a big believer in the idea that all war is based on deception, and political campaigns are no different. Not that you're trying to deceive the voter, of course - that's just plain un-American. What you want to do is deceive the other political camp and frustrate its plans before they can pull off anything like, say, an astroturf Tea Party movement.

"O, divine art of subtlety and secrecy! Through you we learn to be invisible, through you inaudible and therefore we can hold the enemy's fate in our hands."

Even Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition grasped that much:

I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag. You don't know until election night.

And just think - he was working for a second-rate faith healer who thought he could pray Florida into suffering a natural disaster. We, as Democrats, act on behalf of the American people. We know what our neighbors are having to endure. We know they need decent health care, good jobs, improved human rights, and a better overall quality of life. Now we need to embrace the tactics that will keep the enemy camp from denying Americans what is rightfully theirs.

Enough ranting for now. I've got two different translations of The Art of War to wade through, along with Sun Pin's own textbook and a bunch of commentaries from period military strategists. Maybe I should brew some coffee.

[ibegurpard]

1. All this presupposes that they are fighting for YOU

[derby378]

2. In that case, Sun Tzu's got me covered on that front, too

The same tactics that work on the enemy camp will also work on those who have infiltrated our side of the fence. But there has to be enough collective will among Democrats to make this happen.

[Larkspur]

3. George Lakoff is the linguistic Sun Tzu

Sun Tzu would have understood what Lakoff is saying and tell our leaders to follow his advice. Frank Luntz knows what Lakoff means and has been teaching the Repubs for nearly 20 years. The Repubs listen to Luntz and follow his talking points to the letter. Our Dem leaders are pompous but cowardly jerks who think they know better than Lakoff and us. Of course, some of our Dem leaders are in cahoots with Corporate America and that's why they prefer the Kabuki dance that they use to claim that they are on our side instead of honest Democratic leadership.

[Go2Peace]

4. Linguistics allows you to understand the power of propaganda. And we are in the midst of

a very heavy, extremely powerful, propaganda war. Republicans are generally lousy at science, but this is one area that they have really shined. They have figured out how the mind works and have assaulted our very core so powerfully that they have even distorted traditional liberalism.

The only way out of it is again the science of linguistics. We have to understand the damage done, come to grips with the innefectiveness of our traditional approach against this science, and reconstruct and reverse the damage.

We won't do that without getting smarter and growing some (figurative) balls. We have to stop playing the schoolyard geek being chased by bullies. Nobody will really listen and follow us until we appear to be someone walking with confidence.

[derby378]

5. I'm not sure we need voters to "follow us"

Lots of Republicans are comfortable with having followers - if you're a Republican, you're either a leader, a follower, or Ron Paul. I used to be in that camp back in the 90s before my eyes opened.

What Democrats as a whole really need is not for their fellow Americans to lead them or follow them, but to walk beside them. There needs to be some emphasis on our shared community, our shared responsibility, and our shared hopes, dreams, joys, and sorrows. A society is only as good as those who build it in the first place - yet another reason why the teabaggers need to be stopped in their tracks before they cause more damage to the political process.

[Larkspur]

6. Depends on how you define "followers"

Robert Greenleaf said followers enable leaders to lead them and followers can also disable leaders who lead them poorly. Greenleaf is the founder of the Servant Leadership paradigm. In his view, leaders have a vision which they can convince at least 1 person to follow. Followers were not to be sheep blindly following the leader but to be engaged with the leader in the decision making process that affects the whole group.

[derby378]

7. Very good point, thanks! (n/t)