...
Show More
While running for office, this book was recommended to me more frequently than any other. However, I never managed to obtain a copy for myself (*regrets*). It was only recently that I picked it up when I noticed a copy on my dad's bookshelf. It was placed beside books such as "Elections Without Choice," "Tyranny," and Astra Taylor's "Democracy May Not Exist."
The book was penned by George Lakoff, a progressive linguist and cognitive scientist, with the intention of assisting Democrats in the 2004 presidential election (Bush v. Kerry). Nevertheless, it remains relevant enough to be applicable to today's political divide. Lakoff simplifies conservative and progressive views into the "strict father worldview" and the "nurturant parent model." I won't elaborate on these here, but they struck a chord with me and made a great deal of sense. Part of his argument disproves the fallacy that rational people act in their self-interest. They don't - people vote according to their identity or worldview.
Lakoff asserts that 35-40% of Americans have the strict father model as their dominant worldview. Another 35-40% of Americans predominantly adhere to the nurturant parent model. This leaves 20-30% of people in the middle who believe in both models (perhaps one is more relevant at home and the other at work). The objective of politicians and the media is to activate their model to make it the more dominant one.
He delves into the emergence of compassionate conservatism and Orwellian language used to appeal to these middle voters. Legislation with titles like "No Child Left Behind," "Clear Skies Initiative," or "Patriot Act" are indications of weakness that should be targeted because conservatives are unable to openly state what they truly intend to do.
He discusses the origins and investments in conservative research, talking heads, and language framing (often led by communications consultant Frank Luntz) and how the Democrats need to improve and be less defensive and shortsighted. Books like "Dark Money" provide a more in-depth exploration of the history and money trail of the Right, but here I still learned about James Dodson's bestseller "Dare to Discipline," the Powell Memo, and that at least in 2004, 80% of talking heads on TV were conservative pundits.
What Lakoff means by "don't think of the elephant" is that we should refrain from using Republican phrases (such as "tax relief" or "pro-life") and instead reframe the debate entirely. A simple example is how Nixon shouldn't have said "I am not a crook" because even as he was negating "crook," he still uttered the word, causing people's brains to associate "Nixon" with "crook." Nixon could have said something like "I am a patriot."
I couldn't help but chuckle at the part where he admits initially not understanding how conservative viewpoints fit together (like desiring the freedom not to wear a mask or get a vaccine but being opposed to the reproductive health choice of having an abortion), but then realizes he holds all the opposite views and that somehow makes sense.
The book was penned by George Lakoff, a progressive linguist and cognitive scientist, with the intention of assisting Democrats in the 2004 presidential election (Bush v. Kerry). Nevertheless, it remains relevant enough to be applicable to today's political divide. Lakoff simplifies conservative and progressive views into the "strict father worldview" and the "nurturant parent model." I won't elaborate on these here, but they struck a chord with me and made a great deal of sense. Part of his argument disproves the fallacy that rational people act in their self-interest. They don't - people vote according to their identity or worldview.
Lakoff asserts that 35-40% of Americans have the strict father model as their dominant worldview. Another 35-40% of Americans predominantly adhere to the nurturant parent model. This leaves 20-30% of people in the middle who believe in both models (perhaps one is more relevant at home and the other at work). The objective of politicians and the media is to activate their model to make it the more dominant one.
He delves into the emergence of compassionate conservatism and Orwellian language used to appeal to these middle voters. Legislation with titles like "No Child Left Behind," "Clear Skies Initiative," or "Patriot Act" are indications of weakness that should be targeted because conservatives are unable to openly state what they truly intend to do.
He discusses the origins and investments in conservative research, talking heads, and language framing (often led by communications consultant Frank Luntz) and how the Democrats need to improve and be less defensive and shortsighted. Books like "Dark Money" provide a more in-depth exploration of the history and money trail of the Right, but here I still learned about James Dodson's bestseller "Dare to Discipline," the Powell Memo, and that at least in 2004, 80% of talking heads on TV were conservative pundits.
What Lakoff means by "don't think of the elephant" is that we should refrain from using Republican phrases (such as "tax relief" or "pro-life") and instead reframe the debate entirely. A simple example is how Nixon shouldn't have said "I am not a crook" because even as he was negating "crook," he still uttered the word, causing people's brains to associate "Nixon" with "crook." Nixon could have said something like "I am a patriot."
I couldn't help but chuckle at the part where he admits initially not understanding how conservative viewpoints fit together (like desiring the freedom not to wear a mask or get a vaccine but being opposed to the reproductive health choice of having an abortion), but then realizes he holds all the opposite views and that somehow makes sense.
