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.

An interesting theory, but a bit thin in terms of empiricism. Poorly written.

This statement presents a rather critical view of a particular theory. On one hand, the theory is considered interesting, perhaps having some novel or thought-provoking aspects. However, it is also criticized for being lacking in empirical support. This means that there may not be enough real-world evidence or data to back up the claims made by the theory. Additionally, the writing itself is described as poor. This could refer to various aspects such as grammar, organization, or clarity. A well-written piece is essential for effectively communicating the ideas and arguments related to the theory. Without good writing, it becomes more difficult for readers to understand and evaluate the theory. Overall, this assessment highlights the need for a theory to not only be interesting but also have a solid empirical foundation and be presented in a clear and well-written manner.

Although I have found George Lakoff's writing in previous, short articles on linguistics and politics to be fascinating and carefully crafted, this "Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate" is an oddly embarrassing example of what occurs when the book editor is left in the car trunk.

There are no transitions within and between paragraphs and chapters. A large amount seems outdated and disjointed from our contemporary experience (in fairness, this was written in 2004). There is no tangible flow from section to section.

Likewise, large chunks of this "handbook" are repetitive, and some of his most thoughtful observations are repeated almost verbatim in different chapters with little complication or added texture.

Still, about 17 percent of what Lakoff postulates is outstanding and deserves to be recognized: his use of examining frame metaphors and how they are used in politics as a form of persuasion is undeniably revealing.

For example, Lakoff describes how conservatism functions symbolically as the "strict father figure," while liberalism is represented by the "nurturing co-parent model." His discussion of nations as "rational" and "irrational" actors was quite perceptive.

Most inventive, however, was the author's deconstruction and semiotic code-breaking of "developed" and "developing" nations as strategic and sometimes unconscious frames used to describe childhood development and whether a nation "deserves" the rights given to adults.

This is truly a chaotic mess; one that stealthily forgot to bring the dinnerware to the dining table. -{Pound-Count: 60/100}-

We're all doing it wrong!

This statement is not only thought provoking but also required reading for liberals and progressives alike. It delves into the crucial topic of how to reframe and take back the political discourse in America. In today's highly polarized political climate, it is essential for those on the left to reassess their strategies and approaches. We need to move beyond the traditional ways of engaging in political conversations and find new and more effective means of communicating our ideas. By reframing the political discourse, we can present our viewpoints in a more compelling and accessible way, reaching a wider audience and ultimately making a greater impact. This requires a willingness to step out of our comfort zones, listen to different perspectives, and be open to new ideas. Only then can we hope to take back the political narrative and create a more just and equitable society for all.

This was an incredibly spectacular book.

It has truly revolutionized the way I approach and engage in conversations regarding political and other highly controversial hot-button issues, whether it be in person or in the online realm.

The insights and perspectives presented within its pages have opened my eyes and made me more aware of the importance of respectful and informed dialogue.

If you consider yourself to be liberal or identify as a Social Justice Warrior (SJW), I cannot stress enough how essential it is for you to read this book.

It will challenge your assumptions, expand your understanding, and equip you with the tools and knowledge needed to have more meaningful and productive conversations.

Don't miss out on this opportunity to grow and learn from such a remarkable piece of literature.

A progressive researcher and thinker offers what might be the keys to success for a disappointed liberal political community. However, this collection of poorly edited essays, mislabeled as a “handbook,” is a hodgepodge animated by two ideas.

The first is the concept of framing. Ideas and beliefs are encompassed within frames of understanding, and how debates are framed determines success. For a couple of decades, conservative framing has held sway. Liberals have challenged this with contradicting facts rather than a reframing. According to Lakoff, prevailing frames are impervious to facts, regardless of the strength of the truths they carry.

The second idea is that the two dominant frames are the conservative frame of the strict father and the progressive frame of the nurturing parent. This book could be improved in several ways. Firstly, if the author were a better writer. Secondly, if it had been edited to actually function as a handbook. Thirdly, if the nuances of clarity present in the FAQ section were throughout the book. For instance, the dominant reality is that most Americans have both parental frames actively in their worldviews. Fourthly, if the author addressed his audience (of progressives) with more self-reflective challenge, considering he is addressing his colleagues about their shortcomings. Fifthly, if respect for the opposing frame was given more than just belated lip service. And sixthly, if he bore in mind that the key audience is the American voters and a true handbook would have discussed what they believe, desire, fear, and are comfortable with, not just what conservatives or progressives have in their mind movies, and how to reach that audience. As a result of this last weakness, the book seems more like a sloppy primer on how to participate in a cable news tit-for-tat, point-counterpoint debate rather than how to engage in a meaningful conversation about the future with the American voter. What a pity. Matt Miller’s work is far superior to this.

Framing is a crucial aspect in public debates and discourse, especially for progressives aiming to defeat the conservative 'juggernaut'. This book offers valuable insights on how to use the right words for one's ideas and beliefs. It practices what it preaches with crisp and clear language, and strong rhetoric.

Lakoff takes a side, seeing himself as a "cognitive activist". He emphasizes that thinking differently requires speaking differently and that facts must be framed in terms of their moral importance. He also points out that the left often lacks strategic thinking compared to the right.

One important concept is not to step in someone else's frame. Negating a frame actually evokes it, and using the opponent's language and frames can strengthen their views and undermine one's own.

Self-interest and voting are also discussed. People don't necessarily vote in their self-interest; they vote based on their identity, values, and who they identify with.

The difference between the strict father (Rep) and nurturant parent (Dem) moral models is explored, highlighting the moral divisions between Democrats and Republicans.

Framing is distinguished from spin and propaganda. Framing is normal and used in every sentence, while spin and propaganda are manipulative uses of frames. The reframing suggested is based on one's true beliefs and moral views.

Advice is given, such as saying it right and repeating it, reframing instead of just negating, never answering a question framed from the opponent's point of view, and being sincere. The four most important guidelines are to show respect, respond by reframing, think and talk at the level of values, and say what you believe.

Overall, this book provides a comprehensive guide on framing for progressives in public debates and discourse.

The most practical knowledge you'll find on how to frame your political debates.

This book offers valuable insights into the art of political debate framing. Although it is written from an American perspective, the conservative vs. progressive debate has broader applicability.

It details the models employed by both sides, their moral considerations, their desires, and the current state of the debate. Conservatives excel at framing, using language as a powerful tool to sway and alter the course of discussions. Progressives, on the other hand, often struggle in this regard.

Progressives frequently find themselves arguing within conservative frames, using their language and lacking a clear ideology to effectively convey their points. Fortunately, Lakoff provides a guide for progressives to unite, reframe crucial political issues from a progressive standpoint, and respond to conservatives.

One astonishing example is the reframing of the term "global warming" to "climate change" by a political consultant named Frank Luntz. Look him up, and you'll find it in his Wikipedia entry. Now, everyone uses the term "climate change." This simple shift in language has had a significant impact on how the issue is perceived and discussed.

Trigger warning for progressive politics!

Progressive politics can often be a source of intense debate and controversy. It challenges the status quo and aims to bring about social, economic, and political change.

Those who support progressive politics believe in policies that promote equality, justice, and the well-being of all individuals. This may include issues such as healthcare reform, environmental protection, and social welfare programs.

However, progressive politics can also face significant opposition from those who prefer the traditional or conservative approach. Critics may argue that progressive policies are too radical or that they will have negative consequences for the economy or society.

Despite the challenges, the progressive movement continues to gain momentum and influence. It has the potential to shape the future of our society and bring about positive change for generations to come.

It is important for individuals to engage in informed discussions about progressive politics and to consider the potential benefits and drawbacks of different policies. By doing so, we can work towards creating a more just and equitable world.

I don't usually review books. However, this one was so extremely bad that I simply had to.

It is filled with contractions, which gives it a rather unprofessional tone. Moreover, there are numerous ignorant and perhaps even deliberate mischaracterizations.

Surprisingly, I found myself laughing out loud a lot while reading it.

Lakoff is indeed great when it comes to linguistics. But it is quite obvious that he has never actually met or had a conversation with a real, live conservative.

This lack of real-world interaction seems to have led to some rather inaccurate portrayals in the book.

Overall, it was a disappointment, especially considering Lakoff's reputation in the field of linguistics.

I would not recommend this book to anyone looking for an objective or accurate understanding of conservatism.

Llegit per l’assignatura Llengua, Comunitat i Ideologia.

This assignment holds great significance as it delves into the complex and intertwined aspects of language, community, and ideology. Through this study, students are able to explore how language serves as a powerful tool for communication within a community and how it is influenced by and reflects the ideology of that community.

Understanding these relationships is crucial in today's diverse and globalized world. It helps us to better appreciate the unique cultures and identities of different communities and to communicate more effectively with them.

Moreover, this assignment allows students to develop their critical thinking skills as they analyze and interpret the various ways in which language, community, and ideology interact. It also encourages them to reflect on their own language use and how it may be shaped by their own community and ideological background.

In conclusion, Llegit per l’assignatura Llengua, Comunitat i Ideologia is an important and engaging assignment that provides students with a deeper understanding of the role of language in society and the significance of community and ideology in shaping our communication and identities.

This slim volume on political framing by George Lakoff is often regarded as a primer compared to his numerous other publications. It significantly helps in understanding why the left and right have difficulties in having meaningful conversations. This is a new version of a book initially published in 2004. Lakoff, a cognitive scientist and linguist, has been teaching at Berkeley since 1972.

He only strengthens my belief that Republicans disguise their true motives of widening the elite divide through the way they frame the debate. This lures many ordinary people into voting against their own best interests. And it all comes down to branding, image, and language. Progressives are labeled as socialists when, in fact, we all desire the same freedom and equal opportunity. These are a direct threat to those with corporate and individual wealth and power, so of course, they will try to distort your view.

I'm moderate enough to naively believe that we all want the same thing, but the methods we choose to achieve it are vastly different. Obviously, with the current administration, the conservatives have the advantage. The reason they've succeeded is that the Republican Party is much better at framing the discourse and finding a unifying theme. Progressives are left dealing with various issues one by one, without a coherent thread to hold us together. We argue in ways that widen the gap by pushing us into extreme offense or defense positions, rather than having calm dialogue. Lakoff explains these different approaches with the metaphor of the nation as a family, with the models being a strict father figure versus the nurturant parent. When he expands these approaches to life in general and politics in particular, it clarifies much of the divide. There are also those who operate with a bit of both ideologies, whom he calls biconceptuals. While it's hard to expect to change the mind of a far-right winger, a surprising number of people fall into this middle range. This is where one can have an impact and may find that their values actually merge when framed correctly.

Although this book may be short, it is important and far from simplistic. I highlighted a lot and often had to put it down to think about the implications. I can't emphasize enough how much I liked this book and would highly recommend it to anyone seeking a civil discourse. I will definitely explore Lakoff's more in-depth works.

*One additional comment - much of this book wasn't really new to me, but it seems not so obvious to some. I have good friends whose angry posts about the current situation only deepen the divide. As Lakoff said, we tend to think, "The facts will set you free." Unfortunately, most right-wing diehards are so caught up in the rhetoric that they are blind to the facts. How and why this happens is what this book is about. And how can we start a conversation and make a valid point without alienating others?