Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Every progressive needs to know this! Don't fall into the rationality trap. Persuade through values!
Start by reading this article:
http://www.alternet.org/books/156057/george_lakoff%3A_how_right-wingers_scam_people_into_buying_their_toxic_philosophy_/
George Lakoff: How Right-Wingers Scam People Into Buying Their Toxic Philosophy
Here is what progressives can learn from right-wing messaging.
June 29, 2012
Progressives often find themselves explaining the details of their preferred policies, and arguing that they would maximize the common good if enacted. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to eschew the fine print to embrace sweeping, moral narratives to back their positions. For the Right, debates over concrete public policies are often framed as contests between good and evil, freedom and tyranny; that's how, for example, conservatives can transform a modest 3 percent tax hike on the wealthiest Americans into pernicious “class warfare” and an intolerable example of “socialism.”
Call it a "rationality trap." For years, George Lakoff, a cognitive linguist at the University of California Berkeley, has argued that these tendencies put progressives at a huge disadvantage in our political discourse because the human brain simply doesn't process information in coolly analytical terms. Rather, people judge ideas against a larger moral framework, and by offering policy analysis rather than morality tales, liberals go to bat for their policies two strikes down in the count.
Lakoff and co-author Elisabeth Wehling discuss how these dynamics play out every day in American political debates in his new book, The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic. He appeared on this week's AlterNet Radio Hour; below is a lightly edited transcript of the discussion (you can listen to the whole show here).
Here is what progressives can learn from right-wing messaging.
June 29, 2012
Progressives often find themselves explaining the details of their preferred policies, and arguing that they would maximize the common good if enacted. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to eschew the fine print to embrace sweeping, moral narratives to back their positions. For the Right, debates over concrete public policies are often framed as contests between good and evil, freedom and tyranny; that's how, for example, conservatives can transform a modest 3 percent tax hike on the wealthiest Americans into pernicious “class warfare” and an intolerable example of “socialism.”
Call it a "rationality trap." For years, George Lakoff, a cognitive linguist at the University of California Berkeley, has argued that these tendencies put progressives at a huge disadvantage in our political discourse because the human brain simply doesn't process information in coolly analytical terms. Rather, people judge ideas against a larger moral framework, and by offering policy analysis rather than morality tales, liberals go to bat for their policies two strikes down in the count.
Lakoff and co-author Elisabeth Wehling discuss how these dynamics play out every day in American political debates in his new book, The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic. He appeared on this week's AlterNet Radio Hour; below is a lightly edited transcript of the discussion (you can listen to the whole show here).
Or let me put it this way. As progressives, we're pretty smart, on average. We went to school. We know how to read, do math, we understand at least a little science, we can analyze and use our knowledge to develop our opinions. For example, we can look at the chart of average temperatures for the past century, also look at the chart of CO2 levels over the same time period, see a correlation, and consider that to be evidence of man-made global climate change. If you wanted, you could go to the library, see the peer-reviewed journal articles on the subject and see even more evidence. We can use Google, we can look at current events from different angles - I for one read both DU and Free Republic (granted, I think the denizens of Free Republic are full of shit, and every time I wander over there, my belief is again confirmed.) We're capable of critical thinking and rational analysis.
Does the average Joe Schmoe engage in critical thinking and rational analysis? NO.
That's why the right-wing propaganda works. We all know the facts. We know that Pres. Obama is far from a Marxist, we know that he was born in Hawaii, not Kenya, yet MILLIONS of people across the country believe otherwise!
The problem is that as progressives, and as reasonably intelligent people, we keep falling into the rationality trap. We assume that because we were persuaded by examining the facts, seeing multiple opinions, using critical thinking, identifying fallacies, and analyzing data to come up with reason-based positions on the issues, that everyone will be persuaded that way.
But that's not true. You can persuade Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins by presenting them with a scientific theory and supporting that theory with evidence, but Joe Redneck from Bumfuck, Mississippi doesn't think that way.
So how do you reach enough people to get a majority and win elections? You've got to understand messaging and values.
Let me give you an example.
Wrong way to talk about global warming:
"Carbon dioxide levels in Earth's atmosphere have risen to 392ppm, which is the highest it has been for 650,000 years. As a result, global temperatures have already risen by 1.5 degrees, and are estimated to rise dramatically in the near future."
Joe Redneck isn't going to process that. He's got other things on his mind.
Let's try a different approach.
A better way to talk about global warming:
"We must be better stewards of our Earth. Because we are polluting the atmosphere with industrial filth and damaging Earth's climate, we are inflicting storms, famine, drought, floods, disease and death upon countless millions of the most vulnerable people on Earth, from India to New Orleans, just so we can have a cheap electric bill.
We need to take responsibility, make those that defile our planet clean up their messes and leave a world everyone can live in."
That's a values-based approach. What I did was to create a frame through which I could talk about climate change from a moral perspective. Look at the values I threw into this statement: stewardship, responsibility, cleanliness, justice, caring for and helping each other. FAR more persuasive. I'm not even bothering to show the data behind my assertions, though you're more than free to look up the effects of global climate change on storm frequency and intensity, drought frequency and intensity, spread of previously tropical diseases like malaria, ability to grow crops, especially in equatorial climes... Rather than giving them the data, I'm using values cues - making people feel bad for the misery they're inflicting upon others, making them feel like they need to clean their messes, leave our home in better condition than they found it, and they need to fix what they broke. I even threw in a religion-based appeal - "stewards of the Earth" to reinforce the values I'm trying to put through.
Don't fall into the rationality trap. Persuade through values. Otherwise, Joe Redneck is going to be persuaded by the asshats on FOX News saying Obama's a Muslim, Kenyan, Atheist, Communist Fascist who wants to steal your freedom and force you to pay for food stamps for welfare queens driving Cadillacs.
As George Lakoff is trying to tell us, morality is at the core of politics. As progressives, we have a very solid moral core, and some very strong values. We just need to work on getting people to see our values and morals.
20 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
