shotbanner.jpeg

October 11, 2006

Bad News For Republicans

The modestly-sensible Rahm Emanuel said:

``If we believed in conspiracy theories, we'd think that only Karl Rove could dream up the idea of a linguistic professor from Berkeley urging Democrats to `practice reframing every day, on every issue.'''
But it wasn't Rove who foisted that "linguistics professor from Berkeley", George Lakoff, on the Democrats.

He was a self-inflicted wound.

Lakoff is a Chomskyite tranformational linguist from Berkeley via MIT who wasted thousands of Democrat man-hours talking about metaphors of terror and framing issues.

And he's on the outs, according to Andrew Ferguson. And that can only be good for the Democrats.

Oh, he was influential:

``Towers are symbols of phallic power,'' Lakoff explained, ``and their collapse reinforces the idea of loss of power.''

And if you think the Twin Towers were symbolically profound, wait till you get a load of the Pentagon: ``Another kind of phallic imagery was more central here,'' Lakoff wrote. ``The Pentagon, a vaginal image from the air, was penetrated by the plane as missile.''

A man who could write such things may be suited to many tasks, but ``counselor to a major political party trying to win elections'' is not one of them.

Yet that is what Lakoff became before the 2004 elections. He spoke at conclaves of Democratic candidates, and the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee bought boxes of his book on political strategy (``Don't Think of an Elephant'') and passed them out like party favors.

But a lefty thinker has a half-life like an N-Sync solo project:
But Democrats lost elections listening to Lakoff, just as they'd lost elections before he became their swami. Now the more respectable elements in the party are giving him the heave-ho.

The liberal New Republic magazine trashed his newest book in a brutal review two weeks ago. ``If Democrats take the ideas of George Lakoff seriously,'' said the reviewer, ``they just might succeed'' in losing the election.

Lakoff has become a stock figure of fun in the pages of the progressive magazine the American Prospect. His invitations to speak before the Democratic caucus have dried up.

And in their new book ``The Plan,'' Democratic strategist Bruce Reed and Representative Rahm Emanuel hold up Lakoff as an exemplar of how not to win elections.

Note to Democrats; Ignore Reed! Rebuke Rahm!

Embrace Lakoff!

Posted by Mitch at October 11, 2006 06:12 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Help! Help! I'm bein' reframed!

Suddenly, years of futile "debate" on a certain Chat list make a lot more "sense" to me.

Posted by: Brian Jones at October 11, 2006 07:30 AM

I was thinking the same thing.

Any comment, Angryframe?

Posted by: mitch at October 11, 2006 07:32 AM

Isn't the very concept of the "lefty thinker" sort of an oxymoron these days?

Posted by: Jay Reding at October 11, 2006 08:52 AM

Mitch and "Brian Jones" claim they were framed? Angryclown is picturing the two of you on a museum wall, a gay American Gothic. Mitch has the pitchfork. Brian wears the apron.

Posted by: angryclown at October 11, 2006 09:00 AM

For most of us here, our vision of appropriate art involving the angryclown would have him replacing the Virgin in Ofili's "The Virgin Mary." Especially since it would show the source of much of what he flings about on this blog.

Posted by: nerdbert at October 11, 2006 09:38 AM

The reason Lakoff is not as successful as his GOP counterpart, Frank Luntz, is that Lakoff spends too much time explaining how and why a word or idea should be framed.

It's the equivalent of the the gas station attendant telling you how an internal combustion engine works when all you asked was how to get to Perkins.

Luntz on the other hand assembles a focus group and tests his ideas. The most emotionally charged and effective gets rolled out on the Sunday Morning talk shows.

It's the difference between a professor and a salesman.

Posted by: Doug at October 12, 2006 08:00 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi