This is truly a game-changer for anyone with a desire to understand the art of framing their values within public discourse. It not only helps you figure out how to present your own values effectively but also enables you to understand why and how others frame theirs.

The power and practicality of this concept are truly remarkable. It has wide-ranging applications, extending beyond just political discourse. It is equally relevant for activists involved in progressive movements.

In particular, animal activists should take note. By understanding how to frame their values, they can have a more significant impact on public perception and推动 their cause forward more effectively. This knowledge can be the key to swaying public opinion and bringing about real change.

Whether you are a politician, an activist, or simply someone interested in making a difference, this is a must-read. It will open your eyes to a whole new way of thinking about values and how they are presented in the public sphere.

For as long as I can remember, political discourse has been dominated by conservative ideologies and ideologues.

As a progressive, I've struggled to convey my political beliefs in a way that my conservative friends can understand.

This book has completely transformed my perspective.

Using the language of framing and reframing issues, Mr. Lakoff reveals that progressives should not begin with the facts, which can be easily denied or ignored, nor with a single issue as our problems are much larger.

Instead, we must start with our values and frame them within the context of our shared American values.

This advice is truly fascinating, and I devoured every page.

I would like to note that this is not a comprehensive guide on how to engage with conservatives or counter their most extreme ideas. Mr. Lakoff has written several other more detailed books on that subject.

Rather, this serves as a starting point for progressives to reevaluate how they communicate their values to others, particularly those with a conservative inclination.

I wholeheartedly recommend this book to all my progressive friends, especially those who have been facing difficulties in communicating with their conservative counterparts.

George Lakoff is truly phenomenal. His work is of great significance and value, yet I wish more people would take the time to read and understand it. I have a deep affection for his other book, Moral Politics. I was on the verge of rereading it when I suddenly remembered that there are still other books of his that I haven't read. I wouldn't necessarily claim that this particular book is better than the others, but it is just as good.

For those who are not familiar, Lakoff is a renowned cognitive scientist. He devotes himself to studying how we think about values, morals, and politics. This book in particular focuses on the crucial aspect of how we frame issues and attempt to influence others. Essentially, he expounds on why the right is so adept at this while the left seems to struggle.

If the left has any hope of consistently emerging victorious in elections, it is imperative that we learn the art of framing things effectively and communicating with people in a more engaging and persuasive manner. Therefore, for the sake of all that is sacred and important, I earnestly urge you to read this damn book. It could potentially be a game-changer for the left and help us to better navigate the complex and often contentious world of politics.

I read the original version of this when it first came out. At that time, I was working as an industrial officer in a trade union, and the idea that we needed to find a way to reframe the debate to make social justice more relevant seemed extremely urgent. To be honest, I don't remember being overly impressed with the book back then. However, I find myself much more impressed with it now. I have a feeling that this is because I've read more by the author and now know that he isn't just a'self-help' type of author. Although this book is clearly written for a general audience and almost seems that way, and that's certainly how I've thought of it since.

The main argument here is that the right has been far more effective at getting its message across to its constituency than the left. After three-and-a-half decades of 'neoliberalism' - an obsession with selling off government assets, reducing programs for the poor, attacking public schools and hospitals, and engaging in endless wars that have reduced entire regions to barely functioning hell-holes for the sake of extracting oil and natural resources (think Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan). While this has been supported by both sides of politics in the Anglophone nations, there is hardly a left voice remaining in politics.

The right has been waging a culture war and winning. The fact that we now have someone like Trump groping at the international body politic shows the depth of the problem we face. It feels like sanity itself has been grabbed by the pussy - and the fact that I can make that joke about the 'leader of the free world' beggars belief.

The problem for the left identified in this book is one of framing. But I think this is the wrong word. Framing gives the impression of 'lying' and'spin'. In fact, the left doesn't need spin. It doesn't need to distort the truth to make its message appealing. Instead, what the left needs is to speak its values. For too long, the left has sought 'the sensible middle', which has caused the debate to move further and further to the right. It's impossible to motivate your constituency when they can't see a difference between your candidate and the other side. The problem isn't spin; it's that the left has stopped talking about the things that set them apart from the right, so people support the side they believe is sincere, rather than the mealy-mouthed who say nothing for fear of offending corporate investors, Rupert Murdoch, white supremacists, or whoever else.

Only by being willing to shift the debate to our values is there any hope of reintroducing passion into the political debate. In fact, only by stressing our values can we hope to cause divisions within the right itself. Michael Apple talks about this in his Educating the Right Way - that the left doesn't consider the natural divisions that exist within the right between conservatives, managerialists, fundamentalist Christians, and libertarians. There are issues that the left could potentially unite with each of these groups over, even though they are opposed by other sections of the right. However, the left has been remarkably ineffective at doing this. Unity has never been the left's strong suit. And it's not just ideological purity that's the problem. The problem is also an inability to construct issues forthrightly enough to present left-values clearly and make them more generally appealing. As I said, we're more likely to be mealy-mouthed than forthright.

As Lakoff says, if you try to win an argument with facts alone, you lose. This is because people don't judge arguments based on facts, but on their values. And if the facts don't fit their values, they're ignored.

The mistake that could be made from this idea is to think that since people's values are fixed, there's no way to change them. We tend to think that people are either progressive or conservative, and therefore essentially different species. As someone who considers himself on the far end of the spectrum, I'm also prone to thinking in binary ways like this. But in reality, there are many people who don't fit into the right/left binary at all. In fact, most people (and it pains me to say this) are somewhere in the middle. This means that how an issue is framed for them can be enough to tip them one way or the other. For decades, the left has allowed the framing of issues to match right-wing passions rather than those of the left. This is often because the right is more likely to stress fear and selfishness - and as Bynug-Chul Hun says, no is always louder than yes.

An interesting phenomenon that I didn't notice until it was pointed out at a lecture I attended recently is that Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders are aging, baby-boomer, white guys. The point is that since the left allowed itself to die around 1980, the only people left who remember left-wing rhetoric are 'of a certain age'. This may be putting it a bit strongly, but it illustrates my point - both men have shown that what might be called traditional left-wing policies have an audience, and that audience is willing to listen. When the best option to combat Trump is Clinton (hey, I can be as nasty as any man, Killary), then god help us. Don't get me wrong, I would have voted for her if I could have voted in the US election - but if that's the best choice we have, then we need to change the rules.

Ultimately, this book is saying that we need to go back to speaking from our own values, and that's the only way we can hope to counter the values-laden vision of the right. That is, you don't counter their vision with facts or compromise - you counter it with your own vision.

A major point of this book is to encourage the left to stop using the language (and I would also say the policies) of the right. Because when you use that language, even if you're speaking against it, you're reinforcing the value system that produced it in the first place. We need to start speaking of the future as if we believe in our vision for that future. Climate change is a prime example. The right should be terrified of the climate change debate, but it almost seems like the left is the one that's scared. I mean, humanity is removing the basis for life on this planet so that a few already absurdly wealthy men can become marginally wealthier. That is, we're destroying life on the planet for everyone to improve the lives of a few billionaires in ways they won't even notice. We need to stress the utter absurdity of this situation, as well as the fact that if we act now, we might actually leave a planet worth living on for our kids, but if we don't, we won't.

I understand that there are many people who think Jesus is going to come down from the clouds and wave his magic cross and put all the trees back on the hills and all the coal back in the ground - and those people are morons, and there's not much we can do for them. I know it's sad, but some people are beyond help. But I believe that most people would rather do something to clean a stream than shit in it and hope their sky god will clean it up afterwards. I think there's a natural aversion to the idea of killing the planet. The point isn't to convince the most rabid climate change denier that he's a moron, but rather to give the majority of people some hope that they can do something to ensure they can breathe clean air or swim in the ocean, and that these things shouldn't be sacrificed as the 'price of progress'.

After decades of right-wing ascendancy, the time has come for the left to start stating their values. It's urgent; there's no time to waste.

Although it is a relatively concise 168 pages and subtitled "The essential progressive guide for the issues that define our future...", cognitive scientist George Lakoff has crafted an opus, not a simple, quick-fix guide filled with sound bites.

Often, it can seem burdened by an excess of detail. However, I'm awarding it five stars for specific sections. One such section delves into the brain science behind why facts don't hold sway for many voters, causing them to vote against their own interests. Another standout is the final chapter, titled "How to Respond to Conservatives," which is truly worth the price of the book.

I find it impossible to comprehensively summarize or even retain all the information from this book. Instead, I've decided to share some of the most salient points, along with my own thoughts on how to apply this material to my own life. I hope many readers will do the same. Lakoff contends that the task of "reframing" the progressive narrative demands experts. But if a significant number of us learn even a little and spread this knowledge in public spaces, we can contribute to mending our current cultural divide.

Politics are firmly rooted in moral values that are shaped by our upbringing. The conservative paradigm adheres to a top-down, strict-father hierarchy, believing that kids are born bad and must learn to be good through discipline and punishment. Only then can they develop self-responsibility and become independent. In contrast, the progressive paradigm emphasizes nurturing parents and the ideal of helping everyone, positing that kids are born good and require nurturing.

We all possess "frames" based on our paradigms and beliefs. Picture a physical picture frame that determines what we can see. We tend to select facts that align with the frames we already have, much like choosing art that matches the color and size of the frame. Anything that clashes or is the wrong size is rejected. Our unconscious sense of our own identity depends on this framework. This is a universal human trait. Therefore, maintaining the integrity of this inner scaffolding is of utmost importance.

Many individuals are moderates, holding conservative views in some areas and progressive views in others. They are what Lakoff terms "biconceptualists." These are the people that politicians most desire to reach, and currently, Republicans do a far better job of appealing to them based on their frames and values compared to Democrats. Whoever's language prevails will influence the other side to adopt it, strengthening the ideas of the more vocal side. A prime example is the term "tax relief," which is based on the conservatively framed belief that taxes are bad. Now, even progressives use this term, reinforcing the notion that taxes are bad and completely overlooking the fact that "private depends on public." To survive, we need roads, schools, public services, and all the elements that构成 the system in which we live. In fact, there can be no private existence without a public one. This extends even to the air we breathe. If it's not clean, we will eventually fall ill. Through astute public relations and repetition, the frame of this discourse has become the conservative frame and the common language. No amount of shouting facts will change this. In short, progressives must stop mimicking conservative language and express what they truly mean in relation to our values. Life and freedom rely on the existence of a public, which is sustained through our collective contributions.

Systemic movements have a broad impact on changing things. Systems are composed of countless actions that create a cascade of chain reactions, leading to everything from global warming to the election of a pathological liar to the highest office in the land. One chain reaction that stands out to me is the result of progressives disparaging and demeaning values and morals that they don't share. This has ultimately generated a wave of hubris that is now fueling a justifiable backlash of conservative revenge. (If you doubt this, recall a time in your life when you were shamed and how terrible that felt.) It's not that conservatives believe Trump's lies. They simply don't care, or, like Paul Ryan recently, they excuse them as due to inexperience. This is a way to eliminate facts from the frame because the strict-father paradigm of punishment is a deeply held value, and Trump promises that it will be implemented under his leadership.

In my view, part of the solution, in addition to reframing issues such as education, healthcare, and environmental protection in terms of freedom for all of us because private life depends on public personal protections (not "benefits" or "entitlements"), or using other values we all share like security, prosperity, and opportunity, is to recognize what we progressives have done. I personally feel remorse for all the times I've been intolerant and dismissive of people who, in my opinion, "don't understand what's so obvious to me." I regret that my frame has been so narrow as to exclude the importance of values in my reverence for facts, a product of my profound ignorance about systems and how they operate. Henceforth, I will strive to listen more attentively when someone is hurting to understand the true source of their pain. And I will attempt to express my own hurt and desire for healing in terms of values. Lakoff's final guidelines for communicating differently are as follows: Show respect, respond by reframing, think and talk on the level of values, and say what you believe.

Since I published the above, the U.S. president has broadcast a display of his cabinet praising him. This has been widely shared on Facebook, with progressives deriding it, completely oblivious to the fact that they are picking up his message and spreading it for him. Here is my comment on Facebook to my friends: "A lot of friends are posting the praise fest staged by 45 yesterday. While, for me, it echoes of North Korea's 'our dear leader'-mandated rhetoric and is creepy, having just finished George Lakoff's book Don't Think of an Elephant: the essential progressive guide for the issues that define our future, I see a danger in not understanding the brilliance of the strategy. The reason 45 does these things is that they work. He controls what Lakoff calls the critical 'framing' of issues. And every time he repeats the rhetoric, no matter how staged or exaggerated, he effectively controls what language we all speak. and the more times this happens, the more the nonsense becomes accepted truth. Here's my review of the book, but I highly recommend that everybody read the whole book. It's an eye-opener."

The individual in question truly has an amazing clarity of thought. It is as if their mind is a well-polished lens, able to see through the fog of confusion and complexity with ease.

They are philosophy through and through, constantly questioning, analyzing, and seeking deeper understanding. Their thoughts are not simply random musings but are carefully constructed and reasoned.

This clarity of thought allows them to approach any situation or problem with a level of objectivity and wisdom that is truly remarkable. It enables them to cut through the distractions and get to the heart of the matter.

Whether it is in their personal relationships, their work, or their pursuit of knowledge, their philosophical mindset serves them well. They are able to make sense of the world around them and find meaning and purpose in even the most challenging of circumstances.

In a world where so many people seem to be lost in a sea of chaos and uncertainty, this person's clarity of thought and philosophical nature is a shining example of what is possible.

The author seems to adopt a very condescending attitude.

It gives the impression that they consider themselves superior and look down upon others.

This condescension may manifest in various ways, such as the tone of their writing, the choice of words, or the way they present their ideas.

It can be quite off-putting to the readers, as it creates a sense of distance and inequality.

Instead of engaging in a respectful and collaborative dialogue, the author's condescending stance may make others feel belittled or unvalued.

This can ultimately hinder effective communication and the exchange of ideas.

It is important for authors to be aware of their tone and attitude to ensure that their message is received in the intended way and that they do not alienate their audience.

By being more humble and respectful, they can build better relationships with their readers and foster a more positive and productive discussion.

The title truly encapsulates the essence: Know your values and principles.

When it comes to framing a debate and setting a policy direction, it is of utmost importance to choose the right metaphors and positive language.

Values and principles serve as the foundation upon which our arguments and decisions are built. They give us a sense of purpose and guide us in determining what is right and wrong.

By using appropriate metaphors, we can make complex ideas more accessible and understandable to a wider audience. Metaphors have the power to engage people's emotions and imagination, making our message more memorable.

Positive language, on the other hand, helps to create a more conducive and collaborative environment. It encourages open dialogue and cooperation, rather than divisiveness and conflict.

In conclusion, by knowing our values and principles, and by choosing the right metaphors and positive language, we can effectively frame the debate and set a policy direction that is both meaningful and sustainable.

Obviously, it is too US-centric, but it is extremely clear and unmerciful in the analysis of the strength of the conservatives and the weakness of the progressives.

The thesis can be easily adapted to contemporary Italy, unfortunately a victim of the most blatant and criminal propaganda of the right.

It is difficult that the fake progressive Italian politicians will read this book. However, I fear that even if they read it, they would be able to understand its theses and apply them in parliamentary activities and in the media.

This work provides a valuable perspective on the political landscape, not only in the US but also potentially in other countries like Italy. By highlighting the power dynamics between conservatives and progressives, it offers insights that could help shape more effective strategies for social and political change.

It is a pity that those who could benefit the most from its teachings may be reluctant or unable to do so. Nevertheless, the ideas presented in the book deserve to be widely discussed and considered.

Maybe one day, the Italian political class will wake up and realize the importance of learning from such analyses to better serve the interests of the people.

This book is still relevant, and I'll prove it:

"By presenting a laundry list of issues, Clinton and other Democrats fail to present a moral vision-- a coherent identity with a powerful cultural stereotype-- that defines the very identity of the voters they are trying to reach. A list of issues is not a moral vision. Indeed, many Democrats were livid that Trump did not run on the issues. He didn't need to. His very being activated the strict father model-- the heart of the moral vision of conservative Republicans, and the most common response to fear and uncertainty."

That's right: George Lakoff predicted the 2016 election all the way back in 2004!

Okay, so I changed the names... In Lakoff's text "Clinton" is "Gray Davis" and "Trump" is "Arnold Schwarzenegger"... But everything else looks about right, yes?

"Don't Think of an Elephant" does not ask liberals to give up on "facts"; it doesn't ask us to deceive people, and it definitely doesn't ask us to do some bullshit like "move to the right." What it suggests is that progressives think deeply about "Framing" the issues. Lakoff doesn't agree with conservative positions, but as a cognitive scientist, he has to admire the way they've presented their case to the American public over the past forty years. Republicans use a very specific vocabulary to summon up a very specific view of the world. They embrace the language of values, and they force progressive competitors to adopt the same set of terms. And, finally, they find consensus, and show the world a unified front. If that front looks less unified in these days of "Trump people" and "Never Trump" people and libertarians and neo-Nazis, well, remember that they still all came out and voted for Donald.

Liberals and leftists and social justice types did not all come out and vote for Hillary Clinton. Some of this is on Clinton-- a lot of it is on Clinton (see my review of "Shattered")-- and some of it is on the voters. We, the party of youth and anxiety and doubt and moral righteousness-- are so horribly good at shooting ourselves in the foot. We're willing to throw away our country so long as we don't vote for someone with "shady ties" to whatever. We gotta get over this instinct, people! We gotta find consensus. We gotta speak from our hearts. We gotta create a vocabulary that affirms what's best about America, and that demonstrates how progressive policy will make America even better.

(Can I suggest the use of one word first and foremost, the word "responsibility?" We, the people of America, have a responsibility to other Americans in the present and in the future. That means responsible tax policy. That means responsible treatment of the environment. That means caring for the poor and sick. That means making decisions that factor in many voices. It means doing everything that Trump doesn't. Trump is irresponsible. He makes hasty decisions, many out of pure self-interest. He has no regard for future American lives. He lies and cheats. He lives a life of total carelessness. It's not making our country better: it's endangering all of our lives and impoverishing our culture.)

Yeah.

I picked up this book with the anticipation that it would be in the vein of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. However, as I delved into its pages, all I could think was how much I wished the author would read that very same book.

He attempts to make the reader understand how conservatives frame their politics, but his condescending attitude makes the book nearly impossible to get through. In Lakoff's eyes, he is clearly part of the morally superior team, and it's just that the conservatives are more adept at the actual framing.

I suppose some far-left liberals might find enjoyment in this book, as it will enable them to congratulate themselves, believing they are on the "right" side. But for those seeking a more objective and nuanced exploration of the complex issues at hand, this book falls short.

**Original Article**:
The importance of recycling cannot be overemphasized. It helps to conserve natural resources, reduce waste, and protect the environment. Recycling also has economic benefits as it can create jobs and save energy. We should all make an effort to recycle as much as possible.

**Expanded Article**:

The importance of recycling cannot be overemphasized.

It plays a crucial role in conserving our precious natural resources. By recycling materials such as paper, plastic, and metal, we can reduce the need to extract and process new raw materials.

This not only helps to preserve the environment but also saves energy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

Recycling also has significant economic benefits. It can create jobs in the recycling industry, from collection and sorting to processing and manufacturing.

Moreover, recycling can save businesses money by reducing the cost of raw materials and waste disposal.

We should all make a conscious effort to recycle as much as possible. By doing so, we can contribute to a more sustainable future for ourselves and for generations to come.

Let's start by separating our waste into recyclable and non-recyclable materials and taking them to the appropriate recycling facilities.

Every little bit counts, and together we can make a big difference.