FORA.tv

Fuel the Enlightenment

Politics of Language: George Lakoff

Commonwealth Club
Rate It
18,821 Views
  • Info
  • Bio
  • Full Program
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • More
Page 1 of 2 1 2
heybd Avatar
heybd
Posts: 51
Posted: 08.13.09, 10:43 AM
This! It is so aggravating to hear all the stuff that conservatives (read people who fear change) say about the health care issue that is so obviously ridiculous, yet it bounces in the echo chamber of right-wing media drowning out intelligent discourse. Sadly, I fear that since it's so insane, the fact that it does not merit any response leaves it as the only voice out there. Obama & Co. need to take Lakoff's advice and take control of the discussion.
Permalink
Nick Avatar
Nick
Posts: 11
Posted: 08.13.09, 01:52 PM
If you're ok with his lefty bias, Lakoff has an excellent way of explaining how language plays such an integral role in crafting political strategy. On this note, the health care reform highlight is a great rundown on how Dems have dropped the ball on this issue.
Permalink
mookie Avatar
mookie
Posts: 1
Posted: 08.13.09, 03:54 PM
George, as a master linguist you undoubtedly understand the secret power of words. However did you intentionally or accidentally create a negative charged frame to the word "profit" in your speech?

Why don't I trust a government run healthcare system?

#1 - take a look at the social security system and tell us the truth about that success story

#2 - People, whether they work for corporations or government agencies, are all susceptible to corrupt practices. I would believe your frame if there was proof positive that politicians weren't -- in many cases corrupt -- Republicans and Democrats

----

thanks for the kool aid George, but if the Democrats took your advice and told the truth about what's really IN the proposed legislation, even THEY would run in the other direction.

By the way, and I mean this with complete sincerity -- you are an excellent conversational hypnotist.

Permalink
Daryl Kirpalani Avatar
Daryl Kirpalani
Posts: 2
Posted: 08.14.09, 12:48 AM
Mookie, "master of truth?" But where is this truth in your comment?
Permalink
alienufo Avatar
alienufo
Posts: 1
Posted: 08.14.09, 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mookie
#1 - take a look at the social security system and tell us the truth about that success story

#2 - People, whether they work for corporations or government agencies, are all susceptible to corrupt practices. I would believe your frame if there was proof positive that politicians weren't -- in many cases corrupt -- Republicans and Democrats
1: Social security has kept seniors out of poverty for over 70 years. Its one of the most successful gov't programs we have ever had in terms of doing what its supposed to. The only reason it faces a deficit in the future is because congress uses the surplus it generates to pay off the budget deficit. People laughed at Al Gore's "lockbox" but he was completely right about that.

2: Yes, many politicians are corrupt. So are CEOs. The difference is that the people have recourse with regards to politicians in elections. CEOs have no such thing to the public, only to their shareholders.
Permalink
quicksite Avatar
quicksite
Posts: 2
Posted: 08.14.09, 05:07 AM
Wow, George, this is one of your best presentations ever. I've never heard you lay out the foundational structure for empathy before, and you did it so eloquently in this section: 02. Misconceptions About Rational Thought

I've been used to one of your tenets about liberals tending to believe that logic & reasoning will set you free, all derived from the huge errors of the Age of Enlightenment.

Now having said all this could you please counsel me in how to refrain from being perpetually pissed off at Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Democratic "leadership" for lacking any of the emotional & framing messaging skills to be effective in their jobs? Maybe you can explain to me: How is it possible for people to matriculate through these halls of power, dealing with PEOPLE all day long every day & night, and be so utterly clueless about the mechanics of messaging?

Okay, so after you explain that to me -- essentially, how is it that people like Pelosi & Reid & Feinstein, can be such shining examples of incompetence, yet rise in stature and power to positions that then influence and control the entire flow of which bills even get to come before Congress ... without having any skill whatsoever in the framing and emotional connecting of issues to people's lives -- can STILL be totally clueless after your work rose to prominence in the 2004 election cycle, and in lessons of the loss throughout 2005...? That's 4-5 years ago, and still they are as unskilled in these critical areas of influence as they were BEFORE being exposed to your work... Pelosi's & Reid's apparent take-aways were to miss the boat & dock completely, so much so as to do exactly the things you warned against NOT doing -- specifically, use "magic phrases" as some shortcut to understanding and implementing the ideas embedded in your framing messages in 04-05-06. Pelosi droned on with her repetition of "Culture of Corruption" and "Drain the Swamp" and "Rubber Stamp Republicans", and managed to win in Nov 06 midterms -- and must have connected the wrong dots: That it wasn't her magic phrases repeated mechanically without emotion that made her Speaker of the House, but rather Howard Dean's "50 state strategy" which brought multiple contests into the Dem's win column which the Pelosi-Rahm Crowd had dismissed as strategically uninportant and unwinnable.

So here you are 4 years later with another really brilliant and engaging presentation (one would have to have concrete in the brain to not grasp the lessons of what you're saying), and the story is the same: You laying out what chnages the Dems have to make in order to connect with people and effortlessly sell policies that improve people's lives -- while the reality is that those who most need to deliver such messaging are still apparently unaware that they haven't learned anything at all during these years.

How many years of repetition will it take for Dems to ever grok to this material? I honestly don't think their minds are fluid enough to change the organization of their brain structure.

So I had to just share this here, so you could advise me where am I supposed to dump or channel these emotions of complete frustration? A child could grasp this stuff.

[ PLEASE INSERT YOUR ANSWER HERE ]

Thanks & again, great job.
Permalink
susanorypowers Avatar
susanorypowers
Posts: 3
Posted: 08.14.09, 10:46 AM
Excellent!
Confirms a recent experience of mine.
I sent out an email to friends, liberal and conservative, in which I compared the number of lives that have been lost under our present private health care system with the 2,974 deaths from 9/11. Pointed out that we could deal with an external enemy who takes lives and label them terrorists, but we fail to see our own internal enemy that kills Americans. I put the health care debate into the bottom line: saving American lives. Conservatives emailed me back that I should stop sending them emails which they could not enjoy. Liberals thanked me.
I did not understand this reaction. Like many, I always believed that truth would lead to understanding. Now I get it!
Thank you.
Permalink
Claire Morrissey Avatar
Claire Morrissey
Posts: 3
Posted: 08.14.09, 01:03 PM
Majority vs. minority rule? Talk about framing the debate in a dishonest way! This country is not based on majority OR minority rule, but on the RULE OF LAW. Our founders specifically tried to design a government that did NOT allow majority rule. That is why the USA is a republic, and not an outright democracy. Our founders understood that very often the majority might vote to take property from the minority, and that in order to protect the right to property there had to be checks against the power of majorities, and constitutional rights guaranteed to individuals. Imagine if the majority of Californians voted to confiscate 3/4 of the wealth of the top 10 richest people in California, and use that money to pay for public services... it could very well happen that a majority of Californians would vote for this-- but it would be wrong for the government to enforce that kind of arbitrary theft, wouldn't it? Those people from whom the money would be taken have a constitutional right to their own property, don't they? If you disagree with this, then I believe that you don't understand what is special and great about America.

All this is obvious to me, both rationally and emotionally. I do believe in helping the truly disadvantaged, but if I am going to give my money, effort and time to help people I want to be able to do it voluntarily-- to help those I want to help, and to help them in the measure that I think they need it. I believe that is everyone could keep their tax dollars that are currently being taken and redistributed by government, and to decide for themselves how to help the disadvantaged in their communities with that money, we would all be much better off. Obama hates this idea, which is why he is undermining private charity from every angle. He prefers for people to depend on big government than on each other, voluntarily, in their own communities. The welfare state is directly at odds with voluntary civic institutions and private charities, because the welfare state thrives on people who depend on government for their livelihood. This is not what America is supposed to be, and if we keep going in this direction it will ruin us.
Permalink
daleconour Avatar
daleconour
Posts: 1
Posted: 08.15.09, 03:26 PM
Call me cynical, Claire, but I just can't see the return of noblesse oblige really raising all boats the way you expect it to. You tip your hand with your "Obama=big government" and "welfare state" conservative knee jerking, you should be cautious of that when portraying yourself as the voice of reason. The way I see it, many people of wealth don't seem to share a strong sense of community (look where they live, where they send their kids to school), a passion to help those who, for whatever reason, have not reached their station in life. In fact, it's been my experience that the poor tend to be far more generous with their assets and time than the wealthy. I'm neither Republic nor Democrat, but I do think the point of us being a country is to help each other out, that we're only as strong as our weakest members, and theoretically at least, government is the instrument for how we do this most effectively. If the gov't isn't being effective, it's because of a two-party system that creates a Monday Night Football contest for power between two teams that can only end with one "winner"—and it's not the country.
Permalink
Claire Morrissey Avatar
Claire Morrissey
Posts: 3
Posted: 08.15.09, 10:49 PM
Actually, Dale, I don't think you are quite cynical enough. I think it is very naive to trust all of the government officials in our various federal departments with the amount of power they now have, and very unwise to want to increase the number of these people, and to give them even more power. I think "big government" is a pretty neutral description. If you just look at the number of federal employees we have today, (which also increased under Bush-- I'm not being particularly partisan here), and it will be plain that the size of government has increased relative to the population over the last 200 years-- and with it, of course, the size of our tax bills.

I'm not a conservative-- more of a libertarian. I agree with you that neither party has in mind the best interests of this country. And I don't think I'm knee-jerk anything. I used to think socialism was the best kind of system, but then I started learning a lot more about economics. It's a shame economics is such a boring discipline, because it really opens your eyes. If more people took the time to learn about the economic value of freedom, how true economic freedom (not Reagan's "trickle down" tactics of cutting taxes a bit here, doing away with a few regulations there, but rather true free market capitalism) DOES raise all boats.

It's not about noblesse oblige. In a free market economy, there is high employment, wages that rise due to competition for workers, and prices that match what people can afford, so few people need charity. There is also plenty of good will in every community for people who are truly incapable of providing for themselves. I think that charity, and the spirit of charity, will tend to decrease as taxes rise-- if I were rich, and paying over $100 000 a year in taxes, I might feel like enough of my money was going to help others, and I might decide to give less to charity than I otherwise would. Not only that, I might consider that it was the government's responsibility, and not mine, to help the disadvantaged.
Permalink
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Please log in or register to post a comment.
Advertisement

Related Programs

Discrimination in Federal Health Reform Discrimination in Federal Health Reform
01:04:03 min | 801 Views
The Surprising Holdouts on Don't Ask Don't Tell The Surprising Holdouts on Don't Ask Don't Tell
00:04:31 min | 2,023 Views
Is There a Free-Market Alternative? Is There a Free-Market Alternative?
01:16:41 min | 5,716 Views
Christine Todd Whitman in Conversation Christine Todd Whitman in Conversation
00:48:14 min | 2,340 Views
Health Cooperatives: Alternative to Public Plan? Health Cooperatives: Alternative to Public Plan?
01:43:21 min | 865 Views

Browse Programs by Tag

Arts Books Climate Change Computing Conflict Credit Crunch Defense Democratization Economic Policy Education Election 2008 Emerging Markets Energy Entertainment Entrepreneurship Environment Film Food Globalization Health & Wellness Healthcare History Internet Investing Law Medicine Music Muslim World Natural Sciences New Media Personal Technology Philanthropy Religion Social Issues Social Sciences Sustainability Terrorism The Bailout U.S. Foreign Policy White House 2009

Advertisement