Political Thought: Reframing and Persuasion....

[labelleizzy]

Via Rafael Jesus Gonzalez, whose mailing list I am on:

"George Lakoff argues that the Republican choice of Palin makes total sense if you truly understand the strategy of the Republicans in this election. Lakoff is the author of The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 20th Century Politics With an 18th Century Brain (2008) and Don't Think of an Elephant: Know your Values and Frame the Debate (2004)


The Palin Choice
The Reality of the Political Mind

by George Lakoff

This election matters because of realities-the realities of global warming, the economy, the Middle East, nuclear proliferation, civil liberties, species extinction, poverty here and around the world, and on and on. Such realities are what make this election so very crucial, and how to deal with them is the substance of the Democratic platform <http://www.demconvention.com/assets/downloads/2008-democratic-platform-by-cmte-08-13-08.pdf> .direct link to PDF on HuffingtonPost website linked below.

Election campaigns matter because who gets elected can change reality. But election campaigns are primarily about the realities of voters' minds, which depend on how the candidates and the external realities are cognitively framed. They can be framed honestly or deceptively, effectively or clumsily. And they are always framed from the perspective of a worldview.

The Obama campaign has learned this. The Republicans have long known it, and the choice of Sarah Palin as their Vice-Presidential candidate reflects their expert understanding of the political mind and political marketing. Democrats who simply belittle the Palin choice are courting disaster. It must be t aken with the utmost seriousness.

The Democratic responses so far reflect external realities: she is inexperienced, knowing little or nothing about foreign policy or national issues; she is really an anti-feminist, wanting the government to enter women's lives to block abortion, but not wanting the government to guarantee equal pay for equal work, or provide adequate child health coverage, or child care, or early childhood education; she shills for the oil and gas industry on drilling; she denies the scientific truths of global warming and evolution; she misuses her political authority; she opposes sex education and her daughter is pregnant; and, rather than being a maverick, she is on the whole a radical right-wing ideologue.

All true, so far as we can tell.

But such truths may nonetheless be largely irrelevant to this campaign. That is the lesson Democrats must learn. They must learn the reality of the political mind. (emphasis mine)

Here's why I'm worried...(rest of the article)

Heads up, zpdiduda, ef2p, joedecker, ozarque and others who grok language, persuasion, and politics...

Scares the HELL out of me that we might not GET a chance to make a real change. If the Dems lose because we can't frame the debate so it captures the minds and hearts of the AmPublic, well. It's a worry ozarque has expressed on multiple occasions. I agree - politics IS perception, but I don't have enough background to know what to do next, other than point as many people as I can, toward this very well-written explanation of the current landscape.

Go, read. Talk about it. Get INVOLVED...

Comments

[capnkjb.livejournal.com]

That is a good article. Thank you for linking it.

[aelfie.livejournal.com]

I studied just enough political science in College to grasp what a brilliant move McCain was making when choosing Palin. And to recognize that the Dems once again have an uphill battle. Dems want to talk about real problems and find solutions...Repubs paint a rosy picture and make everyone feel good to be American. The Sheeple of this country don't like being reminded of the problems that plague us. They just want to be told "Everything's okay! We're here to make sure of it!"

The leeches keep voting themselves Bread and Circuses. *sigh*

I told Joe we seriously need to consider immigrating if McCain wins. It may be too late to save the Republic.

[chrisfs.livejournal.com]

Obama has shown he knows a lot about framing and addressing issues and Palin was quoted today in the SF Chron as saying that we may have to go to war against Russia over Georgia. That's not to say that he can skate by any means but simply that Dems have a much better chance and are much better prepared than in previous elections.

As you say, if you want to improve things, do something. Either talk to people you know, donate even a small amount to the campaign or volunteer (as silly as it sounds, they always need phone people to call and remind people to register and vote, it makes a difference)

[labelleizzy.livejournal.com]

I've joked about that emigration thing before (my husband's a Canadian citizen) but I keep coming back to the question:

if the smart, problem-solving idealists all leave or give up, what will happen to the 'Merican Juggernaut? It feels to me that the gift of intelligent perception and analysis (not to mention education) implies a certain responsibility to work toward change; to TRY to make a difference, to PUT our beautiful big brains and hearts to work on the problem.

To leave the world a better place.

I have a slowly-growing conviction that I have some part to play in this. I'd much rather be stage manager than onstage, but I think this is something I can do.

Better to light a candle than curse the dark, hey?

[groblek.livejournal.com]

You might want to listen to this too: http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R806241000 It's an interview with the author of the article on KQED's forum, where he goes into a lot more detail on the issue of framing.

[capnkjb.livejournal.com]

If I'm recalling that segment correctly, she didn't say that she wants to declare war on Russia so much as she is apparently prepared to be a chickenhawk. Of course, by saying she'd go to war with Russia, the Democrats are simply playing the Republican game of taking words somewhat out of context.

But yeah, I want someone who can talk to the big boys on their level, and she's not it. Not because she's a woman, but because she's a manipulative ignorant hypocrite who's full of hot air. I do not trust her or McCain and I do not want them or their kind in charge of this country any more than they already have been.

The Democrats as a party aren't angels by any means, but at least they haven't been lying right to people's faces for 30 years and getting them to vote against their own best interests. Unfortunately, in order to get ahead, it looks like they'll have to stoop to the bullshit tactics the Republican party has been using (and by using I mean like the way a drug pusher or user uses drugs) for years.


why no I'm not annoyed at all why do you ask

[tsgeisel.livejournal.com]

It's been like this for a long time - Democrats want to argue issues, Republicans want to argue emotion.

Why can't the effing Democratic party pull their collective heads out of their asses and see this? And then do something about it?

(Oh, and where's Hilary? Why is she not out on the campaign trail, following in the wake of Palin, saying "Sarah Palin - you are *not* me.")

[chrisfs.livejournal.com]

Yeah,

George Lakoff has written alot about how Republicans have phrased and put issues across to get people to vote for them when they normally shouldn't. It's about appealing (fairly or unfairly) to people's values or fears, like saying gay rights are 'special rights'. But he points out that those tactics can be used fairly or unfairly. You can unfairly appeal to people's values, by appealing to something that's not really in their best interest or you can appeal to something that's in their best interest.

[aelfie.livejournal.com]

True, but then there the problem of Society Sliding Down the Slippery Slope (i.e. living in the Decline of an Empire). If caught early, it can be pushed back on track if left too long....its going to crash. I'd rather leave and remember what America used to be like and try and rebuild and spread that ideal elsewhere...rather than getting caught on a rapidly sinking ship.

So I'm a rat. I can live with that. I don't want to raise my kids in a repressive regime that won't let me leave...and I feel like if McCain wins...we may be headed that way.

I also want to leave California before the water fights get too horrible. I figure we've got another 10, 20 years on the outside before it starts to get just awful.

[amqu.livejournal.com]

No offense, but if people keep listening to Lakoff, the Dems are doomed. He doesn't understand conservatives, so he's tilting at straw windmills, to mix my metaphors.

[labelleizzy.livejournal.com]

interesting. I admit I don't understand conservatives either. Do you have some insight into what it is you think he's missing or getting wrong?

[amqu.livejournal.com]

Lakoff differentiates between "hard realities" and "frames." Liberals win on hard realities, and conservatives win on framing the issues. He makes an assumption up front about certain realities that he believes are true, and if you are on the wrong side of those realities, then the only reason people would vote for you is if you tricked them into falling for your framing of the issues. Here is an initial listing of the realities: "global warming, the economy, the Middle East, nuclear proliferation, civil liberties, species extinction, poverty here and around the world, and on and on."

Let's look at global warming. He doesn't actually say anything useful with that. It's enough to throw it out there. Maybe a conservative believes the globe is getting warmer, humans are causing it, but that an immediate upsetting of the world economy by falling into line with a rigid environmentalist solution is not the answer. Maybe he'd like to spend money on finding a technological solution for the problem rather than a severe scaling back of energy use. Or maybe the conservative doesn't believe that humans have all that much to do with it, and so scaling back energy use isn't going to change anything anyway. Or he thinks the reason it's called Greenland is because it used to be green, so the climate going into it's natural warming cycle is not anything you need to do something about. The fact is, the conservative doesn't necessarily disagree with the liberal simply because the Republican party framed the issue one way or the other. Or since we worried about global warming in the 30s, global cooling in the 70s, and now global warming again in the 2000s, then we just need to wait another 30 years for the next global cooling scare. I've seen every variation that I just iterated. Sometimes people just disagree about stuff. Every item on his list is the same.

Let's look at his poverty issue. It's not that conservatives don't think there's poverty or they don't care about poor people. It's just that the things they think should be done to help alleviate it are different from what the liberals think should be done. His blindness on this issue is encapsulated in this paragraph:

What Democrats have shied away from is a frontal attack on radical conservatism itself as an un-American and harmful ideology. I think Obama is right when he says that America is based on people caring about each other and working together for a better future -- empathy, responsibility (both personal and social), and aspiration. These lead to a concept of government based on protection (environmental, consumer, worker, health care, and retirement protection) and empowerment (through infrastructure, public education, the banking system, the stock market, and the courts). Nobody can achieve the American Dream or live an American lifestyle without protection and empowerment by the government. The alternative, as Obama said in his nomination speech, is being on your own, with no one caring for anybody else, with force as a first resort in foreign affairs, with threatened civil liberties and a right-wing government making your most important decisions for you. That is not what American democracy has ever been about.

So, if you don't agree with the Democratic platform then you don't care about anybody else, you will immediately use force in foreign affairs, you want the government to run your life, and there is no way you will ever be able to achieve the American Dream. Because you fell for the diabolical framing job by the Republican party. In Lakoff's world, you cannot simply disagree on the effectiveness of the Dem platform. Because to him, it's all so self-evident liberals are right about everything that only a fool or a greedy person could disagree.

[amqu.livejournal.com]

Here are a couple links to a guy who I think has a better (though not perfect) handle on the differences between liberals and conservatives and why people go one way or the other. He is a liberal professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. The first is a short, 15-minute New Yorker presentation of his views, and the last two are longer in-depth interviews with a 1) a libertarian, and 2) a professor of philosophy from NC.

New Yorker presentation (http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2007/haidt)
Haidt/libertarian (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11740)
Haidt/philosopher (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/13700)

[labelleizzy.livejournal.com]

Thank you for your perspective and the additional links. I appreciate you taking the time.
~~L.

[amqu.livejournal.com]

No problem, I live to interface. ;) If you ever get a chance to look at the links, I would be interested in hearing your view on them.

[labelleizzy.livejournal.com]

I watched the New Yorker video. Had a computer glitch and lost the other two tabs... I liked what he had to say about 2-point and 5-point morality. Found myself taking notes as he was presenting. If his studies are accurate, this is an excellent tool for understanding between liberals and conservatives.

will check out the other two links, perhaps tomorrow. Looking forward to it.