FIGHTING BACK!! Taking back our country!! Joining war on VALUES -LAKOFF!!

The war of values has finally been joined. The bad news is that we are joining it 40 years after it began. The good news is that we are lucky enough to have this incredible resource of progressive minds all in one source to build it from. And, though facts are not essential to win the war, we also just happen to have the facts on our side. That gives us a big extra advantage.

The first step of this war, which we are declaring now is gathering information about how to fight. Liberals can NOT bring a knife to a gun duel, and expect to come out ahead. We must meet them equally.

What has inspired me to write this, is through reading and listening to George Lakoff. You can read the incredible excerpt from his book “Don’t Think of an Elephant” here:

http://www.chelseagreen.com/images/DTE_Sampler.pdf

In short, using simple language to communicate ideas. And, the difference between Republicans and Democrats as they view the world (YOU MUST READ!!) - strict parents vs. nurturing parent - just guess which is which...

If you like what you read, and I sure did, then here is your first project. Read a full Lakoff book. “Don’t Think of an Elephant” is short, a bit more than 100 pages, and an easy read. I would suggest that we read a number of his books, but let’s start with this one. If you are serious about this project, then this is our first assignment.

If anyone can’t afford the book, I will buy it for you (I dare you to make me broke!!), because if I do that, then you will be obligated to read it. This is an essential first step, because we must be on the same page with all of this. One of the faults of liberalism is that we lose focus so easily, that we don’t get things done. That is why we must first do this so that we can start our think tank.

Yes, that’s right, this will be a think tank. Communicating ideas, in words that are easily understood. We have three main parts:

1. Simple easy to understand phrase to communicate our thinking - like the Republicans have for "tax relief"...we can call it a "birth tax"
2. Linking those 2-3 word phrases to a set of values (ESSENTIAL right now for those moral values people who should be on our side!!)
3. Linking our values to a general policy proposal that can be implemented to achieve our goals (essential to stay on the offensive with our ideas instead of always being on the defensive)...

But, wait, you say, there is already a liberal think tank. So what!? That’s Lakoff’s point, there needs to be more than one. When there is only one, then we are usually on the defensive, because the Republicans have so many working against us.

From there, we will go on to develop phrases and ideas that frame our arguments in terms of values. But, of course, I want all of your feedback to proceed with that. So, for now, let’s stick to the first step. Are you with me!!

ALSO!! Our goal is three fold:

1. Coming up with key words/policy solutions that show the values in liberal ideas.
2. Communicating our goals through a newsletter - that will be PMed to you. Eventually we will move to a website, but for now, we will be doing this strictly through DU to be sure that the ideas are the main focus of this venture.
3. Sharing the information. We have all made contacts in our local community. As we come up with these newsletters, your goal is to spread the "message" throughout your community. As we speak clearly with one message, we become stronger!! And, our message gains strength!!

ARE YOU WITH US!! You can do all of these with us, or just one...we are strongest when we fight together!!

If so, reply with a kick for others, and then PM me.
I look forward to hearing from and working with you!!

:kick:

KICK!

Read, absorb, respond, and REPEAT!

when Spiro Agnew called us 'nattering nabobs' and 'pusillanimous purveyors'. We haven't learned to fight the right battles. My pet peeve at this minute is the current use of 'evangelicals'. They have insidiously replaced a term with negative connotation with another, better term. When was the last time you heard someone call them "fundamentalits'? Personally, I prefer 'Shi'ite'! Even the media fall for the Repubs framing. To wit: 'Democrat party' as well as 'evangelical.' We HAVE to define those mean-spirited bastards:
Hate-mongers
Bigots
Borrow-and-spend
War-mongers
Pro-death/Pro-war/Pro-gun
Anti-child
And, of course, Fundamentalist

i call them american fundamentalist...pretty much sums it up.

probably all christian fundamentalists are evangelicals but it doesn't go the other way around.

a fundamentalist feels threatened thinking his or her way of life is under attack by the current culture.

an evangelical is born again and feels the need to "witness" (convert) for jesus.

I know an evangelical who is not a fundamentalist. In fact, he's a democrat.

by verbal gymnastics when we are in a battle for our lives? They have defined us a satanic or baby-killers or whatever. And you know as well as I that the vast majority of these people are fundies.

sounthern baptist, was saved and baptised into my church when i was 12...went to my church school for 5 years...was paddled when i did "bad", read the bible all the way through multiple time, memorized and recited scripture on demand, etc etc etc...

and you know what...i still know better.

proud to be progressive.

Wouldn't that be a great thing to do for a starting group?
Dean required Lakoff of all his staffers during the campaign.

Oh--and count me in on the project.

We need to get organized on this. I think it's clear. I've already PM'd ClassWarrior to volunteer in this project.

My particular language framing is to turn the word "spin" into the term "damage control," and the word "mandate" into the term "blank check."

That's just the beginning. Dems are word wizards, let's go for it.

I would not agree that "Dems are word wizards." in general. Part of Lakoff's point, I think, in Moral Politics, is that Dems do a poor job of creating pithy slogans.

I think jab105's idea of a Lakoff-specific messaging think tank is valuable on its own. Plus, I've seen a good deal of organizational energy behind what she's doing. Perhaps she and ClassWarrior could compare notes, but I would like to see this group form.

And I'm not talking about Dems constrained by hesitancy to go for the jugular, I'm talking about us peons.

I'll get the Lakoff book when I can. It sounds good.

Lakoff knows his stuff.

I messaged CW about this, too. Glad to see you're a fellow "Meme Schemer," Straight Shooter!

We can do this.

NGU.

more, please.

:kick:

If there is one note I keep hearing played back to me from my midwestern relatives who voted *, it's that 'moral values' swayed their vote. The issues of abortion rights and gay marriage were the deciding factor for them.

On the face of it, this is a weird situation; a bulk of the voting people believed John Kerry was in favor of gay marriage when he was not, and based their decision on that one point.

This happened because the Republican camp has a skilled messaging/public relations arm that shapes the daily conversation. Their efforts to frame the debate in terms of values understood in the American heartland has succeeded. Because they control the words being used, they control the debate; literally, they control the terms of debate in this nation.

We have to take the words back, take the medium for truth back, and the only way we can do this in the long run is to be ready -- on a daily basis -- with our own well-packaged, understandable, summaries of our talking points.

In order to get there, we need to both spread the word about Lakoff and get together and coordinate a national message to assist the news media.

You know I will be involved in this.

And YES we need more than one think-tank! You want to fight with one platoon when the enemy has multiple regiments?

And count me in.

I thought that for the most part our ads were bland and superficial. We are dealing with people who respond to emotional appeals (recall commentary about the girl whose mother was killed on 9-11 and that the focus groups were so moved by it--one commentator said men were crying). Well, that ad made me mad but in a more cerebral, intellectual way. "If Gore had been president, she wouldn't have lost her mom" and "Any president would have hugged her (let no photo-op go by)" and when she said she said she felt safe because Bush was president, I said, "Idiot." But it illuminate one fact. People responded to it emotionally. And then I remembered the ads used so effectively against Clinton's health care plan. Those, too, were emotion driven vignettes.

So our ads should be single issue ads. No more shotgun (multiple issue) ads. They should tell a story--note these can archetypes and use actors. James who lost his job and his health insurance and then had a car accident and who is now facing bankruptcy, Phil whose super-smart 13 year is in trouble because he is bored by teaching to the test, a rural Nepalese woman whose baby died because of the defunding of family planning agencies that would have provided clean birth kits, Meredith in college but now has to drop out because state funding cut, Sally who found that Bush's drug cards didn't help her a bit, Tom and his wife, a retired couple, who learned that their former employers were dropping their medical insurance because they could do so and throw them onto Medicare only), Ben and Joan putting off retirement so they can help their kids because their son's job was outsourced, Mary and Phil whose marriage is strained because Phil's mom is asking if she can come and live with them because she doesn't think she'll have enough social security to live on when she retires in a few years, Sonia who needed a "partial birth abortion" (I know that is not a medical term and is an invention of the right) for medical reasons and now can't have another child--her baby lived a minute or two, now we see her in the nursery taking a teddy bear out to put with attic sale stuff--she'll never need it. There's thousands of pathos-filled stories-results of Bush/Republican policies that tug at the heartstrings and also (sadly) play the fear card ("that could happen to me").

The point is to draw the viewer in to a story he or she can identify with. The protagonist should not talk to the viewer (well, maybe a quick one or two lines). The ads should be a slice of life, a mini soap opera. These ads do not change our message but they bring our values to life. It is not abandoning our principles but repackaging them and making them vivid.

There is benefit from analyzing what went wrong (picking over the bones), but I had the uncomfortable feeling that the campaign was too cerebral, too rationale. I didn't see the danger because that approach resonated with me. But even if I had I didn't/don't know anyone of influence to suggest this idea to. Finally, the fault lay in not analyzing successful Republican strategies (strategies not message) and co-opting them.

The Republicans have learned to play on fear and uncertainty. Witness 'security moms' who voted against their own best interests.

You make an extremely important point, though: the audience is not really looking to be lectured.

From what I have been observing, I think a lot of voters follow the news in order that they will later know something to say about current events. This is a slightly different motivation than wanting to know what is happening or understanding things.

If an advertisement takes the same, verbal approach as should be taken by news articles, it is missing the emotional avenue. In advertising, as you suggest, there is the opportunity to use a non-verbal message to change the viewer's thinking.

However, verbal spin and memetics are powerful tools. We have seen from the output of Fox messaging that a morning 'summary' of the day's political news, when formed in terms that are favorable to the right, can shut down or completely misdirect realistic discourse.

I am going to be involved in jab105's group, and I know we will be talking there about specific tactics. Are you a law prof, LLP? I could certainly see how you would know a thing or two about verbal tactics and non-verbal approaches, too.

This is exciting to see such community resources coming together.

and, as someone who has done a lot of advertising, both political and business, you hit the nail right on the head.

The Kerry campaign ads looked to me to be the classic definition of a camel....a horse designed by a committee.

The messages did not resonate on the emotional level at all. That needs to be changed.

Some print ads I'm presently contemplating are:

The gay hero of flight 93.

The loss of a mother due to a toxic pregnancy.

Conceptual work on gun owners who support Dem views of reasonable gun control.

The fact is, companies do have a responsibility not to make products that don't explode. But doctors who perform higher-risk procedures, like delivering breech babies non-surgically (I hear no doctor in Seattle will do this due to liability!), need to be allowed to take real risks. Patients need to be informed, so emergency-room doctors who may not get the chance to do that need the most special exceptions. Other than that, informed consent and a realistic approach ought to be our solution.

So, I propose: 'appropriate liability' or 'appropriate liabilities'

The idea would be that it is appropriate for most industries to take responsibility, same for most professionals, but with exceptions for professionals who deal with risk.

There really is a moral underpinning to holding companies responsible for the safety of their products and holding professionals to a professional standard of liability. So maybe we should hit them closer to their home turf with 'moral liability'.

Another approach to take is emphasizing the need to keep liability out of the courts. Perhaps a whole different approach is to appeal to 'common sense': 'common sense liability'. The implication could be that reform will keep cases out of court because simple, sensible rules will be easily enforced by arbitration.

We also will want to 'bridge' the 'tort reform' positives onto the 'common sense liability' by making a transition via 'common sense tort reform'. Or, 'appropriate liability' can be connected via 'appropriate tort reform', 'appropriate liability reform', 'appropriate liability change', 'appropriate liability'.

I really liked Lakoff's books on linguistics and especially Metaphors we Live By and Moral Politics. I haven't cracked "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things" yet because it is such a textbook inside! I'm interested, but the politically-oriented books were a higher priority than the dense textbook. I think, though, that the secrets of public messaging design may be found in his more technical books, too.

I am excited at the idea of people coming up with coordinated messaging to join battle with the opposition spin.

I'll join yours if you join mine:

URGENT: VOTE FRAUD? Tell everyone you know -- details
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1337662

:evilgrin:

Actually, great idea. Let's go!

do-gooders so does that make them do badders?

In particular, we want social progress as well as economic progress.

Just a suggestion - it follows from Lakoff's suggestions that we should have captivating, short, summarizing, titles for our issues.

It sounds good, because it reshapes it to the idea of white collar crime. Stealing is for petty criminals; embezzlement is big-time.

This is Priority One, guys.

These are the two most vital concerns we Progressive should have: building a linguistic framework for our ideas, and stamping out the massive vote FRAUD that has made a joke out of our last two elections.

NGU.

to all my liberal friends and it's led to some really interesting discussions. I was planning to take a copy of the book to our little local dem group also. It's going to take some time, thought, and creativity, but I think we can do this. I kept thinking about all those thousands and millions of calls we made from the phone banks and wondered if we would have been able to have a much greater impact if our calls could have been laced with a handful of well chosen catch phrases.

That is the God-awful TRUTH!

We need to have a lengthy and spirited discussion of how we should be framing issues. Pull in the best resources that are available on line and share.

I've been wanting to read Lakoff for several months now, but that pesky election kept getting in my way. Now is as good a time as any.

We need a whole forum devoted to reframing issues. We need some good, descriptive buzz words- for EVERYTHING.

What will the forum be named?

I think this would fit in nicely with the plan jab105 has floated for organizing a group and a think-tank to distribute and create improved messaging. A DU forum could serve the purpose of exposing people to ideas about communication and also bring people into a central place for national message coordination.

What should it be called?

Or if we want to disguise it we can call it Operation Lakoff. Freepers would never recognize it. :P

I doubt he would mind if we just swiped one of his book titles. Moral Politics was a huge eye-opener for me! I think he really explains why conservatives and progressives communicate at cross purposes almost right off the bat.

We would be basically doing politics, if our idea is to engage the linguistics community with the party, and also trying to have a moral message. So 'moral politics' might be the right connotation.

Trouble is, the title I suggest is cryptic and doesn't lead a neophyte to the discussion on a coordinated message response to Republican spin.

I saw your other post about Chomsky! I talked to jab105 for a few hours about her plans. I am sure people on this forum will be interested in linguistics from all corners. Lakoff has an approach that lends itself well to marketing and messaging, but Chomsky's deconstruction is vital to understanding.

I am aware of Lakoff and others discussing this stuff for a few years at least.

I really like the idea of even more think tanks who think like we do.

We also need messengers ... "go-to" guys (and women) who the "nattering nabobs" of TVLand call when they want an opposing view.

One message, on message, no deviation, framed to favor us clearly and strongly.

Who ought those messengers be?

Terry Mac? .... nope
Bill and Hillary? ....... nope
Carville? Begalla? ..... nope

Names like Obama, O'Malley, Warner, Clark, (maybe) Edwards, Dean, Harold Ford, Jesse Jr., Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, RFK, Jr., ....... in short, our future leaders. The ones who can run in 08, in 12, in 16 and the people who could support them as high level appointees. Maybe even some of those who post here but have (so far) no national reputation.

Retire (from broad public exposure) our current leaders and the already-tainted names of our more obvious 08 hopefuls.

we are an organized force to be reckoned with. After all, look what outfits like the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Hoover Institute, and MANY more have done for the conservative movement. And some of their operatives are paid employees of major news organizations. Exhibit A: Bill Schneider, the CNN pollster/pundit. A senior fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Oh, no, he doesn't have an ax to grind. Oh, no, he doesn't have an agenda. Not at all...

YES we need more and better think-tanks. The Brookings Institution is about all we have, at least of those groups who get their people on camera for spin and other punditry to rebut the conservative spokesman-du-jour. And that's not saying much. I had an email conversation with Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings after seeing him give a rather abysmal performance against some young female republi-CON attack dog. He was nice and well-mannered and meek. And maybe five or six times during that interview, he began his response with "well, I agree with Ms. So-n-so," or "well, yes, Ms. So-n-so makes a good point, and...(sometimes it was but...)," and I wrote him, objecting to that. Seems to me that's what you should NOT do, EVER, in a debate, is to concede in ANY WAY that your opponent has made a good point or that you agree with him or her. All you accomplish is to surrender the point to your opponent. How can you refute the opponent, or show his/her point to be wrong and specious and misleading if you come back with only an agreement or validation of it? O'Hanlon's response? He emailed me back that this was deliberate, and (he thought) the wiser course because it showed how willing we are to work with our opponents - he said you can't just disagree with them all the time!?!?!??!??!?!? To my way of thinking, that translates to - why are we even opposing them? What are we even here for?

Glad this is being discussed! It's CRITICAL if we're gonna turn ourselves into a political Lazarus.

I will be helping out...Reading Moral Politics...and I think Baby tax will be the best.

:kick: kick!

NGU.

Eom

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

for any progressive. He is the Anti-newt.

Kick for this!

BTW, there is another DUer here, named Class Warrior, who's been pushing this same theme tirelessly. He's the "Meme Schemer" guy. It's a pet issue of mine as well. The way we start taking back the agenda is by FIRST taking back THE LANGUAGE. THAT is how you frame the debate. THAT is how you get people thinking your way. THAT is truly how you plant the seeds of change. Those seeds are little buzz phrases and mantras and slogans that encapsulate ideas simply but colorfully enough that they sink into the average brain and take root.

I fully support and encourage this!

You're the one who coined the phrase "Meme Schemer." :yourock:

As William Burroughs once said, "Language is a virus."

And yes -- if anyone is interested in helping to create a "Lakoffian corps" here at DU, please PM me or Calimary.

Thanks.

NGU.

She seems to be doing a great job in getting this message out, recruiting people, and getting them organized.

So, I would say -- if anynone is interested in helping to create a "Lakoffian corps" here at DU, that is what jab105 already started doing, so message her.

No offense, but it seems like your post here is sort of an attempt to "own" the idea of a Lakoff-based think-tank. I don't get the feeling that jab105 is in this for the glory, so I'm joining her.

I'm sorry if you got the wrong impression. This is not about "owning" anything, or being "in this for the glory." This is aboug getting together with a like-minded group of people to do what's right for Progressive politics.

I only posted what I did because calimary and I have been kicking around this idea for nearly a year -- an idea that, like many other things, got sidelined by the election. But I've been heartened and emboldened by the Lakoffmania that's shot through DU since Tuesday, and I'm glad to find other like-minded souls, like you and jab105. I'm sure we'll all be great allies in this fight.

Peace.

NGU.

Waiting for them to arrive. I am determined to help re-frame the issues. And you're right -- one advantage we have is that we are actually right on the issues, not trying to trick people into doing things that are against their interests like, let's face it, the Republicans are. That should work in our favor, but we can't seem to get past their quick phrases repeated endlessly.

I think this is an amazing idea. I was thinking about all the money the conservatives pour into think tanks and then, one day, I was reading the DU forums and thought, "Well, we have our own volunteer think tank right here!" I really think that with a little discipline and a little organization, the people here could be just as innovative as any conservative, well-funded think tank. We have the ideas and the real-world experience. We can see what's going on. We just need a way to consolidate our brains! :)

So, count me in! I think our problem will be staying in touch with each other and not getting lost in the forums. A separate forum would be great.

is that what you're getting at?

Constant repetition of this. The negative word (and concept) of "discrimination" should be applied consistently and relentlessly to this gay-bashing issue, until they're as bonded as though they'd been epoxied together.

Any objections should be met with the following rebuttal: "I am SO sorry that your marriage is SO unstable that it'd actually be THREATENED if two gays made a commitment for life. Wow. I feel bad for you. That is really a shame! MY marriage certainly isn't threatened by that. Gays being able to marry has NO bearing, whatsoever, on MY marriage. Makes NO difference, at all. Certainly doesn't threaten it, any."

Marriage out of it entirely.

too much room for negative connotations and sanctimonious sanctifying about sanctity.

I think jab105 suggested 'stable relationship', which I thought was a really good take on the benefits of civil unions.

We were talking about this and if I remember right, broke it down into three categories of benefits that apply:
<LL>
<LI>The benefits of a legal 'community': survivorship, powers of attorney, and so on -- the legal necessities of getting old together.
<LI>The income tax break generally given to married couples.
<LI>The religious connotation.
</LL>

Mostly, my understanding is that pretty much all who want gay marriage want legal benefits, the religious aspect is usually taken care of, and some people do mention the tax benefit.

My opinion is that we should, as a party, stand for civil unions and not marriage. Marriage treads on the turf of Christianity, and that hurt us this year, badly.

I also think that the tax benefit should remain for the heterosexual couples who are in need of a tax break because they might have a kid. Not to be a bigot, but I think the purpose of the tax break is irrelevant to gay couples, and I think that hits a bad nerve with much of America.

Meanwhile, civil unions do promote stability and establish a relationship that is much like what the Right could prefer if they would only see it this way. It comes down to values when we talk about allowing people to choose how they will be cared for in old age.

domestic partnership as the law of the land.


everyone has to get a marriage license at the courthouse before they have whatever ceremony they are having.

that license is what all rights and benefits are attached to.

just change the name of it, and start giving it to whoever applies for it, that meets whatever non-discriminatory criteria.

...in Lakoff's formulation. Hey, if the "Divorce Party" takes marriage away from gay people, who's next? Pretty soon blacks won't be allowed to marry, Catholics won't be allowed to marry, etc.

NGU.

So I'm in.

What we say is: the GOP "reframed" the issues to make them unrecognizable. All we want to do is to make sure we use terms and phrases that accurately reflect what the issue is. It's kind of silly to "reframe the issue" which is what they have been doing.

We should sell ourselves as the ones who are taking back the language.

And remember 62% of Americans favor gay marriage and/or civil unions and only 9% of Americans favor making abortion illegal in all cases. We just want to clean up the record so Dems don't seem so out of touch. We're the party in touch with America. We haven't cobbled together a mass of fringe groups to take power. We're the middle. We're core values. They are fundamentalists and neocons and assault weapon owners.

I LIKE the way your mind works, Hamlette... :evilgrin:

NGU.

Thay have *always* derided us for doing exactly the same things they do. And they fucking get away with it!

I say to them ... Reframe **this**

We are going to have enough of a problem getting Dems to sign up for something that may seem manipulative or disingenuous -- not that reframing is either of those things. The Republicans have established that style of dishonest reframing, but we can take the high road.

I am concerned that tainting our term "reframe" will push people away from our efforts to improve messaging.

There I said it. I have watched a tape of people sitting around a table practicing the words of the week rove sent out. It was right after whoopi goldberg etc. There are about 14 people sitting around saying "hate fest" hate fest" "hate fest" It sounds like a cult but boy did it get the message out. Political language rules the day. I still think there are too many stupid sheeple out there but we need to do this for their own good too since they can't think for themselves. Never underestimate how stupid people are. My sister in law is an intelligent person but all she can do is recite the fucking repug lines. She also assumed like many other * is for the everything he is against ( incert list here starting with environment). The first article I read this week after deprogramming all news channels from my dish (accept the BBC) was how fucktard disregards 300+ scientists about global warming.

We don't win anyone over by calling them stupid. There are two groups in the GOP:

(1) The manipulated, the ones who drink the swill the Radical RW dishes out, the people who are overworked and uninformed. They're not bad people for the most part, they just don't have the time or interest to work all this out, so they're easily swayed. These are the friends we all have, to whom we refer when we say, "But he/she is SMART. How on EARTH could he/she vote for Bush**??"

And (2)The manipulators, the scumbags in the party leadership who CONSTANTLY mislead the American people because if the people knew this group's real intentions, they'd be in prison. They're able to manipulate our otherwise smart friends because they call into play a whole different worldview than ours. These people are the REAL ENEMIES. And they're not stupid either -- in fact, they're chillingly smart.

NGU.

:mad:

I'm probably over-simplifying it, but there are a lot of people who vote Republican around me who do so, although they would never admit it out loud, for racist/sexist/heterosexist/etc-ist reasons. They don't like civil rights. They are white, heterosexual men who who buy into the "macho" definition of manhood and don't want anybody to take that away from them. What about that group? It seems like a fairly large demographic here, but I don't think that would hold true all over the country ...so maybe they can be ignored? I mean, they're probably not going to change their minds or be reachable. Am I being too defeatist?

Other than that, I whole-heartedly agree with your post. We can't just keep thinking of them as stupid and evil. There are good people who just don't have the time to stay involved and informed and people who have just been plain old duped.

I guess they would be a third group. Thanks Lisa.

NGU.

I want to see more about what we're up against.

but it was definately a hidden camera doing the recording.

We need to adopt the GOP's tactic of using words to attack their enemy. They have what they call the "lexicon of destruction" that they use to attack us. Here's words we can use to attack them. I advise that anyone writing/talking about the GOP try to paint tehm in a negative light by using these terms. Feel free to suggest any additions.

Radical
Extremist
liars
fiscally irresponsible
morally bankrupt
isolationist
most hated country
despised
illegitimate
anti-education
anti-government
big government
demagogue
stubborn
fake humility
unscrupulous
warmonger
draft
failure
Bin Laden
deficit
bankrupt
conflict
compromised
partisan
self-interest
power
elite
cruelty
dishonesty
selfishness
arrogance
suffering
self-seeking
self-centered
fickle
fake
cowardly
egotism
vanity
vain
impatience
contempt

Morality related:
Anti-family
Child abuse
Spousal abuse
Adultery
convicted
drug abuse
closeted gay
sodomy
cheating
divorced
chickenhawk
draft dodger
hypocrite
surrender of moral principles
covetous
betrayal of ideals
Unethical

I've been kicking around an idea of using "Responsibility" as a kind of meta-theme, and your list certainly resonates with that.

What does everyone think?

NGU.

When he was drafting his Contract on America. He had a whole list of words that worked .... kinda like this list.

Shewt Newt

well thought out

One thing we are going to have to pause and consider is how we intend to affect which audience.

The phrases you came up with are good phrases for galvanizing negative responses to the Right. These will be useful for talking to members of our own community and galvanizing them further.

We are also going to need to reach out to the republican voters and win them over. To do that, we are going to have to avoid phrases that galvanize.

I think the major benefit of an organization focused on messaging will be in how we can work together to come up with 'outreach' messaging.

As I see it, planning a message involves at least these stages and steps:

Planning and Intention

What is the intended effect, and on what audience? How does that audience already seem to feel and talk about the subject?

Wording

What words will address the issues for that audience, and do so in a way that allows them to change their own mind?

Timing

When will this message be most effective? Can this message be delivered nationally on the same day using social networks that collaborate?

We are not going to win over Republican voters. That has become obvious to me. We were right in every talking point this election and yet we lost. Their support was about 46% going in and they held their support and gained some.

I personally don't care if I anger any Republicans. They voted for more of the fiscally irresponsible policies of the GOP. My thought is that the GOP will do enough on their own to alienate their base. They will lose support if they institute a draft. They will lose support if they do not fight for a gay marriage ban or a ban on abortion. I'm not concerned about the right wingers.

35% of the population are not involved in the electoral process. My goal is to anger that group enough to make them want to vote. Registering them to vote is pointless if they are not motivated to vote. I want them to think of the GOP as a morally destitute, fiscally destructive group of fat rich white guys whoe out to pad their own pockets and who couldn't care less about the lower classes or minorities. If I piss off a few Bush supporters, that's unfortunate. Their vote has been cast. we aren't going to change their minds so I don't really care if I hurt their feelings.

The GOP started this tactic in 1990 when Newt Gingrich hired a pollster to come up with a list of words to paint the Democratic Party with. He was wildly successful and I am tired of being on the receiving end of the GOP's attacks. I'm ready to take the fight to them, political correctness be damned.

Auburn Grad:

I disagree with you, too. For one thing, I don't think it will help us as much at the polls to further motivate our constituency. We had amazing turn-out this election.

You bring up the point that one use of re-framing is to characterize the other side. We can do that in a way that characterizes the Republican leadership without calling their voters names. Their voters are the people we hope to either convert, or, more likely, demotivate enough that they will just stay home rather than vote.

If we are hoping to demotivate the opposition, giving them more cries to battle will somewhat harm our effort.

Also, on this side, we are all already pissed off. We also don't need to be more 'motivated' in that direction, in my opinion.

Fighting with words is like Tai Chi -- sometimes the best thing to do at an on-rushing opponent is grab hold of his lapels and pull him right past you at high speed. Possibly a direct hard strike will just let him knock you off balance and not stop him. Do you see what I mean? It's one thing to want to defeat them, it's another to want to do that by just railing on them.

I'm not saying the guy that lives next door that voted for Bush is an idiot. I'm not even addressing the message to him. If my goal was to insult Republican supporters I would use terms like fundamentalist, sheep, uneducated, rednecks, etc. I'm not attacking them. I'm attacking the GOP leadership and the terms that I select for use can easily be backed up with concrete examples of how they are abusing their power.

I'm also not talking about motivating our constituency. That would be preaching to the choir. I'm talking about motivating the 35% Of the population that didn't vote.

I'm telling the people that didn't vote that they have given the GOP permission to move forward with their hateful attacks on gays, their not-so obvious attacks on minorities, and their fiscally irresponsible policies on managing the country. I'm telling them that if they value their country they need to get out and do something about it. Otherwise, the 33% of the country that voted for Bush will get everything they want and the 35% that didn't vote at all will be left high and dry.

Terms like morally bankrupt can be backed up with the numerous examples of the GOP members that hold office today. Ken Calvert's arrest with a prostitute, Bill Thomas' affair with a lobbyist, Dan Burton's illegitimate son (fathered while married to a different woman), Henry Hyde's affair, Lincoln Chafee's admitted cocaine and marijuana use, these are all examples of how morally bankrupt the GOP is. And that's just the ones STILL IN OFFICE.

Fiscally irresponsible can be argued very effectively by pointing out the deficit, the tax cuts for the wealthy and on and on. If I tell a black person that the income differential between blacks and whites has gotten worse under the poor management of the GOP, it's the truth. If I tell a lower income person that the rich elite that are the GOP want to line their pockets with tax cuts while passing the tax burden to the poor through a national sales tax, that's the truth.

If I use a term like "big government" to refer to the Bush administration it is based on the fact that it is the biggest government in the history of the world. If I use a term like "Bush has made the US the most hated country in the world," it can be backed up with numerous news articles and polls from all over the world.

I want to open people's eyes. The eyes I want to open are undecided voters. I want them to be shocked by the truths about the GOP party and their leaders. I'm not wasting my time on the ones that have made up their minds. They aren't going to change their minds. If they are going to vote for Bush, they will do it regardless if I'm polite to them or not. But some of the people that don't feel that they have anything invested in the political process need to be made aware of who has the power and what they are trying to do with it.

I think that telling it like it is isn't a bad thing. Not getting the word out is a bad thing.

Radical
Extremist
liars
fiscally irresponsible
morally bankrupt
isolationist
most hated country
despised
illegitimate
anti-education
anti-government
big government
demagogue
stubborn
fake humility
unscrupulous
warmonger
draft
failure
Bin Laden
deficit
bankrupt
conflict
compromised
partisan
self-interest
power
elite
cruelty
dishonesty
selfishness
arrogance
suffering
self-seeking
self-centered
fickle
fake
cowardly
egotism
vanity
vain
impatience
contempt

Morality related:
Anti-family
Child abuse
Spousal abuse
Adultery
convicted
drug abuse
closeted gay
sodomy
cheating
divorced
chickenhawk
draft dodger
hypocrite
surrender of moral principles
covetous
betrayal of ideals
Unethical

Morality related:

Anti-life
devoid of integrity
idol worshipers
child molesters
child abusers


General:

pathological liars
no conscience
power-happy
power-mad
tyrants

Great stuff! I'll be out to by the book directly, and then will pass it on!

Such as the Institute for the Renewal of the California Dream. http://www.speakoutca.org

I checked out the link you posted. It looks like a cool organization!

I didn't see anything there about Lakoff, or about a national network of people interested in messaging. So to me it seems that jab105's group and the speakoutca group ought to co-exist. Actually, once jab's group takes off, it might be a good idea to reach out to non-DU forums like that.

an oustanding former California Assemblywoman.

It started in California because ware are the largest progressive community in America. We have more progressives and liberals here than anywhere else in the country and we should be in the forefront of any movement taking back the language and reframing the msessage.

Until we secede, that is. ;)

Are you involved in the organization?

It is so great that Lakoff himself is out there influencing organizations. Do you know if he intends this organization as a think tank messaging org, or as a political org with his kind of messaging?

:hi:

or jab, as the case may be...

NGU.

last week and was told by someone here that I was "grasping at straws", lol.

We do need to change our language. Words are persuasive.

The few ideas that I floated concerned how we talk about Conservatives/Republicans:

They aren't "pro-life" they are "anti-choice."

They aren't "opposed to gay marriage" or interested in "protecting marriage," they are "anti-monogamy."

They don't believe in "tax cuts," they favor "financially enslaving our children and grandchildren."

Welcome to the language wars.

NGU.

think tank but a group of patriots to start a "Republican" organization that preaches republican "values" out loud. It would take a courage I do not have. This organization would have to come right out and campaign for what the republicans "values" really are. You know, things like controlling the world, more outsourcing, more funding cuts, more tax breaks for corporations, let's destroy social security, all the things we know they really want, control of people's sex lives, cutting funding todally for medical care for kids and everything else. They would have to come right out and say, out loud, to everyone who would listen what they say to each over in private. It would scare the pants off the moderate republicans, democrats, liberals, and just about everyone.

Openly demonstrate the real agenda rather than trying to educate people about it. When you try to educate people, they do not believe you. Seeing is believing.

Okay, I guess the whole idea is stupid, but I'm desperate for my country to be a place I'm proud of. If a group actually espoused the real republican agenda, I've lost enough confidence in my fellow Americans that I'm afraid that, instead of the intended consequences, the ideas would gain wide acceptance.

Half of what you describe falls under the category of "analyzing and dissecting the opposition messaging." If their "privatizing social security" covers up the effect this has on the policy for capital gains taxes, we need to realize that and get the hidden concepts out.

In my mind, this is exactly what a messaging think-tank would put its collective mind to: What are the republican messages, how do they seem designed, how can we respond honestly but in a way that counteracts them? Also, how can we design and release our own messages?

While the actually 'media outlet' organization that puts the facts out sounds like it would be a distinct group of people from the think-tank, the two groups could work together.

Maybe your idea could come to pass, FlaGranny. Are you interested in organizing a network of people who have media contacts?

is really the Democratic agenda. Smaller government, fiscal responsiblity, more decision in people's hands rather than the government, etc etc.

The idea is to show the people you are trying to reach that what they have "bought" with the GOP is not necessarily what they are getting. They think they are getting smaller government, fiscal responsiblity, and more decision in people's hands rather than the government but they are really getting control of people's private lives, a huge monstrocity of a government, and a budget that is out of control and that our kids will be stuck with throughout their adult lives.

It's going to be hard to change people's minds.

...we let the words seep in and change the minds for us.

NGU.

While it is true that we will lead them to ideas that will cause them to change their own minds, getting the horse to the trough will be harder than making it drink, in this case.

After you add the expression of values to support the basic liberal idea, follow it with a biblical quotation or a jesus saying to support it.

May I also suggest the book: "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank.

This is a good idea.

Merlin, I think that is a great idea! The only thing I would add is that we need to add a Biblical context to the message only sometimes and for certain audiences.

I have been talking to jab about this think-tank idea, and I am fired up to work on certain aspects. One role I want to play is organizing our 'national fanout' -- people who want to participate in coordinated messaging will be asked to put certain messages out at certain times. Messages will be designed for specific audiences.

In other words, we are going to want a "Biblical messaging focus group."

I grew up in Indiana as a Methodist, have been a United Brethren, and am now a non-Protestant spiritualist. At one time, I attended a Bible college for one year, and during that year studied some religion. I think I could really work with a focus group that is interested in winning the hearts of Christians via honest messaging. Would you be interested in focusing on this as part of the overall jab105 effort? Not as a separate group, but as a special subgroup with extra focus?

The GOP has wooed the fundamental christian voters and have done very well. If you can frame an argument in such a way that you can back it up with biblical quotes and stories, then you may be able to win some of these voters back. The problem is they have been told for ten years now that the GOP is the party of God. Now you have to convince the voters otherwise.

There are a lot of Christian voters that vote based on their conscience and their beliefs. If you can show them that the Democratic party is more in line with Jesus' teachings than the GOP, you could be very successful.

See, I'm not all for negative attacks. If you can make this work then I'm all for it. It will take time and the Biblical messaging focus group will have to work long and hard to get the message to sink in. But it will be well worth it in the long run.

We need to work on many fronts. One tactic will never succeed because it's too easy to counter. We need to have many tactics because your opponent will have a much harder time fighting on all fronts and something that we do is bound to be successful.

NH will recount votes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2642584

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is pointing out that the story has moved into the mainstream:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1341027

or http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240

----

The Rove messaging is going to hit us sooner than we can imagine. Let's get ready.

My intention for messaging on this is as follows:
- Defuse arguments against recounts and believing of them
- Produce ideas that mark the idea of a recount as more moral and more fair than no recount
- Plant seeds for both possible outcomes: evidence of fraud/lack of evidence

I think the arguments we will hear against recounts will be some of these:
- "The vote has already been counted, and the official results are posted."

No person has tabulated all those ballots, and no person ever will. Instead, they have been counted at precincts and tabulated by computer. The recount will be a chance to verify that the computers worked correctly and nobody pushed a wrong button.

- "The ballots have been tampered with by now."

We have to trust the public officials whose duty it is to maintain custody and security of ballots. At the end, we do have signature counts to match with precinct counts, as a simple check on the results.

- "The left are being sore losers."

- "The left are just liars and sinners, and will do anything to win -- by hook or by crook. This is more cheating from the left, insinuations of cheating by the right!"

----

I think we could frame this issue in terms right now that are "open ended." Instead of "challenging" vote results, we could merely "question" the results. Using the word "question" -- without being too specific about the actual question, leaves the listener to fill in the blank. What questions does the listener have about the vote count? If they have any doubts, "question" will latch onto those ideas they already have and bring them into mind.

So, I suggest:
"Questioning the vote totals."

For now, we should reframe the idea of recounts and investigations as "questioning" the "totals." Not questioning the counts or the votes themselves, which sounds unfair, but questioning the math.

I know, as a computer programmer who wrote part of some of the software the GEMS now runs on (MS Access), that we are not really questioning math, believe me. However, questioning math makes a lot more play than "they installed a RAS/PPP shim that altered the data" or "they used the defense telephone network to redirect the modem calls."

People will be able to follow "questioning totals"

"Questioning computerized vote totals"?
"Questioning computerized totals"
"Questioning the reported totals"

What do people think will roll off the tongue and fulfill this intention and audience?

What kind of every-day computer experience do people have that would make them want to have the results checked?

Are there ways we can tie these computers to the audience's experience with government computers?

And lost work. Viruses. The tie doesn't have to very tight just enough to make people receptive to the idea that you have MAKE SURE.

That has a ring to it, hmm?

What we need to do is finalize our message plan on this topic, and then agree on the timing for all of us to make it our talking point.

The strength of forming an organization to create coordinated messaging is that with the number of people we may gather, spread out over the US, we should be able to affect the words on peoples' lips.

I have recruited a few dozen friends from my mailing lists, these people are around the nation. Between DU, other sources, and given time and organization, we should be able to gather enough volunteers to affect the nation's vocabulary.

My suggestion is that we come to agreements on multiple "recount the votes" messages, with contingencies in mind for possible outcomes, and spread this message start Wenesday morning.

We also need a Friday "go home for the weekend and talk with the family" message on this. Where will the issue be on Friday?

Emotion and connection are the two most powerful decision making factors for Americans. This is evident in the way advertising and marketing have been evolving. In these fields framing has been an accepted industry standard for years.

In order to get to the heart of Americans, we have to understand how they FEEL about computers. I think the sub-topic of this thread so far has done a fair job of getting the basics down: "relate it to personal experiences with computers, trashed files, blue screen of death, etc." However, there are still the jaded connotations left over from the 2000 election recount process. One that the media dragged out in America's collective conscious for far too long. This simply cannot be another re-count process. Americans have already been there and done that. If we can take anything from this thread, it's that we have to reframe the entire concept of the re-count.

"We had a few new changes to this election process, and, sure, we're still figuring out the glitches. Updating an infrastructure can be a difficult process at times. I'm sure many of you have had a similar experience with trying to upgrade an operating system at home or at work. You know that within a computer, valuable information is stored. As your elected officials, it's important for us to view each and every one of your votes as our valuable information. This is why it's important for us to establish a Computerized Voting Evaluation Process... etc., etc."

The goal is to impress upon them the value and importance of checking your work before you turn it in to the boss.

The goal is to start thinking (or rather, feeling, connecting) like an American.

I'm very excited about the possibilities that lie in the application of this to Democratic Policy.

:kick:

"Democrats value the born." We need to talk about the value of providing jobs/healthcare and education to our citizens. Hows that?

measley, inflation adjusted 2 cents.

I read the Lakoff pdf excerpt in bead last night and was struck by the "where've you been all my life" enthusiasm you guys are showing.

This is the sort of project I feel I would like to be a part of. Formal or not. Of course, having a systematic approach and funding out the Cheney-hole would help, but I think that keeping it an "open source" playground of crafting morality-->meme here on DU is a valuable idea.

One thing that really set me to thinking as I read last night was the Old Testament 10 item code of the fathers vs the New Covenant of the son. I think that somehow ties into all of this language busisness in a way, as some have suggested above, that would helpful in appealing to some portion of the devout Christians who make up the electorate. But like some others, I don't know the degree to which they are persuadable.

Hence, a "low-hanging fruit" approach might be worth a try? We all know that the best crafted messages have the audience in mind at the outset, be they letters to the editor or ads for Viagra. On LBN for several days, the story about 25% of Bush voters who almost went w/ Kerry kicked around for quite a bit. I didn't read it and don't know if it did any sort of demographic breakdowns, but an analysis of that 12.5% (I think that's roughly right) might be a useful starting point.

And no doubt those in this group will not be monolithic. But one might righly suspect them to some sort of trends to emerge when placed in relief against the broader spread of the Bush demographic picture.

Did any one see that poll? Did the article have demo breakouts re: these voters? If not, a way to find out if the poll itself did? If not, a way to put together one of our own to get a handle on the persuadables?

Sorry for the longish ramble on this otherwise kickin' thread. Just home from work and been thinkin about the Lakoff stuff all day.

Off to eat,then look for that poll...


on edit:

>>>>>>>>>
http://www.freep.com/news/politics/analysis6e_20041106.htm

Greenberg, a top pollster in former President Bill Clinton's first White House campaign and a Kerry adviser this year, said his research indicated that concern about moral values was a pivotal factor for rural voters, older blue-collar workers and elderly Americans who might otherwise have voted for Kerry.
>>>>>>>>>>>

A start, I suppose. What moral touch stones, in what language, would have pushed oh, say, 2 out of every twelve to haved gone ahead and voted Kerry?

thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x30777
candidate doing it

http://clark04.com/speeches/039

That I know of, there is no grass root organization like we are talking about. Yes, candidates employ linguistics and advisors, but we are talking about an organization to generate new memes and deconstruct those that are put out. In particular, a populist organization with representatives in local communities throughout America.

But, hey, if you think this is 'insane' you don't have to spend your energy here.

Reframing the debate is prioridad numero uno, vatos. We can't win without it.

http://home.nyc.rr.com/chos/Verbatims.htm

The story I am about to tell may sound apocryphal but it is something that I actually overheard this morning, November 3, 2004 and 9:30 AM while waiting for my plane to board in Phoenix, AZ. There was a young man seated with his back to me shouting into this cellphone, "The numbers are just incredible. You won't believe this. I hardly believe it myself, but I saw it with my own eyes. There's never been verbatims even close to this. Wait until you see the Verbatims!" This being the morning after the election, before any concession, the topic piqued my curiosity. He continued. "The verbatims in Ohio, their just amazing. Dave (I think that was his name) will be sending out a memo to cover all this."

The fellow, a man in his late thirties, trim, with white shirt, but no tie, then moved himself to a different bench. But I moved myself closer and listened some more. "Our numbers are incredible. We did it! The verbatims are so high! 'They' had nothing. The only thing was something from Moveon up in Wisconsin. That had a little traction. But 'they' were nowhere. But ours kept coming up. Especially, 'Swiftboat, and ____ and ____."

I couldn't catch the other two items, nor am I sure of his boss' name. However, it was now obvious to me what he was talking about. He went over to another man and I could hear him saying similar things about incredibly high verbatims. My curiosity even more aroused, I actually followed him as he went to an adjacent gate to board. The sign at the gate said, "Washington, DC."

This is a bitter lesson. We failed on the verbatims. We spent a roughly equivalent amount in advertising, but in spite of Bush's clear disadvantages, it wasn't enough. The difference is that we have failed to infiltrate the verbal mindset. Most likely this is all about exit poll data. It's about reasons for voting that are verbatim quotes from TV ads. But if we're wondering what went wrong on November 2, 2004, we have it from the highest authority: our verbatims barely registered.

NGU.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Charlatans and Pharisees/ RW Christians

Hate Radio is UNGODLY/ you know who they are.

God is Personal/ nuff said

Poverty is Shameful/ I'd like a job

Health is for Kids!/ mom's like it too

So you want to breathe too?/ pollution legislation

Values? Yours or Mine? / the other guys?

Post death retirement! / NEW ss plan

Promote democratic values
Defend religious liberty
Challenge religious bigotry

:kick:

where the farg is it??

HELP! I think Skinner moved it, wasn't it in the meeting room?

Seriously, it's not only a futile cause, but would be an empty victory at best. America isn't worth saving from itself. The American empire is over 100 years old now, and cannot be replaced by some utopian ideal of 'progressive' values. Selfish, AFRAID Americans will not allow it, especially with the media propaganda and well-financed corporate control of the issues.

It is kind of cute seeing all this frothing and false hope.

And the "war" rhetoric only makes it more...impotent.