Luntz Watch: How to Be Frank Luntz’s Worst Nightmare
Luntz Watch: How to Be Frank Luntz’s Worst Nightmare
[Influential conservative strategist Frank Luntz has produced a 160-page playbook to advance the right-wing agenda. Think Progress cuts through the spin and gives you the tools you need to fight back. Check here for updates throughout the week.]
Luntz’s playbook is full of things people should never say if they don’t want to undermine the right-wing agenda. Here’s how you can be Frank Luntz’s worst nightmare:
Economy
• Talk about the economy using “facts and figures.”
• Talk about the overall size of Bush’s proposed tax cut.
• Describe how repealing the estate tax protects America’s wealthiest families.
• Talk about the economy without bringing up 9/11.
• Recall how Bill Clinton produced balanced budgets in the late 1990s.
Budget
• Remind people that conservatives want to make painful cuts in vital government services.
• Talk about the deficit without bringing up 9/11.
Social Security
• Remind people that the financial services industry has been embroiled in scandal and corruption.
• Note that money contributed to private accounts will “go into the hands of greedy Wall Street fat cats.”
• Point out that proponents of Social Security privatization “lack factual discipline.”
• Tell people that the push to privatize Social Security is about partisan politics.
Energy
• Tell people what ANWR stands for.
• Say, “We should rely on American ingenuity and not the Saudi Royal Family.”
• Talk about how drilling for oil harms the environment.
• Always say “Drilling for oil”; Never say “Exploring for energy.”
• Give specific examples of safety and security problems at nuclear power plants.
Patients’ Rights
• When talking about trial lawyers don’t use words like “creeps, bottom-feeds, overpaid and evil.”
• Say, “When innocent people who are injured seek compensation from those who cause their injuries it’s anything but frivolous. When a preventable careless medical error forces a child into a wheelchair for the rest of his life, it’s anything but frivolous. And when someone close to you suffers due to doctor negligence, their right to a day in court is anything but frivolous.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
[...] epublican thinkmeister Frank Luntz’s advice to forward the right’s own agenda: avoid facts & figures like the plague. Now would be a good time to start getting rid of all your d [...]
February 24th, 2005 at 6:39 pm[...] ll the tools we need to protect working folks and show immoral Republicans the door. See: http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=319. Read the whole 160 page playbook for a real eye-opener. Pope [...]
February 25th, 2005 at 7:19 pm[...] ll the tools we need to protect working folks and show immoral Republicans the door. See: http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=319. Read the whole 160 page playbook for a real eye-opener. Pope [...]
February 25th, 2005 at 7:19 pmGood stuff, but don’t just use these bullets. To be an effective foil the arguments in the playbook, you have to read it first. If you’re discussing (arguing) any of these subjects you can really put the onous on them by asking “Is that a fact? Do you have a reference for that? I’d be interested to see that because it might actually change my mind.”
When you do that, you actually let them talk themseleves out of it. Of course context has a lot to do with it too.
Facts & Context are your allies the same way spin and doubt are your enemies.
February 24th, 2005 at 11:35 amI’ve been thinking about this for a long time, ever since I realized that too many Americans hold false beliefs. So, what makes them believe in things that are not true? Even simple things, ie, WMD in Iraq–anyone with a little effort and minimal critical skills could determine that there was no connection between AlQueda and Iraq, and that the latter had NOTHING to do with 911.
February 24th, 2005 at 12:19 pmTherefore, the problem lies elsewhere. The question is how to reach those people. I admit that you can lead a horse to the water but can’t make it drink.
These are good countrer-points you mention. We should use them and rebut the neo-cons whenever we can. But, how do we shape a message easily digestable by the public. And, how do we get our points heard in the cacophony of the “mainstream media” which is dominated by flash points and non-news?
I worked for the Kerry campaing in Ohio and throughout my long stay there I talked to many people. Even people who voted for us admited to me that Kerry was too confusing! They thought his message wasn’t clear enough. Bush’s simplistic and emotional message was better received. This is the puzzle we have to solve.
I’m a trained political scientist and I make an effort to adjust my language and complexity according to the audience. I think this is what we thinking people on the progressive side are missing…. sometimes we tend to be too detailed (which is OK if looking for the truth/facts), but we have to craft a powerful message on a few pillars and promote it relentlessly. The details can be available to anyone who cares for them, but too much information even if correct sometimes confuses and distracts making the message less clear.
You can’t talk about the deficit without talking about 9/11.
That’s because the deficit is in large part linked to war spending, and the war was (fallaciously) linked to 9/11. The Iraq war, like it or not, is the bastard child ot 9/11.
Instead, you need to put it in language they can understand. Talk about the deficit by explaining how rediculous it is to have a ‘war president’ who wants to have guns AND butter.
Tax cuts in war time? Are you mad?
February 24th, 2005 at 12:33 pmI agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, Andros. I too have wondered and puzzled over what makes people believe things that are undeniably false. I had quite a few lively discussions with family during the election season and came away shaking my head in disbelief on a regular basis. Being a person in a technical/scientific field I have always tried to approach things in a logical, thoughtful way. Making assumptions where necessary but trying hard to never ignore facts. I have always had a difficult time discussing issues with people that hold beliefs or views based on patently incorrect information. So the difficulty I face personally is finding a way to approach and discuss these things in a way which makes people feel comfortable in examining why they believe what they do. I’m not a psychologist but I certainly could use some guidance in how to accomplish this. It is a hard nut for me, and I’m sure a lot of others, to crack successfully. I agree with you that simplicity and repetition are keys to success but I sometimes have a hard time framing things in that way.
February 24th, 2005 at 12:49 pmAndros, the answer to your question, “What makes (people) believe things that are not true?” lies in George Lakoff’s framing theory: People see the world in terms of frames; when the facts don’t fit their frames, they ignore the facts.
Liberals make the mistake of thinking “the facts will set you free.” That when presented with a set of facts to support a position, people will becshortome enlightened and adopt your position.
I recommend you read “Don’t Think of an Elephant,” Lakoff’s primer on progressive framing.
Thinkprogress.org and the Center for Americ an Progress provide us with crucial facts by debunking the claims made by the radical right wing. Their work is heroic. But we must learn to frame issues that appeal to people’s moral worldview. The facts support our positions, but will not penetrate the frames people hold. So we must shift their frames, or reframe our positions.
February 24th, 2005 at 1:06 pmWhat, exactly, is a “frivolous” lawsuit? Who decides (besides juries) should decide whether a lawsuit has merit? I could imagine the chilling effects of a pre-litigation review committee staffed with political appointees, industry insiders, insurance representatives and GOP good old boys. If so, I imagine no one will ever be able to address any grievance under any circumstance. At base, laws restricting “frivolity” undercut the idea that juries are wise and able – hearing the facts — to arrive at just decisions.
I think this issue should be framed as an attack on the good judgment of ordinary citizens. An attempt by the well connected to skirt responsibility for their actions.
February 24th, 2005 at 1:10 pmI agree we should talk about the economy without always brining up 9/11, but if we want to REALLY be Luntz nightmare (and the ultimate nightmare of the rest of this administration), we should constantly be talking about 9/11 and the growing pile of evidence that’s pointing toward a major coverup of Administration complicity in the events of that day. Yeah, it sounds crazy, until you start looking into the details. Not only is the evidence compelling, but the current insanity of our government starts making a lot more sense when you look at the real motivations behind this whole War on Terror. Here’s a nice place to start, and sites like this are a great way to get caught up on all the research and analysis that’s taken place the last three years. But as far as spreading memes go, I’d suggest the following quick links:
1. This 911 Wargames article is one of the only mainstream media references the 911 wargames involving the simulated hijacking and crashing of planes into buildings. And by the sound of it, I don’t think it’s disclosure in the national media was intentional.
2. This in depth timeline of the event of that day certainly points toward high-level government deception and is an absolute must-read.
3. Senator Dayton of Minnesota would certainly agree that NORAD and the FAA lied. Hell, he announced it during the week of the Dems National Convention last year. He’s got a pair.
3. Of course, no coverup would be complete without the destruction of evidence. This certainly ain’t the only example of that, but it’s a relevant one.
By disseminating this info, we can throw the Administrations favorite tactic of “remember 9/11″ right back in their faces. Seriously, you may not believe our government could do such a thing, and that’s understandable. It’s reasonable to think our government, even the neocons, couldn’t be THAT sick and inhumane. And it’s reasonable to assume such a big secret couldn’t be kept. But let’s not forget that our soldiers and countless innocent iraqis are currently fighting and dying in a war based on lies. And lets not forget that this secret hasn’t been kept. It’s out there, and skeptical Americans are waking up to it. It’s time for us to wake up the rest of the country and start fixing this mess before it’s too late.
February 24th, 2005 at 1:10 pmI find people who decline to see the facts as having some key characteristics. First of all, they are fearful, and react to stimulus that awakens this fear.
Let’s face it, life is scary. There is no certainty to anything, and the chance that everything dear to us can evaporate in a second from sickness, accidents, etc. is always with us. Most people just accept this uncertainty as a part of life but many live in denial and stuff it down deep inside. When the Right pushes this fear button it rises to the surface and this personality type panics, reverting to instinctual behavior to combat the threat. Attack the outer enemy who is threatening my world! Additional characteristics include numbing the pain/fear of life through consuming goods, television viewing, eating, and other “normal” addictions.
How to reach these people? Good luck. People who are unaware simply haven’t the capacity to change until the pain gets great enough, like a drunk who finally bottoms out and loses his family and home. If a gruesome war, a mammoth deficit and the decay of civil liberties isn’t pain enough, what will do it? Limited nuclear war? Alien attack? I’m frightened to think of what it will take.
I’ve stopped trying to reach them, and spend more and more of my energy trying to improve myself and my community. I’ve dropped out of the national political scene since the election.
February 24th, 2005 at 1:19 pmIn regard to the economy only about half of the current deficit is possibly a product of the War against Iraq. When Bush took office he had a multitrillion dollar surplus (bequeathed to him by Democrat Bill Clinton who managed to do it with a hostile congress and senate) which he has given away to his friends. It’s been necessary for him to do that so that he can ‘justify’ the cuts to social programs that the corporate agenda requires.
February 24th, 2005 at 1:21 pmIt is also important to note that Bush is presiding over an overall economic decline in American power in the world. The trade deficit continues to increase, domestic production of REAL goods, NOT services, continues to decline and the major suppliers of Goods to the US must keep on buying US notes to finance the spending spree the US government is on. This bill will be presented for payment, probably by the Chinese, the largest purchaser of US paper at the moment, when it is highly inconvenient – say when they want to invade Taiwan.
The biggest liability you have in the US is that the progressive dumbing down of the populace has produced a nation ignorant of world and national history and dominated by concerns over who will win the world series, the oscar or the Super Bowl, to partially oversimplify. That fact alone is the single most valuable asset the right has and will be the source of much future despair.
The scariest thing about Luntz’s playbook is that it’s clear that the Repubs are already well-organized for the 2006 elections and beyond. Meanwhile, the Democrats are still wondering why their “issues” don’t resonate with red-state voters. It’s time for the Democrats to stake out VALUES that resonate: Honesty, Truthfulness, Compassion, Level-Headed, Patriotic, etc. Additionally, Democrats need to begin framing the Repubs on the issue of honesty. I wish Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would begin every interview answer with: “When will the (president/Bush Administration/Republicans) start being STRAIGHT with the American people?”
February 24th, 2005 at 1:21 pmEveryone makes good points… I think one of the most important things is a unified message of what our values are… and communicating that using Lakoff’s framing technique, like the way Luntz uses it to evily decieve, we will use it to communicate our values of honesty, compassion & patriotism.
February 24th, 2005 at 1:32 pmAlso, it really is VERY IMPORTANT to follow some of the pointers in this blog so that when you’re talking with someone you don’t fall into the language trap that Luntz has set up to frame things in the neo-con mindset. Be conscious of that every day in your discussions, writings, and blogs
February 24th, 2005 at 1:34 pmWRT comment #3 above–I would argue it is Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy that have ballooned the deficits more than the Iraq War. We know that bringing up 9/11 invokes the fear response / strong father model that (irrationally) causes people to think more favorably of Bush. We also know that framing the Republicans’ domestic spending agenda in terms of protecting the already ultra-rich works well for us.
You all make great points, and I don’t disagree that the Iraq War swelled the deficit. But here are two counterpoints:
- The Iraq War had nothing to do with 9/11. It’s safer to attribute deficits to tax cuts for the rich, or even to the mistaken Iraq War *without* mentioning 9/11.
February 24th, 2005 at 2:26 pm- The twisted genius of the Right is that they will take Luntz’s playbook as gospel and rarely deviate from it. It would be miraculous and successful if we could hone in on mesasges like those stated above *without* all the “yes, but.” In particular, I think arguing that we can involve 9/11 in our discussions of the deficit is counterproductive.
I have a stupid idea. Lets take a queue from Frank Luntz notes, for example, lets refer to the deficit as the “Bush Deficit”. That way we will always remind others to who’s legacy this current economic crisis belongs to and that it is not the fault of an event but the product of a faulty leadership. Lets give credit where credit is due.
February 24th, 2005 at 2:31 pmSomeone had talked earlier about Lakoff’s framing, he is right, we can talk facts, but only after we have talked to the values those facts represent. This is exactly what the Republicans have been doing for 30 some odd years. Go to Lakoff’s http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org, read, learn, download “Don’t think of the Elephant” and understand why people think in frames, not in facts and figures. If we use Lakoff’s techniques for advancing our values we can win this back, if we don’t learn the lesson we never will.
February 24th, 2005 at 2:51 pmRE: Social Security Reform
It took me some time when dealing with tax questions to always step back and look at where the IRS got their cut. If they got what they were due (according to their rules), the conduct you intended would probably fly. I know this seems obvious when presented that way, but it is easy to get cuaght up in the facts of a given situation and what is “fair.”
People (especially the left) seem to consistently make a similar mistake with W. They look at the facts involved and what is right or fair. I find whatever Bush does can always be brought back to a fundamental principle like the IRS getting its cut. That principle being how will it impact the extremely wealthy? Every move he makes is done with benefiting the wealthy at its core. If others also benefit, great. If not, create some spin to make it sound good or simply disregard opposition and plow forward.
Regarding social security it is easy to see his real motivation — get it away from the government and cut its link to taxes. By privatizing the system any short comings become the problem of individuals living off the benefits. It is not, however, going to be a burden on the federal government. The wealthy don’t need social security benefits so he does not care to preserve payouts. His focus on the system’s funding.
Why else would a concept requiring “more government” fit with his plans? Don’t get caught up with who gets what and if it will be fair. Step back and see that he is trying to ensure that his constituency does not get hit with the bill to fund social security when it inevitably reaches financial crisis. This the legacy he is really trying to leave.
Why do no commentators approach his policies with this perspective? Try it, it works for everything from the war to gay marriage and everything in between.
February 24th, 2005 at 5:31 pmDon’t say “rape.” Say “non-optimally-preferred sexual encounter.”
February 24th, 2005 at 6:24 pmGarth’s very first comment ties back into several others that followed.
As another poster pointed out, the right-wing worldview is extremely fear-based. Their first response is, “I know what I feel — don’t confuse me with facts.” Lakoff says that as fear rises, our ability to reason degrades. As long as Bush keeps ‘em scared, they won’t be able to think too hard.
Garth’s suggestion — that we counter their assertions by politely asking to see the sources of their information — is elegant in its simplicity. Wen reality-based types need facts to be convinced. If we have any hope of getting them to communicate with us on this field, we need to be firm in our requests that they thoroughly document every assertion.
Limbaugh and O’Reilly have taught them that if you holler a thing loud enough, often enough, that will make it true. We need to keep reminding them that, in this reality-based world, that doesn’t fly.
In time, if we keep insisting, they may pick it up as a habit of mind. If they do, it will be the first step toward breaking the cognitive frames the authoritarian right has spent so much time and money building in their minds.
February 24th, 2005 at 7:28 pmLakoff gives a cogent explanation of why conservatives and liberals think differently. But it is not that easy to devise “frames” that communicate liberal values. I’ve been working on it for a year at least. Lakoff says the fundamental mark of a conservative is the belief that the world is a scary place. Because the world is a scary place, we need strong authority figures and a strong military to protect us. People who believe this just cant hear that cooperation and compassion might be better approaches. That sounds like weakness to them.
February 24th, 2005 at 7:35 pmSo, where’s the 160 page briefing book? Your link is to an empty zip file… Can you post a link to it?
February 24th, 2005 at 9:50 pmSocrates, that was my point. Simply continuing to ask them, over and over and over, to back up their assertions with reality IS communicating in a way that’s consonant with OUR values — and inviting them to share our frame, by training them to think in a reality-based way.
The VRWC has worked very, very hard to get us to let go of reality-based thinking, and accept their frames instead. Every time we stop and insist that their bloviations need to conform to OUR reality to be convincing, we are re-asserting our frame.
Frames are a very subtle thing. It’s not a matter of thinking up just the right talking points or marketing messages — the shoals on which the Democrats have been wrecking themselves for decades.
But they’re not hard, either. If you’re clear on what your values are, and are willing to communicate them in clearly-defined language, you almost can’t help but project and promote your frame very naturally every time you act.
We on the left are the rightful custodians of the values that allow democracy to exist. Period. When we act and communicate in ways that are integrated with those values, we are communicating our frame. It’s that easy — and that hard.
Politely demanding that every statement be backed up by actual evidence from a credible source is a huge step in the right direction.
February 24th, 2005 at 10:29 pmWe need a similar book. One that tells Democrats how to frame things better with clear examples. I am reading Luntz’s book right now to learn how it is done.
February 25th, 2005 at 1:43 amAsking them to back up their statements with facts will not work. They will bring up anecdotes and treat them as facts. If we grill them for facts, they will think we don’t care about the “story” behind the truth. They will feel we are just a bunch of effeet intellectuals trying to make them feel bad. We have to reach them on their own turf. We need to learn to be good story tellers, too. It’s just that our stories need to punch holes in their frames.
February 25th, 2005 at 1:56 amMy comment is in response to this comment by Robert Benjamin: “Don’t say “rape.â€? Say “non-optimally-preferred sexual encounter.â€?
Either you are nuts or you are a right-wing idiot, Robert. Go away.
February 25th, 2005 at 11:00 amDemocrats need to speak to people in simple terms. Ask them and then wait for their answers; is your standard of living better or worse since Bush and a conservative Republican Congress majority took office? Can you afford to do the things you used to do when Bill Clinton was President? Has your savings/investments become worth less since Bill Clinton was in office? Do all Americans, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, have less freedom? Are you or someone you know having a hard time getting a decent paying job that can support your family? What do you think has happened to all the money in the country? Has it just gone up in smoke? Is it possible that the rich are getting richer while the poor and middle class are getting poorer and more disadvantaged? Do you pay more for healthcare than when Bill Clinton was in office? Can you or people you know even afford to have regular Doctor or Dentist checkups? What about medications? Do you or people you know either not take their medications or try to “stretch them out” because they can’t afford them? We middle and lower class Americans are suffering and its time to wake up and get active! I’m sure I haven’t covered all the issues but these are the kinds of things people who want to instill change have to be asking those whose apathy makes them hear the words, “I’ll keep you safe” and just accept that as a sweeping pledge. We aren’t safer in our own homes, we aren’t safer in our health, we aren’t safer in the world. What does safe mean to these people? What do they think they are being kept safe from? In the false name of “9-11″ we are being ripped off by the very people making these promises. We need to start shouting “Show me the money”! We need to demand answers, not platitudes!
February 25th, 2005 at 11:24 amI left a note on another thread, but the gist of it was that we need to communicate to JEST PLAIN FOLK. Not to denigrate the vast majority of middle-of-the-road voters, but it’s true:
You can see how Bush talks like a dirt farmer all the time, kinda kicking the dirt clods as he talks to the guy on the street or in the supermarket, even addressing Putin by his first name, which may be very insulting in spite of his desire to be friendly (Slavs don’t do that in formal events, I am told). But he sure doesn’t want to talk to smart people, does he? Even smart Europeans!
My point is that we just have to tune this clever bullet list for American audiences to JEST PLAIN FOLKS, folks. ;-)
–Bryan
February 25th, 2005 at 12:07 pmSimply put – I just say to my republican friends – Prove it! Prove what you are saying. Stop your ramble until you can prove it. Remember proof? – That little item your profs in college made you put at the end of your term paper.
February 25th, 2005 at 2:31 pmFear is a wonderful motivator, but it can work both ways. I make all of my conversations personal. For example, I point out that I am going to law school because I fear not being able to pay for my children’s college tution. Then I use facts, I fear this will happen because pell grants are being cut, tuition is increasing rapidly, many people cannot afford college so the rates are going to skyrocket to recoup their losses, etc. Using any knowledge of the persons background, also is helpful. In my situation, the people I would be having this conversation with make less household income than me. My goal is to make them realize that if I am scared they should be petrified. Make the discussion about the real economic future of their children.
February 25th, 2005 at 7:52 pmI’ve got another one to add to the list; it concerns the rights of gays to marry: don’t say things like “gay rights” or gay marraige” or even use the word “gay.” what we are doing is trying to “actively and fundamentally expand marriage in the United States.” These people are so “pro-family” and “pro-marraige”that they’ll support the expansion of marriage without a second thought. (Why Am I the first to think of it this way?) And If that doesn’t work, I have anoither Plan.
February 27th, 2005 at 2:54 amStudy shows: People Believe a ‘Fact’ That Fits Their Views Even if It’s Clearly False
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB110746526775045356,00.html
Complete study available at:
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/members/ journal_issues/psinpress/lewandowsky.pdf
For a wonderful discussion of “framing” (which is actually just one little part of NLP) Thom Hartmann (an NLP trainer and talk show host) has presented 10 NLP lessons on his radio show He has audio archives at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/archive.htm (then go to Psychological Operations) There are 10 dynamite NLP lessons posted there.
February 27th, 2005 at 11:06 amHe has written several related articles at Common Dreams over the last few years—look ‘em up.
We need to start a Dictionary of the Democratic Vernacular to counter the Luntzheads.
Here’s some suggestions on reframing some more of their standard frames…
Personal SS account reframe;
THE ENRON PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY: Republican plan to make suckers out of the entire U.S. population, like they did to the shareholders in Enron, and other Texas banking scandals… Of course this plan would require an large amount of INVESTOR CONFIDENCE; reframe, “I can’t believe we fooled those suckers again..”
This ENRON PLAN would be administered by Big Business experts, reframe; THE BOOK COOKERS, so the public doesn’t get the real facts and figures telling how badly they are being violated, until it is too late to fix it.
COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVES, reframe; holding down the the price of petroleum jelly so the poor public can still afford it.
February 28th, 2005 at 1:21 amLakoff’s ideas are truely powerful and if you’re serious about understanding framing, it’s worth spending the time reading his entire thesis “Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think.” He has the perspective on the important differences in how progressives and conservatives process the information we’re getting about our world, hence our differing reactions. Understanding how conservatives think allows one to be more respectful, which is a critical first step in opening a communication channel, then using our framing arguments to shift their perspective. (Not all conservatives are “jest plain folks” as one comment mentioned, but it’s crucial to be able to address plain folks in a way that they may listen.) The most critical element, I think, is to convince conservatives that Bush is actually WEAK, not strong. That’s the one thing they cannot tolerate in this danger-filled world. And Bush IS weak, despite his power. He’s a weak president who has weakened our country in every way — our military, our alliances, our position in the world, our economy, our environment, our infrastructure and institutions. The progressive response to danger is to PROTECT — FDR won WWII, progressives have always stood for strong defense, protecting workers, the elderly, the sick, the environment, the economy, etc.
I also recommend the 25 minute DVD “How Democrats and Progressives Can Win — Solutions from George Lakoff.” It’s a terrific and empowering intro to framing.
February 28th, 2005 at 2:36 amOne hint from a Canadian reader… if you’re looking at someone whose frame is based on fear (and I would argue that not all your conservatives have this as the dominant motivator), then use that to your advantage. Like peoples’ real economic interests, their real safety interests lie with the reality-based community.
“We picked a fight. We didn’t need to, but we did. Now it’s training people to hate us. Terrorism experts, even the ones in the government, agree we’re now less safe, and more likely to be hit by terrorism.”
“Say you’re afraid to walk the streets at night. Someone comes and offers you brighter streetlights for three hundred bucks, or jail for everyone on the street (guilty or not) at a cost of sixteen thousand dollars. Do you really think the Pentagon spends their money carefully? So why should we trust them to be spending it *right*?”
“Because of Bush cuts, for every crate or box coming into our major cities by ship that gets inspected, twenty go by without so much as a glance at them. New York has fewer firefighters today than it did on 9/11. Just like with the war in Iraq… even if he has the best intentions, I don’t think you can trust him to see past the warmongers to see the real holes in our defenses. It’s not like people don’t mention these things to him.”
February 28th, 2005 at 1:45 pmMany of the observations in this discussion are well-founded, although the cynic in me is most inclined to agree with the succinct assessment of Sonam’sâ€? post (#8). The references to Lakoff’s work are a good start in describing the problem progressives face in effectively responding to the Luntz playbook. The trick now is to find our own answer to Luntz, and execute a counter-narrative. Part of why Luntz is so effective (other than financial backing from conservatives) is that he understands and applies the notion that you have to appeal to people on a visceral – not intellectual – level. One significant way conservatives do this, and what Luntz preaches, is to control the symbolism of language. Control the words and their meanings, and you control people’s minds. Luntz’s job is to study people’s responses to different verbal stimuli, and find the message that best resonates with them on an emotional level. It has little to do with intellect or “factsâ€?. At its most basic level, it comes down to nothing more than being a better advertiser. Strongly recommended viewing on this phenomena can be found in a PBS Frontline episode entitled “The Persuadersâ€?, which ably deconstructs these notions (including footage of Luntz himself at work).
Ultimately, we as a species are limited by our own psychological makeup. Education is a good intervening factor, but that requires personal initiative and effort, and there is no shortage of distractions and disincentives in our “drive-through� culture which serve to mitigate any potential of higher learning that goes beyond merely functional training to earn an income. Average people are no more going to do proper research of issues after a long day at work than they are going to provide you with sources of information when queried on how they have come to know what they believe (asking lay-conservatives for proof is logical enough, but I doubt most will provide any answer, while still holding on to their notions… after all, asking someone “why� or “how� is both a challenge and threat to them, in many cases, because this often exposes the shallowness of the reliability of their convictions).
In Lakoff’s terms, people’s “framesâ€? develop early –from parents, television, religion, school, etc. As people get older and attempt to assert a core identity, shifting frames become a more difficult task. People are more inclined to believe what they want to believe – even if factually inaccurate – rather than believe something that erodes their sense of self. It is human nature to respond to any “attackâ€? on their self narrative (or, “frameâ€?) as threatening, and to look for (or create) reasons for discarding and dismissing any counter-narrative, facts be damned. Thus, the specious message trumps the relevant one. The trick is to find a way to introduce enough dissonance to give someone pause to stop and think, but not so much dissonance that they shut down and dig in. If such dissonant messages can be crafted in a compelling narrative, there is far more potential to alter the “frameâ€?, than by reverting to “facts and figuresâ€?. The latter requires work, and people prefer “a good storyâ€? to the work of deciphering data.
A big challenge for us progressives is that, necessarily, we have more “frames� than do conservatives. Progressives and liberals are, by nature, a more inclusive and tolerant lot, and therefore are more concerned with a wider array of social subgroups. Conservatives, on the other hand, are much more narrowly focused, and have been fine-tuning their message – their control of the symbolism of language – for three decades now. They can boil down their frames to a few axiomatic one-liners: Big Government Bad (even though Bush gets away with the most profligate deficit spending in history); Taxes Bad; Wealth Good; Family Values Important (and defined by conservatives alone); Defense Important; Liberal is a Dirty Word; etc. They have the branded terms that are embedded in the mainstream consciousness, and for which we as yet lack any effective counter-brand. We need to develop the Anti-Luntz playbook. For example, however ineffectual one might have regarded Senator Harry Reid’s rebuttal to the president’s State of the Union Speech this year, I think he employed a great “branded� term in “re-framing� the attempt to repeal the “Death Tax� (which Luntz himself branded away from the too-neutral Inheritance Tax) as the imposition of a “Birth Tax� – that is, the effect of the deficit on all Americans born now and in the future, relative to when the credit gets called in by the lenders.
I get as angry as anyone toward the class warfare imposed from above by the affluent minority (who somehow simultaneously manage to paint themselves as victims in this battle), but at the same time, I acknowledge that as much as I would love to see a Lucy Parsons approach to the redistribution of income in this country, most Americans buy into the original Guilded Age American Myth of the potential for anyone to accumulate wealth (and, what American wouldn’t welcome being wealthy?). In this sense, any attack on a small economic class whom most American aspire to be a part of, and who believe they can join “if only you work hard enough� (a myth perpetuated by the minority elite themselves, to further retain their power), is rendered useless. There will never be enough American solidarity in combating the very class we aspire to join, regardless of our real chances. From “Lifestyles of the Rich And Famous� to “MTV’s Cribs�, those that are benefiting most from Bush’s reverse Robin Hood economic policies remain celebrated by the sonorous masses.
Progressives need the Anti-Luntz, and we need to start executing and reinforcing messages immediately in seizing back control of the discussions, and the words used to contextualized them.
February 28th, 2005 at 3:10 pmThe problem with antiLuntzing them is that you will still be talking about their agenda. You will desperately trying to find a way to show that SS is *not* in crisis, that there is no huge terrorist cabal, that you should roll back their tax cuts…
It’s all reactive. You allow them to make the rules of the game and then try to beat them at it. They’re better at it and they own the voting machines.
You need to start with a metaframe, a message. Theirs is “fuck you, I’m okay”. It’s a message of rampant individualism. Who cares about the environment, I’ve got a big car. Defend me against imagined threats. Give me a tax cut. Protect me from a vast liberal conspiracy that wants to take away from me, to pervert my children through its TV and snatch all my dollars in tax to give to black welfare moms.
You need to make it about us together. What you’ve built, what you can build, what you can do for the world.
While you continue to push your agenda so narrowly, always trying to appeal to the individual, you will lose.
March 1st, 2005 at 10:33 pmHow Not to Respond to the Luntz Memo
March 3rd, 2005 at 6:23 amAs is now well known, Frank Luntz penned a 160 page memo outlining a strategy for Republican victory in the 2006 midterms. The memo stresses two strategems: first, link all failures of the current Republican agenda to the events of…
The problem with communicating to the people who aren’t interested in the truth as the Left sees it are not going to be reached by conventional news. The truth needs to be disseminated the same way as the Neocons use, through propaganda and subliminally. I suggest that music be a start. Country and western songs are always supportive of the values the Neocons have embraced, as far as the public is concerned. Why not slip a few new songs in with a gentle nudge towards the truth. (They’d be ostrasized if they were too blatant.) A slow dawning of truth in the music might make a difference.
March 9th, 2005 at 8:56 amDems can play this language game too
and, I think, more effectively.
Because our name game is backed up
with the truth.
A couple that I have heard recently
that I like:
Birth Tax
&
Faith based intelligence
Also, I read a bumper sticker recently that
said:
“How would Jesus save social security?”
amen
March 9th, 2005 at 10:56 amDo you ever find yourself at a loss for words with someone even though you have alot of information to support your point of view? Sometimes I feel I have too much information, and get tongue tied because I know I have a golden opportunity to convince the person I am debating to rethink their position. I STRONGLY recommend George Lakoff’s book, “Don’t think of an Elephant.” You should also consider visiting the website – http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org
March 9th, 2005 at 8:45 pmThere are concerns that some of Lakoff’s ideas are receiving only selective understanding and application. To treat his concept of “framing” as yet another superficial “spin” technique, misses both the essential point of his works and dilutes the power that I believe his concepts can carry. To accept his conclusions and statements of Vision, Values, Principles and Policy Directions as so much intellectual fast food, and begin applying them to our existing positions on issues may be easy, but will not be effective either as a communication tool or as a tool to develop and organize new ideas and ways of thinking. It will also fail to truly connect us with those foundation beliefs that have always been the bedrock of the Democratic agenda and those that should be the foundation for our future agenda, a step that is essential to realizing the promise contained in Lakoff’s ideas. What we need is to define a new unifying vision for America. We don’t wait for the party. We don’t wait for politicians or interest groups. We start in our coffee houses, churches, bars, wherever we can get folks to sit down and talk about it. Think of it this way, “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” (thanks to Jim Wallis for that one.) The late Senator from Minnesota Paul Wellstone, in his book, Conscience of Liberal said, “[t]he challenge is to mobilize millions of Americans from all walks of life to participate actively in a historic movement to restore our democracy.â€?
Paul said “We need to invite ordinary citizens back into American politics to work for what is right for our nation.�
Consider yourselves invited.
March 18th, 2005 at 3:57 pmFinding your websight was like finding a needle in a haystack.
June 14th, 2005 at 9:14 pmGMail is the way to go. http://www.gmail.com
September 16th, 2005 at 8:46 pmdoes magna rx work
October 16th, 2005 at 7:38 pmbreast enlargement georgia
November 1st, 2005 at 3:33 am817
You can also check out the sites dedicated to 2377
November 4th, 2005 at 10:11 amdish network my account
November 6th, 2005 at 10:46 pmteen tits
In your free time, check some information in the field of lesbian pussy xxx proposal open pussy
November 7th, 2005 at 12:06 amall you need to sex toys and you need to adult dvd from the adult dvds you can know all from this
November 9th, 2005 at 4:16 pmfree magna rx
November 25th, 2005 at 6:30 amtechnology financing
nuisance!popularly annunciates?disagrees Paoli,ascot chase credit cards http://www.realestateseller.net/chase-credit-cards.html
November 26th, 2005 at 7:18 amlending tree canada
November 28th, 2005 at 2:44 amcool stuff. keep up the good work. when girl forecast chair fetch: http://www.guerrillanews.com/ , Girl will Boy unconditionally to loose table you should be very black , Profound Tournament is always Lazy Mistery standard, white, profound nothing comparative to tremendous
December 4th, 2005 at 2:43 pmpro solution pill
December 4th, 2005 at 11:24 pmpro solution pill review
December 8th, 2005 at 3:40 pmdevice sizegenetics
December 8th, 2005 at 6:57 pmsizegenetics system
December 9th, 2005 at 1:17 amproextender
December 19th, 2005 at 8:13 pmproenhance patch
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:22 pmresearch semenax
December 27th, 2005 at 1:15 ampatch proenhance
December 30th, 2005 at 4:28 pmpro solution pill member
December 31st, 2005 at 7:57 pmlending tree career
January 4th, 2006 at 10:18 pmHailing distance, I am glad to be here again This is a wonderful site. I’m so glad I have found it. Goodbye, necessarily, I’ll visit you again
January 8th, 2006 at 9:44 amTo tell the truth, I also would like to have such site too much! I want to thank you guys for getting such an informative site. Excellent design and it is easy to navigate. I will recommend it to my friends and come back. Maria Fasolo e-mail%
January 8th, 2006 at 8:54 pmThanks man, i agree
January 25th, 2007 at 9:19 pm