Thus we see Mr. Lakoff lamenting the rise of conservative think tanks and conservative radio talk show hosts, as a sign that conservatives are better at getting their message defined and distributed than the "progressives". Mr Lakoff is obviously convinced that progressive ideas , if only properly packaged and marketed , would be a big seller amongst the electorate.
I would suggest it is quite the opposite. The very appellation ' progressive' represents 80 yrs of media capture by those who promote liberal ideas -- it is a term rich in symbolism , and drips dark with portent when spoken by an NPR host, or Peter Jennings , or Dan Rather, who understand that a progressive idea is always a good one if so labelled. After all, who can oppose something labelled as 'progress', when opposed against 'conservative', which is 'status quo' and stodgy and definitely not hip.
Ninety percent of media reporters describe themselves as progressive or liberal, and the number of university and college faculty members who describe themselves as conservative is in the single digit percentages -- they're all liberal or progressive. Its hard to make a cogent argument that there is not a cadre of influential citizens promulgating 'progressive' ideas right now -- the argument just doesn't wash, regardless of how many conservative talk show hosts or think tanks there may be.
The problem, as I see it is a lack of new progressive ideas -- ideas that go beyond those that have already been tried and failed, like the New Deal and the Great Society. The medium for transmitting these 'new ideas' , when they become available, is already in place. The current failure of progressive ideas is a result of their failure to capture the imagination and votes of the electorate, not a failure of the medium.