I went to check out this piece, by ultra-left Chomsky acolyte George Lakoff, intending to bury him, not praise him.

And I still might do that.

But there’s a teaching moment in here, too. 

Lakoff, by way of attacking Hillary and her attempt to pillory Obama on “the issues”, discusses something I wrote about last week re the video of Obama talking about Ronald Reagan.

Because while conservatives’ admiration of Reagan is obvious (and in some extremes, dysfunctional), you can learn a lot from a diametric opponent’s reasoned analysis.

In Thinking Points, the handbook for progressives that the Rockridge Institute staff and I wrote last year, we began by analyzing Ronald Reagan’s strengths as a politician. According to his chief strategist, Richard Wirthlin, Reagan realized that most voters do not vote primarily on the basis of policies, but rather on (1) values, (2) connection, (3) authenticity, (4) trust, and (5) identity. That is, Reagan spoke about his values, and policies for him just exemplified values. He connected viscerally with people. He was perceived as authentic, as really believing what he said. As a result, people trusted him and identified with him. Even if they had different positions on issues, they knew where he stood. Even when his economic policies did not produce a “Morning in America,” [pfffffft, whatever – Ed.] voters still felt a connection to him because he spoke to what they wanted America to be. That was what allowed Reagan to gain the votes of so many independents and Democrats.

And that’s my big concern about this campaign.  Obama does, indeed, understand Reagan’s technique, although I do believe him to be genuine in his approach.  Unlike Reagan, though, Obama is an inch deep in the experience department, and his policies are (to this conservative) noxious, debilitating and dangerous.  I think – as I noted on the NARN show last Saturday – that Obama has the potential to be the next Jesse Ventura, or Jimmy Carter; a soothing and invigorating personality that draws lots of personality-driven voters to the polls. 

Worse, I think that the GOP nominees suffer by comparison. 

Romney shares values (#1 on Lakoff/Wirthlin’s list) – with most American voters; he’s definitely right on most issues.  But can you honestly say he connects with those undecided, non-political, “Reagan Democrat” voters?  That they look at his CEO hair and his perfect modulation and trust, identify and connect with him?  It’s a question, not a statement.

McCain has obvious crossover appeal – or so the media tells us – but that’s largely because he has crossed over, on so many issues.  He’s cranky, cantankerous – he’s America’s irascible grand-dad.  How does he stack up on  values, connection, authenticity, trust and identity?  I suppose it depends on who you ask. 

Lakoff inserts a bunch of baked wind about conservatism before getting back on point:

The Clintonian policy wonks don’t seem to understand any of this. They have trivialized Reagan’s political acumen as an illegitimate triumph of personality over policy. They confuse values with programs. They have underestimated authenticity and trust.

I wonder – again, asking rather than stating – if the GOP isn’t doing the same.

(Via Joel Rosenberg)

This entry was posted by by Mitch Berg on Monday, February 4th, 2008 at 7:00 am and is filed under Campaign '08. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.