Bush frequently relies on heavily Orwellian framing -- "Healthy Forests" for an initiative to let private corporations cut down the forests, "Clear Skies" for an initiative to let corporations pollute more, etc.
...Liberals tend to think that facts and reasoning are what matter -- a legacy of the Enlightenment (something, of course, the radical right never went through and is largely unaware of). In other words, they think people are mostly rational and try to piece out what are the best policies by looking at the facts and the arguments that the two sides bring.
That's totally wrong, according to [George Lakoff, a linguist who has become something of a political consultant for the liberal left]. In fact, people make decisions based on emotive associations that are formed by the creation of simple, easily grasped, emotionally resonant frames that are then repeated ad nauseum. Thus, for liberals to fight back, they shouldn't ignore the facts but they need to concentrate on the frames.
article
...Liberals tend to think that facts and reasoning are what matter -- a legacy of the Enlightenment (something, of course, the radical right never went through and is largely unaware of). In other words, they think people are mostly rational and try to piece out what are the best policies by looking at the facts and the arguments that the two sides bring.
That's totally wrong, according to [George Lakoff, a linguist who has become something of a political consultant for the liberal left]. In fact, people make decisions based on emotive associations that are formed by the creation of simple, easily grasped, emotionally resonant frames that are then repeated ad nauseum. Thus, for liberals to fight back, they shouldn't ignore the facts but they need to concentrate on the frames.
I have to take exception to the analysis here. First of all, I think the statement about liberals thinking that facts and reasoning matter. I'm not sure they believe "people" are mostly rational, etc. The liberals themselves tend to be mostly rational, and Lakoff's description of people as being simple and emotive is not describing most liberals.
So, here's the liberal dilemma: to win political seats, they must campaign like conservatives, using dumbed down rhetoric and trigger words to capture the votes of non-reasoning people who are not particularly concerned with the facts. I think that is an unnatural approach for reasoning people, and one that feels dishonest and manipulative. Liberals seem to have the choice of behaving in the way they believe a democracy works, or behaving in a manipulative way that is counter to the precepts of democracy. Personally, I find the latter untenable.
Rahul asks, at the end of his post, the obvious question:
The question that occurs to me, though: are the rest of us, who explicitly abjure propaganda and manipulation, also at the same time abjuring any possibility of winning political victories?
I think the answer is, yes.
And that is why I say there is no longer room in this country for liberal democrats (small "d"). It is soundly in the grip of manipulators and the manipulated, which accounts for an overwhelming majority of the population. Fighting back by using undemocratic tactics strikes me as about as sensible as destroying a country to save it. If you have a population of people who can't be counted on to reason, and who react rather than think, what kind of democracy are you going to have? How can you even have a democracy?
Well, of course, we never did have. Not in this country.
I'll be watching our neighbors to the South, but frankly, I don't think there will ever be a successful, true democracy as long as there are greedy, power hungry people who are willing to be manipulative and deceptive. And I don't think the human race will ever have a shortage of those.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. There may be some delay before your comment is published. It all depends on how much time M has in the day. But please comment!