Question: Has anyone here actually READ Lakoff...?

[regnaD kciN]

I know he's the current darling of the progressive strategist blogosphere. I've also seen him, here and elsewhere, held up as the paragon of political wisdom by some who, in their next breath, make it obvious that they have no idea what he actually has to say.

I just finished his most recent book (don't think of an elephant!). At this point, I have a number of impressions (both favorable and unfavorable) that I need to think about for another day. (Also, I plan to try to re-read it tomorrow.) Until then, I'm wondering if anyone else has actually read that book or any of his other volumes, and what your reaction was?

[Cassandra]

1. I'm about halfway through that one.

Interesting.

[meti57b]

2. I just got it and started reading it.

Maybe a thread for discussion of the book ... in the meeting room forum?

[IrateCitizen]

3. The book, no. Many of his articles, yes.

I plan to read the book in the near future.

I think he has some excellent suggestions, but at times find his analysis overly simplistic. But I believe that he is dead-on about the importance of framing issues, even if some of his solutions to the problem are very debatable.

[lefthandedskyhook]

4. Same here

Tried to spark more interest before the election without much result. I think we have to follow his advice. It will take a concerted effort and a lot of time, but what other choice do we have?

Check out:
www.anotherrepublicanforkerry.com - go to tutorial: "Words to Win By"

Also check out this 1995 paper: http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html

He has been on several radio programs - I don't have links but some are web archives.

[bloom]

8. There are some great insights into understanding conservatives...

And you can see how the Republicans have capitalized on this...

" The metaphor of Moral Strength sees the world in terms of a war of good against the forces of evil, which must be fought ruthlessly. Ruthless behavior in the name of the good fight is thus seen as justified. Moreover, the metaphor entails that one cannot respect the views of one's adversary: evil does not deserve respect; it deserves to be attacked!...

The conservative position on abortion is a consequence of the view of women that comes out of the strict family model. On the whole, there are two classes of women who want abortions: unmarried teenagers, whose pregnancies have resulted from lust and carelessness, and women who want to delay conception for the sake of a career, but have accidentally conceived. From the point of view of the strict father model, both classes of women violate the morality characterized by the model. The first class consists of young women who are immoral by virtue of having shown a lack of sexual self-control. The second class consists of women who want to control their own destinies, and who are therefore immoral for contesting the strict father model itself, since it is that model that defines what morality is. For these reasons, those who abide by Strict Father morality tend to oppose abortion.


It is important to understand that conservative opposition to abortion is not just an overriding respect for all life. If it were, conservatives would not favor the death penalty. Nor is it a matter of protecting the lives of innocent children waiting to be born. If it were, conservatives would be working to lower the infant mortality rate by supporting prenatal care programs. The fact the conservatives oppose such programs means that they are not simply in favor of the right-to-life for all the unborn. Instead, there is a deep and abiding, but usually unacknowledged, reason why conservatives oppose abortion, namely, that it is inconsistent with Strict Father morality.


The protection function of the strict father leads to conservative support for a strong military and criminal justice system. It also leads to an opposition to gun control. Since it is the job of the strict father to protect his family from criminals, and since criminals have guns, he too must be able to use guns if he is to do his job of protecting the family against evil people who would harm them. Although the NRA talks lot about hunting, the conservative talk shows all talk about protecting one's family as the main motivation for opposing gun control."

from: http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html

[bloom]

10. I couldn't find : "Words to Win By"

[lefthandedskyhook]

12. Link

It's on a big button on the main page. Here's the URL: http://www.anotherrepublicanforkerry.com/tutorial/index.html

[lefthandedskyhook]

5. About the simplicity

Lakoff is just one guy on the right track: he can't do it all alone. This needs to turn into a huge effort.

[ispeculate]

6. Lakoff

havent read his new book but I read an old book of his called "metaphors we live by" which is a good read

[newyawker99]

20. Hi ispeculate!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[booley]

7. yeppers.

Moral politics way before the election. And Don't think of an elephant a little before. Also been reading some of his columns.

How exactly have people been getting his ideas wrong?

[sangh0]

18. Here's what I've noticed

1) Some people have misinterpreted Lakoff's call to talk about values as a call to "compromise our values"

2) Some people think talking about values means talking about gay marriage, abortions and prayer in schools.

3) Some people think framing our arguments means being deceitful or manipulative, or that it requires ignoring some important fact or issue.

[rndmprsn]

9. yes...just finished dont think of an elephant.

and was very impressed.

this is what i walked away with....


To help this democratic party move into the future without fear and to regain its moral authority...as a first big step, i honestly think that we need to start seriously funding and creating progressive think-tanks (READ: IDEAS) to come up with smart and effective solutions to our problems that have evolved organically and by design, this is only a first step, much much more needs to be done in synch and concurrently. The republicans have a good 30-40 year and 100 billion dollar head start on us, the real-word results of which are that now almost 80% of the talking heads and pundits on TV, who have enormous influence over public debate, come from conservative think-tanks...80%!!

They are out there everyday on right-wing media and main-stream media knocking us over the head with such deviously-brlliant terms as: tax-relief, clean skies initiative, healty forests, tort-reform, frivilous lawsuits, and most surreally...no child left behind...Orwellian indeed, effective, you bet.

Conservative think-tanks are well funded by ENORMOUS block-grants, they not only come up with policy and media frames for those policies, but they spend VAST amounts to continue to build their already impressive infrastructure...they have the future of their own one-party system in mind and they are doing everything to make this vision a reality.

By contrast, the few moderate and progressive foundations spend most of their rather small grants on immediate and direct ways to help people in need...although this is noble, no doubt about it...it addresses short term needs out of necessity rather than addressing long-term strategy and infrastructure building. The people and organizations that fund these foundations have attach many string with a single-mindedness to NOT duplicate efforts in order to make their money more effective and so...our progressive foundations are forced into very NARROW and ISOLATED initiatives.

The republicans have been rewarded MANY MANY times over with their investments into their organizations...they have managed to frame the debate and control the message and language...the greatest and most direct result is that they have won the "values" game and have connected with the working-poor and lower income suburbanites, who are our NATURAL ALLIES, in ways that convince them to vote against their OWN economic interest. These organizations working hand in hand with the right-wing media, which is another powerful conservative investment, they have replaced facts with emotion...emotions are very powerful, more powerful than numbers and statistics and almost always win out in the end, it just does.

Their think-tanks, their IDEA people, have also created wedge issues that divide us from OUR base and they have created strategic-intiatives, like tort-reform, who's PRIMARY reason for being is to DRY UP funding for the democratic party. Trial lawyers are BIG contributers to our party, without them the party shrinks from lack of resources and cannot fight for vulnerable citizens or defend against these assaults, much less go on the offense. The secondary results will be the loosening of environmental regulations and consumer protection laws which will INCREASE their OWN funding by limiting the amount of money a person, who has been rightly awarded by a jury of peers, can sue for...these corporations can then go about doing whatever they want with less fear of regulations and they will be able to make doing WRONG an ACCEPTABLE and PLANNED risk.

We need to come up with our own wedge issues, and strategic initiatives, not just to be able to fight the republicans on equal terms like they do...but BECUASE they are OUR PRINCIPLES and VALUES.

they value STRONG DEFENSE...we value a STRONG AMERICA
they value SMALL GOVT...we value EFFECTIVE GOVT
they value LOWER TAXES...we value a BETTER FUTURE
they value FAMILY VALUES...we value MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY
they value FREE MARKETS...we value BROAD PROSPERITY

Fairness, opportunity, hard wark, personal freedom and responsibility these are our values...and we should certainly never, never compromise these CORE beliefs...we should NOT move to the right out of mistaken political pragmatism, but rather we should move the center to us and with hard and smart work, we can...becuase our values are MAIN STREAM american values.

We all understand and passionately cling to our principles, but we have lost the communications game and haven't connected to the masses...and in a way we need to change the way WE think...STOP PUTTING THE RURAL WORKING-POOR DOWN, they know we look down on them so why in the world would the ever vote for us?

we've got SO much to do and so little TIME to do them in...but a huge first step in OUR vision is an investment in IDEAS which come from all of us and our OWN progressive think-tanks.

So...roll up your sleeves and stop the mourning, tomorrow is another day where we can begin to take this country back!

[JHB]

13. rndmprsn hits it!

Many of the conservative think-tank-driven policies revolve around the now 30-year-old strategy of "de-fund the left": abortion and "moral" issues to break off blue-collar support, vouchers and school privatization to break teachers unions, tort reform to undermine "antibusiness" lawyers (not to mention characterizing the enforcement of corporate responsibility as "antibusiness"), cutbacks in university research grants making them more dependent on the corporate sector, etc.

Not only do we have to frame our issues better, but we need to also analyze and undermine the way THEY fund THEIR structure.

[Fleurs du Mal]

11. Lakoff == yes!

I've read both Moral Politics and Don't Think of an Elephant. Both are excellent. If you have no idea who Lakoff is make sure to stop by the progressive think-tank he's involved in: Rockridge Institute. Many very good articles there on how to more effectively frame the debate.

[Hephaistos]

14. Personal experience: he is for real

I actually took a couple of his classes a few years ago, and frequently went to his office to discuss stuff.

His approach to framing is EXACTLY what the progressive movement needs. It's the only way to get our message out to the mainstream.

One thing to watch out for: frame and metaphor analysis looks to be really easy once you get the hang, but it's really not.

I'm a little worried about thousands of linguistically empowered progressives attempting to use half-baked frames and untested metaphors to push their personal pet issues. It'll make us look even more confused and pseudo-intellectual than we are already perceived to be. Soon, the effort would be abandonend because the results were not as hoped for.

Frames have to be used consistently in a coherent, overarching narrative, which has yet to be defined. The limits of a particular metaphor have to be understood for it be used effectively. This inital effort is best achieved in fairly small and focused circles (in think tanks like the Rockridge Institute), not as a mass movement of people who have read a book or two. The mass movement will be needed to push the narrative and its constituent frames once it has been properly worked out.

Sadly, such a disciplined and organized effort is not really compatible with the structure of the progressive movement as it stands.

Just for the record, this is my own opinion, not that of Prof. Lakoff, who I haven't spoken to in years.

[rockydem]

17. I think you're right

Framing is an art, and it's an art that a lot of progressives suck at.. There will be a lot clumsy attempts at framing by progressives in the coming years.

[Fleurs du Mal]

19. Systematic reframing

I agree that the systematic reframing needs to be done by Rockridge and the progressive media. However, Lakoff's books do teach the layperson many valuable techniques, especially how to recognize frames. Recognition is the first step towards being able to reinforce the progressive frames that start trickling out of the media.

[Walt Starr]

15. I'm just finishing up "Don't Think of an Elephant"

and will move on to Moral Politics as soon as I've completed it.

It's good stuff, especially when combined with other things like Sun Tzu and proper election result analysis. I may combine these things for a run for the House in '06.

[Eurobabe]

16. i would love to see someone start an online discussion

group on this book. I started it before the election and then got sidetracked with travel and work. (I have the Don't Think of an Elephant around my rat-hole office somewhere?!!?)

It is not an easy read, I found it more digestable to read a chapter-go away-come back. And I am a philosophy major.

[regnaD kciN]

21. I'VE STARTED A DISCUSSION IN THE MEETING ROOM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=111&topic_id=40073#

[NAO]

22. Moral Politics for complete treatment - see his liberal think tank website

I've read Moral Politics, which is a systematic exposition of the ideas he applies in Elephant.

He has founded a liberal think-tank - I think he is DEAD ON about the 'think-tank gap'.

Rockridge Institute
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/

(many papers by Lakoff available at this site)

[ljm2002]

23. Another personal experience...

...I, like Hephaistos, took a class from George Lakoff years ago.

The class I took was at U.C. Berkeley. I don't recall its title, but I do remember that Lakoff spent a lot of class time debunking Chomsky's assertions about language, namely: 1 -- Chomsky had claimed that sign languages weren't "real" languages because they were not subject to the deep syntax analysis that Chomsky had pioneered; and 2 -- Chomsky had claimed that syntax and semantics are separable, while Lakoff demonstrated several cases where that did not seem to be the case. Another thing I remember, Lakoff took pains to point out that Chomsky's PhD thesis in linguistics weighed in at 900+ pages, which he seemed to feel was pretty outrageous.

Looking back on it, it's funny that one of Lakoff's students (me) would become a political junkie and remember so clearly his critiquing Chomsky in that linguistics class at Cal. I imagine they have a lot in common politically speaking...