Of the three books I've recently read on political messaging and tactics, this one stands out as by far the best.

It lacks the snarky cynicism found in Frank Luntz's book and steers clear of the "Ends Justify the Means" attitude of Saul Alinsky. Instead, Lakoff suggests that progressives should focus on the values they truly believe in and stop responding to debates in the ways conservatives have framed.

He contends that progressives have "lost" the culture wars due to their inability to properly frame their arguments and have instead relied solely on truth and facts. "It is a common folk theory of progressives that 'the facts will set you free.' If only you get all the facts out there in the public eye, then every rational person will reach the right conclusion. It is a vain hope," he states.

To win the culture wars, progressives should do four things: "Show respect. Respond by reframing. Think and talk at the level of values. Say what you believe."

Interestingly, this mirrors much of what Jonathan Haidt argues in "The Righteous Mind." However, where Lakoff loses me is in defining the moral models of the family that progressives and conservatives adhere to. Progressives use the nurturant family model, believing that "the world can be made a better place, and our job is to work on that. The parents' job is to nurture their children and to raise their children to be nurturers of others." Conservatives, on the other hand, use the strict father model, where "what is required of the child is obedience, because the strict father is a moral authority who knows right from wrong."

He does a good job of explaining how these models shape adult world views but falls short in adequately proving these moral models to be true. His idea that "preserving and extending the strict father model is the highest moral value for conservatives" seems a bit of a straw man.

Overall, though, it is worth a read as it offers a different perspective on why people struggle to agree on important issues.

I was recommended this book in a talk by a person who knows about the subject. And indeed, it is an interesting read although there are some things that are repeated overly. It presents some interesting premises. It is especially useful if you are American but also if you are not because the ideas it presents can be applied in many areas and not just the political one.

This is a book that liberals should read and that if conservatives read it, they will also question who they vote for. Also, it must be taken into account that, as the author himself states, he is liberal.

Moreover, the book offers valuable insights into various aspects of society and governance. It challenges the readers to think critically about their own beliefs and the choices they make. The repetitive parts, although a bit tiresome, do not overshadow the overall value of the book. It provides a platform for discussions and debates, which is essential in a democratic society. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the author's views, this book is definitely worth reading for the thought-provoking ideas it presents.

This was an odd book for me to read. Firstly, I'm not political. Secondly, it was written for the 2004 election and is now rather out of date. However, I love Lakoff's cognitive science writings and was curious about his work for a popular audience.

According to Lakoff, at least when this was written, progressives have been debating wrongly. Conservatives focus on what matters to voters - their values and identity. Progressives, on the other hand, present facts and assume everyone will follow once they are seen as factually correct. Moreover, progressives focus on specific issues and policies, while Lakoff argues that voters care about values. So, this book aims to provide progressives with good framing for their shared values to argue effectively and appeal to voters.

Lakoff says progressives need to change their framing to communicate their values. Conservatives design their framing to make their side look right, like "tax relief" suggesting taxes are a burden. Instead of arguing against it, Lakoff recommends progressives argue for new framings, like taxes as an investment in the country.

Lakoff discusses issues current in 2004, like gay marriage, the Schwarzenegger election, and the Bush administration's response to 9/11. He analyzes the conservatives' framing and explains the underlying value system. Conservatives use a "strict father" morality, while progressives use a "nurturant parent" morality. For example, Schwarzenegger was elected as a strict-father figure. Progressives support gay marriage as it can build a nurturant parent family, while conservatives oppose it as it doesn't fit a traditional strict father family. Conservatives responded to 9/11 with a strict father mentality of punishment, while progressives want a responsible approach consistent with their ethics of care and nurturance.

Overall, I found Lakoff's writing for a popular audience simpler than his academic writings, almost patronizing at times, and I prefer the latter. One thing that bothered me was his treatment of the brain. He repeatedly makes statements like "Neuroscience tells us that concepts are instantiated in the synapses of our brains." He seems to assume that things in the brain are more permanent and serious, which I find frustrating as a materialist due to the inherent dualism. This language pervades the book and annoyed me. One last comment: Lakoff uses the phrase "the culture war," which I was surprised to learn already existed in 2004.

I found the first chapter of the book quite interesting. It delved into the significance of framing and how frames have a profound impact on shaping our opinions and beliefs, often more so than the facts themselves.

However, as I progressed through the rest of the book, it started to feel extremely repetitive. The content seemed to be a rehash of the same ideas without any new or substantial information. Moreover, it appeared to be liberal propaganda as there were no proper sources to back up the claims made.

The strict father vs. nurturing parent frameworks, although somewhat useful in terms of providing a framework for understanding certain aspects, were already introduced in the first chapter. This lack of development and originality made the reading experience rather dull.

On the positive side, at least the book was a short read, which meant I didn't have to endure the repetitive and unsubstantiated content for too long. Overall, while the first chapter had some merit, the rest of the book failed to meet my expectations.

The section on the Bush Party's framing around Iraq feels especially relevant now.

During that time, the Bush administration presented a narrative that led the country into war. Their framing emphasized the threat of weapons of mass destruction and the supposed connection between Iraq and terrorism.

This framing had a significant impact on public opinion and policy decisions. It influenced the American people to support the war and justified the military action.

Now, looking back, we can see the consequences of that framing. The war in Iraq brought about significant human and economic costs. It also had a lasting impact on the Middle East and international relations.

Understanding the Bush Party's framing around Iraq is crucial for evaluating the past and learning from it. It allows us to question the motives and actions of those in power and to be more critical of the information we receive.

By examining this relevant section, we can gain a better understanding of the complex issues surrounding the Iraq war and work towards making more informed decisions in the future.

I had heard the book being discussed to a fair extent before reading it. However, after actually reading it, I don't feel that it significantly enhanced my understanding.

It seems that this must have been a collection of essays as some ideas are repeatedly presented. The concept itself isn't overly difficult to comprehend, yet even this relatively short book appeared to be rather long.

Frankly speaking, practical tips instead of just the concept would have made it more useful. I found the model of the "strict father" versus the "nurturant parent" a bit dull. The politically correct gender neutralization of the "nurturing" role seemed precious and self-congratulatory, and it was no more warranted than the gender neutralization of the "father role".

In conclusion, while the book had some interesting points, it failed to meet my expectations in terms of providing in-depth understanding and practical application.

While this piece of writing may not be the most thrilling or captivating thing to read, it does have the power to stimulate your thoughts and make you engage in deep reflection. It presents ideas and concepts that might not immediately grab your attention but, upon closer examination, can offer valuable insights and perspectives.

Sometimes, the most profound learning and growth come from delving into material that challenges us and forces us to think outside the box. Even though it may not be an easy or enjoyable read at first glance, it has the potential to expand our minds and broaden our understanding of various topics.

So, although it may not be the most exciting thing to read, it is worth taking the time to explore and consider the ideas presented. You might be surprised at the new perspectives and ideas that can emerge from this seemingly ordinary piece of writing.

This 2014 update of the 2004 first edition is even more badly needed than that original book.

George Lakoff expands on his practical and philosophical message in response to the advances of the reactionary movement in the intervening years.

The failure of the establishment on the left to learn and apply these lessons, I believe, is one of the reasons Donald Trump became president of the U.S.

I suspect Lakoff - like many other progressives - felt like beating his head against the nearest wall many times during the campaigns of 2015-2016, as he clearly did in the decade between 2004-2014.

If ordinary poor and middle class Americans are ever to get government to take us seriously and serve our needs as our elected representatives are supposed to do, we need to start learning and applying these lessons.

The world has changed significantly since 2004, and the need for Lakoff's insights has only grown.

The reactionary movement has made great strides, and the left has often been slow to respond.

By not learning and applying Lakoff's lessons, the left has failed to connect with the concerns of ordinary Americans.

This has allowed Trump to tap into the frustrations of the working class and win the presidency.

It is time for the left to wake up and start taking Lakoff's ideas seriously.

Only by learning and applying these lessons can we hope to build a more just and equitable society.

This is the more accessible version for the general public of Lakoff's extensive Moral Politics.

Its stated aim is to clarify for the progressive camp how to effectively structure the debate to win over people's hearts and minds.

However, I'm not convinced that Lakoff can break free from his highly academic style to convey this to ordinary individuals.

Most of the "civilian" political enthusiasts I know who have read this have emerged with a very limited understanding of how to apply the theory.

Many have chosen to fixate on "framing" as the cure-all for winning elections, overlooking all the other elements that构成 a successful campaign.

Lakoff elaborates on the psychological impacts of framing and delves into several common American models employed by political communication strategists.

The parental models and analogies that Lakoff描绘 are particularly captivating and relevant to American political communication.

The title of the book stems from the concept that when you are instructed NOT to think of an elephant, it's nearly impossible not to because of the vivid images that are activated in your mind.

The book is engaging, but for political novices and experts alike, I suggest Moral Politics.

It's okay. I'm just a joyless communist, but this is way too much about electoral politics for my taste. However, I do think this framing (no pun intended) can be helpful when discussing these issues with relatives and hoping they will view things from a more sympathetic and empathetic perspective. It's definitely an interesting and useful strategy regardless.

Electoral politics often seems to be a complex and sometimes overwhelming topic. For me, as a communist, I may have a different view on how society should be organized. But I can still recognize the value of finding ways to communicate and engage with others who may have different opinions.

This particular framing might offer a new way to approach conversations with relatives. By presenting the issues in a more empathetic light, it could potentially open their minds and make them more receptive to understanding different viewpoints. It's important to remember that everyone has their own beliefs and experiences, and finding common ground can be a challenging but rewarding task.

I was recommended this by a friend - otherwise I probably would have never picked it up! Since I'm not especially politically astute, I discovered that I learned a great deal from it. It clarified for me many things that I had suspected about politics but wasn't certain of.

I thought it was outstanding. However, if you wish to read something by Lakoff, I would suggest his much more recent book "Moral Politics" which was published in 2016, while this book was published in 2004.

The older book still has its merits and offers valuable insights. It helps to understand the political landscape from a particular perspective. But the newer book might incorporate more recent developments and changes in the political sphere. Reading both could provide a comprehensive understanding of Lakoff's ideas and how they have evolved over time.

Come recita il titolo di questo libro, anche la negazione di un frame ha come effetto la sua attivazione. Se qualcuno ci dice di non pensare a un elefante, noi penseremo inevitabilmente a un elefante.

Lakoff inizia da questo semplice assunto, preso dagli studi di linguistica cognitiva, e lo applica al discorso politico. Egli sostiene che se continuiamo a usare il linguaggio degli avversari, non facciamo altro che perpetuare il sistema di principi morali e idee opposti al nostro.

L'autore sottolinea la necessità di ripensare il discorso politico basandolo sull'affermazione dei propri valori, di usare il nostro linguaggio e non cadere negli slogan conservatori, e di creare nuovi framing, cioè sistemi di idee pronti ad accogliere metafore e linguaggi che le riflettano. Inoltre, spiega come la mente umana ragioni per metafore e come le persone votino in base ai propri principi morali. Tutte argomentazioni fondamentali per chiunque faccia politica o lavori nel mondo delle comunicazioni.

Tuttavia, il libro ha anche alcuni difetti. È spesso ripetitivo e a tratti un po' superato. Tuttavia, è stato un best-seller e le indicazioni di Lakoff hanno avuto seguito, quindi grazie a lui alcune idee sono ormai diventate parte del senso comune. Inoltre, le dissertazioni più generali e non linguistiche sono schematiche, quasi semplicistiche. Tuttavia, la parte sul linguaggio e sulle metafore è fondamentale e deve entrare nel discorso pubblico di sinistra, soprattutto per creare una visione e una strategia politica a lungo termine.