George Lakoff: Freedom vs. the Public Option

Monday 25 January 2010
by: George Lakoff, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

Which would you prefer, consumer choice or freedom? Extended coverage or freedom? Bending the cost curve or freedom? John Boehner, House minority leader, speaking of health care, said recently, "This bill is the greatest threat to freedom that I have seen in the 19 years I have been here in Washington.... It's going to lead to a government takeover of our health care system, with tens of thousands of new bureaucrats right down the street, making these decisions for you."

This is exactly what Frank Luntz advised conservatives to say. They have repeated it and repeated it. Why has it worked to rally conservative populists against their interests? The most effective framing is more than mere language, more than spin or salesmanship. It has worked because conservatives really believe that the issue is freedom. It fits the conservative moral system. It fits how conservatives see the world. The Democrats have helped the conservatives. Their pathetic attempt to make any deal to get 60 votes convinced even Massachusetts voters that government under the Democrats was corrupt and oppressive, not just inept, but immoral.

All political leaders argue that they are doing the right thing, not the wrong thing, that their policies are moral, not evil. Conservatives understand this, liberals tend not to. Conservatives know a morality tale when they see it: Greedy Wall Street bankers, who have cost people their homes, their jobs and their savings, get billion-dollar bailouts from the government, while those honest, hard-working people get nothing. Corruption. Oppression. A threat to freedom.

The conservatives are winning the framing wars again - by sticking to moral principles as conservatives see them, and communicating their view of morality effectively. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama ran a campaign based on his moral principles and communicated those principles as effectively as any candidate ever has. But the Obama administration made a 180-degree turn, trading Obama's 2008 moral principles for the deal making of Rahm Emanuel and Tim Geithner, assuming it would be "pragmatic" to court corporations and move to the right, in the false hope of bipartisan support. A clear unified moral vision was replaced by long laundry lists of policy options that the public could not understand, and that made ordinary folks feel they were being bamboozled. And in many cases, they were.

much more at: http://www.truthout.org/freedom-vs-public-option56352

and when he tries he's called out for it.

Even this spending Freeze...which is really simply keeping spending at the 8% giant increase that was passed for the 2010 budget, with dropping tax revenue. There will be no cuts, and he is trying to frame it as a "Freeze", but yet everyone and their mama is freaking out.

Too many analysts try to dictate him every day from the media, to bloggers, to the RW, etc...

So Mr. Lakoff, perhaps the message you need to get out into the blogospheres, is that when folks note that the President is framing something a particular way, instead of calling him out on it like a bunch of morans, repeat it yourself, so that it can take hold. Doh. :eyes:

Wow.

Lakoff is right, as usual. He even sets out an example to walk through. Whether the administration decides to listen- or simply continue with its arrogant, losing ways is probably the biggest question of the year, and the most important determinate of the party's political future.

Normally, your posts are much better than this. It seems as if you didn't even read the article - it was ultimately about providing a movement for the President to lead.

Could you please provide a link to your information on the "spending freeze?" It is always good to provide references, so that people don't have to take your word for fact.

Because they often are the same 'folks' that own the corporations

and have devoted years of study sales to persuasion techniques which sell you Cialis for 'ED' or Restasis for dry eyes....

I see it as nearly a subliminal attack on a person's thinking... followed by the frame:

ie.. Dog Whistle {{ie Freedom}} + Framing + a back up position to the Democrats frame

Plus they are bold, brassy and bullying even when lying and they can deliver their lines with a smile for their public or a sneer for the Dems

Conservative corporations own the media and they spin stories anyway they want. Unfortunately, media spin determines political outcomes.

If the media were at all honest, John Boehner with his phony tan and corporate paid golf vacations would be a laughing stock. Instead he's quoted almost nightly on the news.

is ridiculous. The party of FDR using Hoover's terminology.

And we hear more about bipartisanship after it has meant that the best aspects of health reform were tossed out one by one.

So what's to prevent the lovely parts of freezing this but expanding middle class support are tossed out one by one to win that ONE or TWO PERCENT bipartisan vote of an Olympia Snowe or even our own Blue Dogs?

What freedom do we have if we don't have consumer choice. Freedom of choice is what separated us from the Soviets back in the cold war. Heck my crazy conservative mother wouldn't buy generics at the grocery store because they were limiting choice and turning us into Communists (I kid you not). Consumer choice is part of freedom. Without choice there isn't freedom... the decision is made for you.

Bending the Cost Curve is an Insuance Industry term that is now being used in government. It's a scary concept that boils down to less health care not better health care. Government take over of our health system? It's an Insurance Industry take over of our health system and blocks the way for a public option. This should be a conservative dream come true.

:crazy: These are their talking points? When did they abandon their conservative principles? Did I slip through the Looking Glass again/