by Matt Stoller, Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 07:56:30 AM EDT
I have to confess to both liking George Lakoff's books and finding his political advice ridiculous and out of touch. I'm glad that Big Tent Democrat did what needed to be done about Lakoff.
Read his books, enjoy them, accept the idea that 'framing' is important. But for your own good, never ever listen to this guy when he has political advice. He has a total tin ear.
Tags: George Lakoff (all tags)
I think he misinterprets Lakoff's remark about incompetence. Lakoff is basicaly right on point, with the same message that has been batted around the blogosphere for awhile now. If the frame is competence, we may win this election, but it will help us little in the future. If the frame is the failure of the conservative governing philosophy, we will defeat the conservatives for a long time.
I agree completely.
I think that Lakoff did have a valid point about attacking competence. Competence implies a failure of execution rather than strategy / ideology.
I think Lakoff is right on when he says by hammering the competence aspect we are doing ourselves a disservice because we are accepting the ideology / governing philosophy instead of attacking the philosophy as a failure. It reminds me of the whole "I support the war, but I don't like the execution of it" position. It concedes that the strategy is a successful one if only the right people were in place. That meme is counter-productive to the goal of knocking down conservatism and trying to get people do no longer self-identify as "conservative"
I think that D's need to start attacking conservatism and the conservative governing philosophy as a whole, instead of merely saying attacking the competence of the currently elected conservatives.
Lakoff is right about running only against incompetence. It is insufficient as is only running against corruption.
Democrats and progressives everywhere should make it clear that CRONYISM, CORRUPTION AND INCOMPETENCE FLOW DIRECTLY OUT OF REPUBLICAN IDEOLOGY AND HOW REPUBLICANS GOVERN.
Those are three main discontents by the American people with this Congress and this administration. But these are free floating indictments which the media and many voters see as equally afflicting both parties. So therefore these issues have not had much traction with voters in terms of damning Republicans nor do they seem to get people to approve more of Democrats.
We need to put together a more coherent narrative about the Republicans NOW that lets people start seeing why the failure is not individual but a direct result of Conservative political philosophy. This is something we need to do to start changing the public's views of the Republican party. That would serve us better in the long term.
The Republicans see the government as either irrelevant or evil. If that is your governing philosophy and it was Ronald Reagan's ---"The government is not the solution, it is the problem"... then you will see government as a teat which feeds your friends, supporters, donors and even a way to get more donors by selling off parts of it in terms of privatization. That is the CRONYISM component. To them the entire government is just an old boss Tweed idea of the SPOILS system. "to the victor goes the spoils"
Cronyism plays a large role in the other two --CORUPTION AND INCOMPETENCE. If government is just to divvy up the spoils and not to serve the people then competency and professionalism are not needed and may even get in the way. Look at FEMA under Bush and under Clinton, his FEMA director was universally praised, not condemned.
CORRUPTION is also the result of seeing government being primarily for the service of donors and supporters and the in crowd. Look at Cunningham (illegal) and look at Boehner (seemingly legal) and the K Street project.
We have to tell this a story and then the American people will start getting it.
If government is just to divvy up the spoils and not to serve the people then competency and professionalism are not needed and may even get in the way.Competence in government, if defined as successfully serving the interests of the governed, does indeed undermine conservative ideology. So it should be no surprise that when conservatives rule, "competence" is lacking. If, however, you define competence by the level to which it attains its goals, conservatism has been stunningly "competent" at pursuing its goals of accumulating power in the hands of the few by screwing the many.
I braodly agree with Matt's point. The good news is that I saw Pelosi quoted to the same effect a while back. I also think his analysis of the braod Republican strict father frame is a lot more convincing than his Democratic nurturant parent frame.
There's a general rule I've observed with respect to Lakoff: criticism is generally directly coorelated with ignorance. This is far from the worst example. But, still...
(1) "Strict Father" is not a frame, but a cognitive metaphor. There is a sense in which the two overlap, but that sense is not the sense in which most folks talk about "framing" as an intentional communicative act.
(2) The same applies to "Nurturant Parent."
(3) Strict Father Morality charaterizes conservative thought, not the Republican Party.
(4) Nurturant Parent Morality characterizes liberal thought, not the Democratic Party.
Lakoff is right about the way Dems and Repubs run campaigns. They build themes for their campaigns and use policy positions/ideas to support them. We build campaigns around policy positions without any theme. We need to market the Dem brand, not just Dem policies. I know some think it is cynical but most voters do not research and engage in issues the way political activists do. I learn a ton by talking with my wife and her family since she is not nearly as interested in this stuff as me and my family.
Had Enough? is a great theme but we need some positions/ideas to show why conservative governance is bad and how we could do better. Jonathan Singer had a great piece about it a few days ago.
Democrats think people vote for issues. They look at polling data and think since people agree with us on, say, education, health care, choice, stem cell research, etc., all we need to do to get their votes is to remind them of our positions. Our candidate's speeches tend too often to resemble laundry lists rather than a compelling narrative.
Republicans understand that voters don't vote for issues, they vote for people. Democrats say "I support increased access to health care and here's my 12-step plan for making it happen..." Republicans say "I'm pro-life because I don't believe in the killing of innocent life."
People agree with the Dems on the issues, but which candidate gave us a window into who they are, what makes them tick? This, in combination with a campiagn that destroys the other guy's character (liar, flip-flopper, etc.) leaves one candidate with a positive character portrait (I may not agree with him all of the time, but at least I know here he stands), and the other candidate as an unlikable cretin from another planet.
This is what worries me when I see Dems crowing about how the stem cell veto will help us - it won't matter if we can't incorporate it as part of a larger narrative that tells the public something about a candidate's character.
It's not what you say about the issues, it's what the issues say about you.
Lakoff is marginal at best. It's about time someone took him out to the woodshed.
I can't think of a worse way to appeal to voters than by telling them that their political philosophy is a sham. The issue with Bush IS competence. Trashing conservatism as a whole will get you nowhere, even with many swing voters. For every example Lakhoff gives of self-described conservatives having progressive positions, I'm sure you could find liberals who share 'conservative' viewpoints from the the right's point of view. This is an ill-conceived strategy.
Lakeoff to me is like the communist critique of capitalism- he identifies the problem correctly, but he doesn't provide any down in the trenches solutions.
I, therefore, disagree with you, and agree with him that if you make the issue about competence, you win a battle, but you aren't fighting the war. I think where the difference may lie is that you perceive of voters as a static structure without entrants leaving and coming into the process. If we merely looked tactically, at this present 2006 election, or 2008, your argument would have some saliency. The problem is when we look out past these two elections toward building a long lasting political movement. When we look out beyond the present movement toward creating party loyalty, toward reaching out to people who have no yet self identified as conservative, toward a lot of things that the Democrats haven't bothered to do in a long time, then here is where his analysis provides us an understanding for the questions that we must be asking. How do we obtain the Latino vote for a generation? How do we obtain loyalty from the under 20 crowd as they move into their 30s, 40s and 50s? Competence in 2006 won't matter in 2016 and beyond.
I see this debate in the same light as I see the debate between the DNC and DSSC and other incumbency organizations. They are at cross pathways because one is short term and one is long term. Where people get into trouble is where they don't separate out, as Lakeoff doesn't and you do not, the long term from the short term. Where the problem often lies in these discussions is that both must occur with limited resources. However, I would argue that both must nevertheless occur.
How are going to create a sustainable majority- isn't a single election question- but is pertaining to every election that will follow for a generation. If you understand these issues as really a balancing between the short term tactical (competence) versus the long term strategic (the failure is conservatism) then you begin to understand why we must do both.
In practical terms, we aren't going to change hard core conservatives- but we may convert their children, or their neighbor or the new constituencies on the block. if we don't think about these things we will remain the permanent minority.
I think he's better at dissecting their frames than constructing ours. Often he has good points about what kind of concepts we should be talking about, but the final step of turning that into something useable will be done by others. Fortunately there are a lot of out here and if we're looking for it we can have a massively distributed open-source-style progressive framing process. I think we should probably be working harder to get the good ideas bubbling up to the high profile people. I guess the best we have right now are places like this, and if many people rate-up a comment someone might notice.
Lakeoff is all about maketing a product -- the Democratic Party. The trouble is, right now the product is bad that a lot of liberals won't even buy it.
Lakeoff's effusive praise of Obama and his Zellocrat rhetoric tells me that it boils down to being just more of the same old.
THANK GOD someone else is getting the picture on Lakoff. I agree with a lot of the critique that you linked to, but I also think that Lakoff has done a good deal of damage in adding to the right wing talking point that Democrats have no message, and he goes around giving activists more ammunition to bash Dems in Washington instead of giving grassroots people the tools to win elections in their own districts. I guess you could say that's a good think if you think his advice is bad, but my point is that he gets Democrats more and more pissed and tells them to go yell at DC Dem leadership more, instead of telling them to build grassroots movements at home and talk to people in their own neighborhoods. Heard him speak several times and it's always the same thing: Tell DC Dems they're doing it wrong. That's the Lakoff frame.
such...
I don't feel that he is the be all end all solution to anything.
But I will say that changing my personal language from things like "Pro-life" to "anti-choice" has done wonders on a personal basis.
To say nothing of efforts at redefining the "death tax" and what not.
Framing is one of the most important things dropped into the political discourse in the past 5 years or so, between that and implementation of the Overton Window I think we'll see a lot of strategic wins.
I love the Lakoff, but where he differs from me is that he has a very Berkeley liberal perspective about things, which is slightly ivory tower.
I do agree that it's a short term strategy to run on "competence", because what happens in 2008 when they have somebody running who is competent?
Square one.
the ethos much be disassembled.
-C.
Matt, your assertion that Lakoff is out of touch is offensive.
His work is certainly not without flaws (debateable, of course) but your blanket condemnation is absurd.
How old are you? How many kids have you raised? Have you taken care of elderly parents? Had anyone close to you die or struggle with health care issues? Struggled to pay rent or a mortgage? Put a kid into school? Had setbacks with career and jobs? Been fired? Worked for a few different people?
You haven't lived much. You need to get over your own arrogance about knowing life, and therefore knowing voters - who are mostly not sheltered intellectual early twentysomethings like you.
Stick to grassroots organizing and what you're doing here. But sometimes you reach way over your head, and it takes an anvil on your head to bring you down.
What does all of that have to do with how poor Lakoff's political acumen is?
Lakoff's framing of the Nurturent Parent Party is not the commanding narrative around which a campaign gels with voters. And we here on MyDD who have worked on campaigns know how voters think about elections and politicians. ("we" = not Bob Shrum)
Nor is competence the narrative. Dukakis ran with competence as his narrative. The man barely won Mass.
More to the point, after talking to Lakoff at YearlyKos for a while about Immigration and electoral strategy, I have to say, Stoller is right. Lakoff is not the sharpest political mind. He's actually a mess.
And some parts of his Immigration Paper were both insulting and numbingly academic. But it's his poor political advice combined with how many people listen to him that scares me.
forgive me if i'm misreading you, or misreading Lakoff (I haven't read latest book but have read others) but Lakoff never suggests that we should explicitly use the term or concept "nurturant parent"
he is proposing a cognitive model, not a label or branding. It's purely explanatory. it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what he writes; this happened a lot the last time.
Lakoff is great at what he does, analyze language. Nobody is suggesting he take over the
I made this criticism of Stoller because I don't think he's as sharp as HE thinks he is, though at the same time I think he does great work here on Mydd. But I do think being very young completely limits your effectiveness at understanding adult life, except in very exceptional circumstances - people who've lived through a lot, like I describe above.
Your insults of Matt for being young and not having raised kids (and the implication that his ideas are less valid because of this) are worthless. You haven't proven anything or tried to refute Matt's criticism of Lakoff. Shut up unless you have something to contribute other than "You whippersnapper! I'm old and smart! Listen to me whine!"
He's making asinine and superficial criticisms, such as "Lakoff is out of touch"...and he is just as attackable, and I gave some reasons why I think so. I do believe he's out of touch in my book. And you're not bright enough to figure out this distinction. It's not about raising kids....it's
And brother, you think I'm whining? You don't know how old I am. You don't know a lot of things. I've been a paid staffer on liberal political campaigns. What have you done? Huh?
Re: the article in question, every single one of the following statements is an assertion and debateable.
This is hardly a gutting of Lakoff - it's more of a disagreement, and not one I personally agree with much:
"Lakoff is wrong is almost every way here. First, his rejection of the upcoming election as being a referendum on Republican governance is simply not consistent with reality. Elections are first and foremost a moment of accountability for the government. By definition this election will be referendum on the current Republican government. Kerry's major campaign failure in 2004 was his inability to make the 2004 election a referendum on Bush. Rove successfully made Kerry one of the major issues while Bush himself was only an issue in contrast to Kerry. Lakoff further misunderstands that a referendum on the Republican government does not mean silence. It means the exact opposite. It means Democratic critique of the Republican performance.
"This is simply not correct in my view. Self identified conservatives will vote Republican 85% of the time. You can not woo them away."
This misses the entirety of Lakoff's message. Lakoff is a believer in identity politics, the belief that people vote not in their self-interest but as members of a group. Digby gets at this in his piece on tribalism, which Big Tent cites.
The Republican brand is conservatism; of course self-identified conservatives vote that way. Lakoff's point is that by destroying the brand, you can woo those self-identifying conservatives who actually support progressive causes.
He's not trying to get the Dobsonites, but the people who think conservatism is a good thing, when it really doesn't match their belief structure. These are the people who will help elect Jon Tester. People who don't pay close attention to politics, but who see "conservatives" trying to save their guns and defend America against the terrorists and those damn liberals.
(It would be interesting to test people on the issues and then classify them by liberal/conservative standards and see how they match up with their self-identification.)
These people are gettable. Whether it's worth the effort is a debatable point. But Big Tent's proof above is self-fulfilling, and Lakoff's theory should not be mocked out of hand.
It's not diluting the brand to convince people that are progressives that they are not conservatives. It's increasing brand awareness.
In other words, if someone thinks that we're going to take away his gun, and we point out that not only are we going to let him keep his gun but we're going to try to make it so his grandson gets to hunt on the same land he hunts on, then we might be able to get him. Lakoff's point is that we have a better chance to get him if we also make him realize that he's not a conservative, because conservatives don't actually care about his land.
I never read Lakoff's political books, but I am always wary of people who are ready to had out big answers. What the hell, take one of mine anyway!
1) Identify the "enemy" (to me, this would be the neocons, that is, people who profit from chaos).
2) Attack the "enemy" from every conceivable angle.
3) Identify the best angles.
4) Keep attacking from the best angles, while continuing to try the other angles, in case they start to work for some reason.
I usually avoid attacking mere labels, like "conservative," "Republican," etc., since such labels can always be pulled out from under you.
True enough. But then, they literally own the "liberal" corporate media apparatus.
I am not totally averse to using labels. I used to talk about a "spoiler syndrome" in elections, but the media apparatus adopted the ridiculously lame term "spoiled ballots," so I shifted to "Black Hat Syndrome." I used to talk about the false sense of convenience provided by cybervoting, but that too became a term of art for voting on the internet, so I switched to "computer voting" (a convention that has sprung up in writing other than mine.)
Maybe there are "liberals" and "damn liberals!" To play the word game one must make oneself a moving target. I can shift from "liberal" to "progressive" and back again with little trouble.
Think of the paradigm this invokes: it pushes the public to become fully conscious of the activities of the "liberal" corporate media apparatus. This, in turn, may have something to do with the physical shrinkage of the N.Y. Times, etc.
I have to confess to both liking George Lakoff's books and finding his political advice ridiculous and out of touch.An example or two might be nice. Even for a comment. But for a front page post???
I can give some great counter-examples, btw. For now I'll just give one, because it has lots of resonance, and I don't want to clutter things up.
In Don't Think of An Elephant he talks about how the Dems best shot in the California Recall was to push the "Right Wing Power Grab" frame. He was absolutely right. The original version of his chapter in Elephant can be found here.
I also wrote a DKos diary in December, 2004, "OHIO & Lakoff: The Right Wing Power Grab Frame". In it, I wrote:
What matters to me most about Ohio are 3 things: (1) Racism. (2) Voter Suppression. (3) The Right Wing Power Grab.For me, the essence of the right wing power grab as a reality is self-evident. If we do not confront and fight it directly, we will, quite simply, always be playing defense. And we will invariably lose. First let me quickly run down the reality, then I'll turn to the matter of framing.
From at least the time of Watergate onward, major forces within the GOP have beleived that they have the right to rule America, and the the Constitution is simply a hindrance. The stealing of Carter's briefing book during the 1980 debate--as well as the never properly investigated October Suprise--were the first big electoral example. The attempt to smear Clinton in state elections before he bacame a national candidate was another piece of this same pattern. The coverup of Bush's involvement in Iran-Contra was another piece. And the two-term campaign to impeach Clinton--investigating the man to search for a crime, rather than the other way around--was a climax, of sorts. But then came Florida 2000, DeLay's unprecedented mid-term redistricting caper, the California recall, and finally election 2004, with Ohio in the center ring.
All this is perfectly consistent with the conservative Strict Father model.
In a brief telephone interview this week, George Lakoff told me, "They [Strict Father Republicans] see themselves in an all out war of good versus evil and you can use the devils own tricks against him, so that there is a no-holds-barred situation. Anything goes in confronting evil. The Democrats have assumed that the election process is not war, that it replaces war. That's why you hold elections instead of having war."
Thus, it's perfectly consistent that the GOP feels entitled to steal elections, if necessary. They are fighting the devil. All's fair in love and war. Democrats seem to recognize this sometimes, but we fail to really see how crucial it is....
In Ohio we have at our fingertips an incredibly powerful 1-2-3 punch staring us in the face. But we've failed to realize it:
(1) Racism. People were disenfranchised, especially blacks living in inner-city neighborhoods. While residual racism allows this situation to persist, when forced to deal with it, people will not line up to support continued racism. We have a moral obligation to root out racism--partricularly when surfacing the issue is both materially important for the black community and when it allows white America an opportunity to overcome its residual racism.
(2) Voter Suppression. There were deliberate attempts to suppress the votes. Many attempts were beaten back, but tens of thousands of votes were not cast due to voter suppression. Suppressing votes is no longer a value that the American people support. We should pound on it mercilessly.
(3) The Right-Wing Power Grab. The conflicts of interst and pattern of arbitrary and/or illegal actions by Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell and others clearly illustrate this, and are part of a much more widespread pattern--as indicated by introductory remarks. There was incredible documentation of election irregularities in this election. All we needed to do was focus attention on them--relentlessly.
This is what we needed to do--pound repeatedly on these three points. It was not about John Kerry. It was all about fighting for a principle. That our elections are not war. That everything isn't fair. That there are rules, which are meant to be followed, not selectively enforced or ignored. That elections are an alternative to war. That they are about something higher. They are meant to be inclusive of all Americans, and to bind us together in terms we can all accept and respect.
If we Democrats want to defeat the GOP vision of politics as war and replace it with a vision of justice, we have to be willing to fight for it.
This is the frame in which I see everything about the Ohio election. It is a frame that all Democrats--no all Americans should be able to get behind 100%.
Now please explain to me how that is "ridiculous and out of touch."
Because I think just the opposite. I think that the failure to think about frames with respect to the Ohio elections not only damaged the country and the Party, but also contributed a good deal to the first of a series of needless disputes that degenerated into flame wars and badly split the DKos community.
I also think that there are a lot of 2nd rate intellects around criticizing Lakoff without even bothering to understand him. (The guy's been writing about the foundations of this work since 1980, but many critics haven't even read one of his books--or at best, just one--the paperback Elephant.) The article linked to is a prime example of this. (It has the added bonus of misunderstanding Hofstadter as well--though it misunderstands Hofstadter in a way that's favorable to him, as I explained in a comment on a previous post of his.)
If people want to criticize Lakoff, fine. Everyone's fair game for criticism. But let's criticize what he actually says, not what you mistakenly think or imagine he says. That's part of the "fair" part in fair game.
There is only one reason why Stoller is wrong.
The article that you use here to support your outrageous contention that Lakoff is a bozo - says -
identified conservatives will vote Republican 85% of the time. You can not woo them away
Then, the author (that you wholeheartedly support here) tries to say that because Barak Obama (who won, by the way with an astounding margin of victory in a territory where a strong republican candidate, with a nationally known name was brought in to battle him) supports his case.
Matt, You can do better than this. Think for a second about the battle for internet freedom and the first amendment.
Millions upon millions of people now know about the concept of a neutral internet, and that is really bad for corporations that rely on non-neutral systems
For some, this is about going to war. Abraham Lincoln understood why wars are fought - the Civil War wasn't about slavery, at first - it was about means of production.
I will count as our blessing that people like you are nowhere near moveon.org, and people like Lakoff, are living on the same street. Moveon.org is an outrageous political success story. "Net neutrality" was re-framed to be "about peoples choices on the internet, and saving them money". I heard it on NPR when I was doing the dishes. They reported it as "a bill passed today that will give consumers more choices and may save them money".
If the fight to save our first amendment rights on the internet fails it won't be as a result of the American people, it will be washington insiders. You live in Washington, don't you Matt?
By the way, Matt Stoller. IF your analysis of Lakoff was correct, then Ned Lamont would have never been able to rise up against Lieberman in a territory where Democrats support Bush nearly sixteen times stronger than others. A territory where "self identified conservatives vote republican 85% of the time".
Ned Lamont ignored analysis like this and reached out to Americans with inclusion. Lindenberg (is this correct), the consultant who is working for Lieberman - is now thinking that the "orange army" is going to fail in GOTV for Lamont.
The truth is, Lakoff is right - he said
It's the ideology that is screwing up the country.
Dean lost, in Iowa, with a massive, massive army of people in orange stocking caps. He lost badly. This was poison support.
And , my husband (the person you got kicked off Mydd, remember him ? ) and I helped. We made phone calls. We sent letters.
Iowans felt that there were too many people just coming in from nowhere to influence their ideas. Dean was right , in his views. Wrong in his ideology. People couldn't identify with Dean, for his passion against what they thought was a sitting president during wartime. Americans will by and large circle the wagons around their own traditions - the people who came into their state were not seen as friendly supporters of a national progressive movement. They were seen as invaders in ugly orange caps.
Right now, because the news media outlets see themselves as entertainers - they are picking up on a story that the "Bloggers" have lifted ned lamonts political fortunes. The news media get paid, in fact, by advertisers and the editors (the same ones who tried to get a story run that said abortion helps democrats) are starting to see the money raining down from Lieberman to change the story of why he is getting so soundly beaten by Ned.
But the reason why calls into Connecticut will work is because connecticut wanted to be a national story. They wanted their favorite son to be president. And when he failed, they want to listen to other Americans (not liberal democrat progressives) about what to do next.
So call in for Ned, but respect the fact that you're not calling in to help Connecticut voters make up their minds. Lakoff would tell you that they are really fighting an ideological and not an issues based battle.
Call up (if you can get through their caller ID blocking) people from Connecticut and help Ned GOTV because Lakoff is right.
Ned Lamont is battling a state where a huge percentage of people think of themselves as conservative, and would vote for America in a heartbeat. Not a washington insider elite that says red states will always be red. Don't listen to them.
American flags waving on the porch, next to a Bush Cheney sign always remind me and my husband of how great a country American really is. The beautiful flags of the republicans, flying - tell me that those republicans out there believe in America more than they believe in George W. Bush.
This isn't even about "framing" or any of the other hyper-intellectual stuff. This is about Ned Lamont. This is about ideas that win.
Ideas like Freedom, and Justice for all.
Earlier this week I interviewed author Dr. George Lakoff about his book, Whose Freedom?. Since then there has been some talk about the book focusing on Lakoff's shortcomings as a political strategist. Talk Left raises some objections about what Lakoff said and Matt Stoller chimes in here supporting those objections. I also received some emails on the subject. Having interviewed him and found him very interesting, I'd like to be able to dismiss the criticisms of Lakoff out of hand, however the more I consider what he said and wrote I cannot help but find myself skeptical. Fortunately I think it is entirely possible to treat Lakoff as a tremendous asset to the progressive movement without deifying him at the same time.
I want to address what Lakoff's strengths are, why people should read his book, and when to take him with a hefty grain of salt.
Lakoff is a cognitive scientist who specializes in linguistics. Never forget that. He is a progressive in the Berkeley, California mold but has learned to approach politics and ideology from a very unique perspective. His approach to political debate and the potency of ideas is completely new to those who exist within the Beltway. He's a consultant of a different color and that's good. He is also a professor-a teacher-and that's good, too.
Anyone who has read Don't Think of an Elephant recalls how Lakoff introduced the idea of frames into politics. For those of us who watched in horror at the Kerry campaign, I think many of us would agree that Bob Shrum could have used some advice about how to get his candidate to speak about issues properly. It's ironic that the book was published before the election. The introduction of framing demands that politicians and consultants be increasingly mindful of how they choose their words. This is because Lakoff described how people actually understand words and ideas. He taught why it is so difficult to persuade voters with reason.
Whose Freedom? continues Lakoff's exploration of how people react to, as Lakoff says, America's most important idea. He does a phenomenal job at explaining how `freedom' is a fundamental to how Americans understand their country. He describes how progressives and conservatives have opposing notions of freedom and how the conservatives' expertise at framing has enabled them to shift the understanding of freedom towards their regressive version. In the beginning of the book he announces that his primary purpose is to describe what is happening, and in that he succeeds. In fact, from a cognitive linguistics perspective, I'll take Lakoff's word for it and say that he's pretty groundbreaking.
Progressive should read Whose Freedom? because of its descriptive aspects. It is eye-opening to read how language is being used against us-it's not just the court system. I challenge anyone to read this book and not have an epiphany or two. The book is also valuable because it articulates why progressives are progressives, what values make us tick. His discussions of empathy, responsibility, pooling wealth and shared sacrifice were accurate and I think we needed someone to put the words to paper. Finally, Lakoff is good at scolding. The pitiful Democratic responses to Iraq, the second candidacy of George Bush, and the war on terror get picked apart by Lakoff in Whose Freedom?
Unfortunately, sometimes Lakoff overreaches. On Talk Left, Lakoff is criticized for objecting to using 2006 for a referendum on Bush and the Republicans. Similarly, Lakoff catches flak for his belief that Obama is ideal Democrat, especially given his recent speech on religion. Liberal Jarhead at Bring It On! rejects Lakoff's position on guns. It is here where I believe that some people part ways with Lakoff, including me, but it would be a serious mistake to dismiss him entirely. It is possible to disagree with him without rejecting cognitive science when applied to politics.
Stoller says that we should "[r]ead his books, enjoy them, accept the idea that `framing' is important. But for your own good, never ever listen to this guy when he has political advice. He has a total tin ear." I think there is a very important distinction hidden in this statement. I want to divide Lakoff the cognitive scientist from Lakoff the political consultant. At the former, Lakoff is brilliant and at the latter he is inexperienced. His flaw may be that the stage afforded to him for his cognitive science is too large for his politics.
I found some advice in Lakoff's book to be good. I liked when he talked about finding middle ground by discussing what people care about. He believes that we can find a way to talk about issues by starting in progressive values and moving outward. Whether his strategy for victory meshes with yours is less important than whether he has tapped into a powerful source of inspiration. I don't mind that he is taking part in the debate over how to succeed as progressives in this country but I don't think is prescription is gospel-but that's true for all the people I read.
Read his book because of his science. Read it for his ability to describe progressivism's most fundamental values. Read it because it's part of the debate. Read it to find points of disagreement to discuss. Indeed, read his book to at depth to our debate about progressivism, Democrats, and what we should do next. And hey, if you find yourself agreeing with his prescription for the party be critical but don't necessarily dismiss it out of hand.
Crossposted at emboldened
Stoller says that we should "[r]ead his books, enjoy them, accept the idea that `framing' is important. But for your own good, never ever listen to this guy when he has political advice. He has a total tin ear." I think there is a very important distinction hidden in this statement. I want to divide Lakoff the cognitive scientist from Lakoff the political consultant. At the former, Lakoff is brilliant and at the latter he is inexperienced. His flaw may be that the stage afforded to him for his cognitive science is too large for his politics.
I found some advice in Lakoff's book to be good. I liked when he talked about finding middle ground by discussing what people care about. He believes that we can find a way to talk about issues by starting in progressive values and moving outward. Whether his strategy for victory meshes with yours is less important than whether he has tapped into a powerful source of inspiration. I don't mind that he is taking part in the debate over how to succeed as progressives in this country but I don't think is prescription is gospel-but that's true for all the people I read.
chat-gratuit
clip-gratuit
antivirus2
divx2
gratuit2
gratuit3
gratuit4
gratuite2
gratuite3
gratuite4
logiciel2
logiciels2
msn2
telecharger2
telecharger22
telecharger23
telecharger24
telecharger3
telecharger4
telecharger-antivirus2
telecharger-antivirus3
video-gratuit2
video-gratuit3
telecharger-gratuit2
cul-gratuit
ecran-de-veille-gratuit
emoticone-gratuit
film-porno-gratuit
film-x-gratuit
fond-d-ecran-gratuit
gay-gratuit
gros-sein-gratuit
hentai-gratuit
horoscope-gratuit
jeu-adulte-gratuit
jeu-gratuit-pour-enfant
jeu-gratuit
jeu-gratuit-cadeaux
jeu-pc-gratuit
jeu-video-gratuit
jeu-de-voiture-gratuit
logiciel-gratuit
mp3-gratuit
photo-gay-gratuit
photo-porno-gratuit
photo-sex-gratuit
photo-sexe-gratuit
porno-gratuit
sex-gratuit
sex-gratuit-beurette
sexe-amateur-gratuit
sexe-gratuit
sms-gratuit
sudoku-gratuit
tarot-gratuit
telechargement-film-gratuit
telechargement-gratuit
telechargement-logiciel-gratuit
telecharger-gratuit
telecharger-jeu-gratuit
tout-gratuit
traducteur-gratuit
video-gratuit
video-porno-gratuit
video-sex-gratuit
video-sexe-gratuit
video-x-gratuit
xxx-gratuit
antivirus-gratuit
chanson-gratuit
chansons-gratuit
divx-gratuit
emule-gratuit
kazaa-gratuit
logiciel-gratuit
logiciels-gratuit
messenger-gratuit
mp3-gratuit
msn-gratuit
music-gratuite
musique-gratuite
musiques-gratuites
nero-gratuit
parole-gratuit
paroles-gratuit
telechargement-gratuit
telecharger-gratuit
telechargement-antivirus
telechargement-chanson
telechargement-chansons
telechargement-divx
telechargement-emule
telechargement-kazaa
telechargement-logiciel
telechargement-logiciels
telechargement-messenger
telechargement-mp3
telechargement-msn
telechargement-music
telechargement-musique
telechargement-nero
telechargement-parole
telechargement-paroles
telechargement
telecharger-antivirus
telecharger-chanson
telecharger-chansons
telecharger-divx
telecharger-emule
telecharger-kazaa
telecharger-logiciel
telecharger-logiciels
telecharger-messenger
telecharger-mp3
telecharger-msn
telecharger-music
telecharger-musique
telecharger-nero
telecharger-parole
telecharger-paroles
acrobat
ad-aware
antivirus
telecharger
gratuit
telecharger2
gratuite
telecharger-antivirus
logiciels
logiciel
telechargement
msn
divx
messenger
download
antivirus
emule
nero
emoticones
emoticone
kazaa
real-player
clone
edonkey
avatars
avatar
firefox
shareaza
skype
winamp
limewire
spybot
vlc
winzip
winrar
morpheus
ares
icq
winmx
amateur
amateur2
amateur3
amateur4
black2
black3
femme2
femme3
femme4
film2
film3
film4
films2
films3
films4
gay2
gay3
gay4
hard2
image2
image3
mature2
jeune2
nu2
photo2
photo3
photo4
salope2
sex2
sex3
sex4
sexe2
sexe3
sexe4
sexy2
video2
video3
video4
videos2
videos3
videos4
webcam2
x2
x4
x3
xxx2
gratuite
femme
films
film
image
black
mature
girl
nude
gros
amatrice
erotique
mure
hot
celebrite
ass
blonde
charme
baise
movie
lesbian
beurette
cochon
asian
hardcore
fesse
etudiante
chaleur
fellation
exhibitionniste
clitoris
boob
bikini
models
grosse
nudiste
erotisme
fetichisme
brune
homosexuel
anus
orgie
orgasme
bisexuel
couille
enculer
latinas
fetiche
videos
video
photo
amateur
sexe
porno
gay
sex
x
sexy
webcam
nu
salope
hard
lesbienne
jeune
xxx
teen
porn
anal
bite
manga
histoire
coquin
noire
pied
cul
transsexuelle
asiatique
pussy
voyeur
suceuse
adulte
sodomie
penis
poitrine
rousse
suce
sexuelle
pipe
sado
pornographie
rasee
toon
tit
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
SEXE
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
35 Comments