Reply #15: I hear you . . [View All]

. . but beneath all that, framing is still attaching your ideas to stronger emotions than what the pukes have done.

Taxes will always be easier to attach to hate for government. You've got the IRS and the FBI ready to haul you in if you don't like it. Most people don't like paying taxes and believe that others get away with paying less than their share - and that they pay more than their share.

It takes a very reasonable person to see that the benefit of pooling our assets to pay for some things that we all benefit from - outweights the pain of paying taxes - even when burocracy is inefficient.

The pain is an emotion. To see the benefits requires a logical process. There is little emotional payoff in that. People naturally prefer emotion to reason.

Then, when you have politicians telling you to be angry about paying taxes, there's no contest.

You think re-framing on the tax issue makes sense. But you already agree with that position.

People who'd much rather indulge their emotions than their reason would be completely immune to that tactic.

Lakoff is making the mistake of believing that voters are reasonable rather than emotional decisionmakers.

That's only true when politicians on both sides offer reasonable alternatives and voluntarily keep emotional appeals in check - for the good of the system.

Gingrich overturned that sensibility - and has filled government with ideologues who are ready to appeal to fiery emotions at the drop of a hat - and to call anyone who thinks reason is a better approach, girlymen.