Yes, the new buzzword going through Democratic cocktail parties is the phrase "marriage rights" to replace the old term "gay marriage."
Oh yeah, that'll fool those old red states!
< /mocking! >
Posted on 12/06/2004 10:45:00 AM PST by snarkpup
As Democrats continue their post-election soul-searching, a new guru is emerging. He isn't an internet whizz-kid or a campaign strategist, but a bearded Berkeley linguist who says he knows why Republicans keep winning.
George Lakoff says it all comes down to "frames" the mental structures people use when they think about words. Conservatives are masters of framing, using expressions such as "tax relief" to shape the debate to their advantage, he says. If Democrats could do the same, they would perform much better at the polls.
A few months ago on another thread I posted some remarks about how (back in the '70s) Chomsky was despised in the theoretical linguistics community for his campaigning against any theories that were an improvement on his own. One of the champions of a theory that made Chomsky's Generative Syntax obsolete was George Lakoff. At the time, this made Lakoff one of my heros. (I was minoring in Theoretical Linguistics at the time.) For example, his theories helped me see patterns in foreign languages that most students see as irregularities; and I know from first-hand experience that he was a clear and entertaining lecturer.
After Carl Sagan's death, I saw some taped interviews of him and was stunned at what a flaming Marxist he was. I now feel the same about Lakoff.
From Sagan's interviews, I got the impression that - like many scientists - he suffered from the delusion that the principles of hard science could be applied to the social sciences and that the ideal society could be designed by a panel of experts - like sending a man to the moon. This may be the situation with Lakoff as well. (Or it could just be that when you're a theoretical linguist, your income is directly proportional to government spending.)
But back to the specific topic of the article, I can't make heads or tails of what Lakoff is trying to say here. I'm losing half my income to taxes and getting precious little in return; so from my point of view, describing tax cuts as "tax relief" is perfectly objective. And it seems to me that the 'Rats are as guilty as anyone of using loaded words and euphemisms:
They've usurped the term "liberal" to the point that it is now the polar opposite of "libertarian".
When was the last time you heard them use the word "choice" in reference to anything but a euphemism for "abortion"?
Who refers to government spending as "investment"?
(I was inspired to post this because Rush was just talking about Lakoff meeting with the 'rats to give them some further hints on language abuse. The last example above is from Rush.)
Let's hope that Dems do concentrate on frames. That way they'll miss the big picture again and again.
Pun intended -)
this frame has no picture.
Sagan and Dawkins were, and are, pure materialists. My fondest moment was watching old carl on TV before the First Gulf war. He said if Saddam tourched the oil wells we were in for nuclear winter. Saddam did and old Carl was wrong. He could distort any scientific principle to his political views.
And of course it was supported by his book, A Path Where No Man Thought...
My opinion of Sagan went down hill fast during that epoque.
Bush's poor debating forces several thoughts: isn't a good debater just someone, like a lawyer, who can effectively argue anything? Are having good judgement and being a good debater to some extent mutually exclusive? Yes, when things seem fine we can pick the candidate who sounds best, but what about when things are serious?
I don't know if people consciously think these things, but they are there, subconciously. You can't think for people.
I would also say that this guy is putting way too much emphasis on words, and not nearly enough on images.
One way to characterize The Minimalist Program, and Zipf's Principle of Least Effort in general, is that every action has a reaction, moving towards the simplest possible mytho-poetic model. It's a lot harder than just saying tax relief vs. who's going to pay for those tax cuts.
Wow, this technique has never been used in an election before -- God helps us if the politicians ever get wind of this. "Framing" a debate or issue, hmmm...this Lakoff guy is a genius! (Maybe his name should be changed to Captain Obvious?)
And didn't Mr. Gore during the 2000 debates "frame" Bush's tax relief as "a risky tax scheme" while all of his buds were "framing" it as "tax cuts for the wealthy"?
Yes, just maybe the 'Rats will start calling, abortion, the killing of babies in the mothers womb, "pro-choice".
For years, the libs have reminded me of "newspeak" from "Brave New World". Political correctness is nothing but "newspeak".
If you've never read the book, take some time to.
I remember "newspeak" being in Orwell's "1984". It was in Brave New World too?
Darn...mixed up my books! Yeah, you are right!!!
Brave new world had all the sex...that's right....
That book is a masterpiece. Coincidentally, I did a presentation on Weaver in my class on ethics and rhetoric last week.
That book is a masterpiece. Coincidentally, I did a presentation on Weaver in my class on ethics and rhetoric last week.
Yes, the new buzzword going through Democratic cocktail parties is the phrase "marriage rights" to replace the old term "gay marriage."
Oh yeah, that'll fool those old red states!
< /mocking! >
This guy needs to quit rolling in the manure fields.
The libs have been framing their left wing agendas for decades and now people are cracking the codes:
Pro Choice really means killing unborn babies.
Diversity really means perversity.
Risky Measures means liberals hate tax reductions.
Affirmative Action means racism by the minorities against white males.
Support our Troops means if you are a liberal you still hate our military, you just don't say it.
Global Warming means anti America and anti capitalism.
Really? What topic did you examine?
I had them look at his analysis of the Phaedrus, as well as provinding them with a general introduction to Weaver's theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.