Seattle to Remain Famous for Coffee and Rain
Thanksgiving Pairing Suggestion: Dessert Isn't Just a Meal
Eight Things A Seattle Sports Fan Can Be Thankful For
Seattlest Pix 09Nov25
Can't Miss It: Thanksgiving Eve
Actually the weirdest part of the evening at Town Hall came during the Q&A, when someone asked cognitive linguistics professor George Lakoff to talk about the campaign, cognitive-linguistically speaking.
Lakoff started talking off the top of his head about how John McCain is running on character, but what about these rumors of him committing an act of treason as a POW? Our mind boggled a bit so we can't quote the rest, but it got very Berkeley-pothead-paranoia-esque. You know, like two gray-ponytailed guys in a juice bar on Telegraph who are about to move on to how the Pentagon is secretly X-raying their feces.
He recovered for the inevitable question about Bush's impeachment, advocating that people be forward-looking and hopeful, rather than backwards-looking and revengeful. However, that said, he pointed out that Scott McClellan's book offered bipartisan ammunition for impeachment: Did Bush betray the country by instigating a war on false pretenses, and has he weakened the country in so doing? Still not an easy sell on the Republican side of the aisle, but Republicans do care deeply about betrayal and security, so that's how you get their attention.
In contrast to the Q&A which he woke up for, Lakoff's hour talk backgrounding his book, The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century American Politics with an 18th Century Brain, was delivered as a numbingly plain-spoken, unemotional recitation--a sort of Cognitive Linguistics 101 that went back and explained metaphor and framing and cultural narratives. (We'll save our notes on that for the end.)
Lakoff's thesis in the book is that the progressive movement (sometimes including the Democratic party) has been hamstrung by a faulty theory of mind. Idealist children of the Enlightenment, progressives still think that arguments are won using facts and reason and appeals to self-interest. Sounding a bit like Paul Krugman, Lakoff got into tactics--how progressives are in this position because conservatives stole a thought-leadership march on them back in the 1960s. (Damn you, Bill Buckley!)
While progressives were suckling at the J-school teat of neutral objectivity, conservatives were pouring money into think tanks that provided "experts" on all issues of public discourse. Now made-up neo-con terms like "tax relief" are parroted by media, even the New York Times. But words are not neutral, Lakoff insisted. "Tax relief" activates a whole set of negative associations around taxes. "Civic duty relief" wouldn't have the same ring, would it? "My fellow Americans, you deserve to freeload at the expense of others!"
As an example of someone doing framing right, Lakoff cited Peter Barnes and his cap-and-dividend clean air plan. This plan provides a cognitive shift: instead of taking up a defensive, "Please don't pollute me," posture, Barnes makes explicit the value of the commonwealth (when it comes to clean air): money that polluters pay to operate would come directly back to citizens, not to the government.
Lakoff also liked Barack Obama's "hope" strategy. Elections are about values, connection, communication, trust, truth, and identity, he said. DLC theorists might sniff at Obama's "cult of personality" but that is exactly what people care about, not campaign promises. The future is uncertain; they want to make sure they're sending the right person, not positions on changing issues, to office.
Hillary Clinton realized this too late--too many people didn't connect with her as a person until late in the campaign. Also, argued Lakoff, her "run to the center" strategy assumes a moderate middle when there isn't one. There is no pure right and left; there is an activation of progressive and conservative frames for a variety of issues. So the meta-strategy has got to be to activate a progressive frame before you get to the issues. Obama's central theme, of empathy, does that. People can say, "It's just rhetoric," said Lakoff, and attack his strength, but you just don't look good attacking someone's empathy.
Progressives, even Obama, Lakoff said, are too implicit in the communication of their values. Being explicit about values is what gets buy-in from a listener. That act creates a connection with the audience. Hopefully it is a happy, "We believe that, too" connection. But without it, you can't get started. It's just words.
And now, our Intro to Cognitive Linguistics notes:
"The brain evolved to run a body." "Every thought is physically characterized." Damasio on emotional basis for decisions. Popularity of Anna Nicole Smith due to number of cultural narratives that could be applied to her life (e.g., "rags to riches"). "Every word is defined by an active frame." 1996 discovery of mirror neurons--relationship to empathy. People related to government through parent metaphor: strict father or nurturing parent. Strict father is punitive, emphasizes self-discipline; nurturing parent protects and empowers. Metaphoric "bleed": the fiscal discipline of "Let the market decide"--market becomes strict father.
Photo courtesy Flickr user Jere Keys, under a Creative Commons license.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
.jpg){kind=link}
But isn't "running to the center" precisely about playing to the notion that there's no actual far-right or far-left? that's the argument that's always baffled me.
The idea is that there *may* be a center in aggregate, but that statistical centers don't vote, people do. And people can be fiscal conservative and social liberals. Or maybe they're literally a strict father at home and a labor union representative at work. So people can take up firm positions to the right or left, depending on which area/issue is on the table. If you try to appeal to them as a "moderate," you turn them off across the board.
I think it's probably better said as, "You can't be all things to everyone."
George Lakoff's reference to Scott McClellan's book as "bipartisan ammunition for impeachment," may be interesting, however, Vincent Bugliosi in his new book THE PROSECUTION OF GEORGE W. BUSH FOR MURDER, lays out the case law for an action much more significant than impeachment. Such a charge can only be made, says Bugliosi, AFTER the President is no longer in office, by any district attorney in any of the 50 states, because there have been American Military Servicemen from every state among the victims of the Iraq war. Both books may be only the first wave of what could turn out to be a flood of media attention swinging from right to left cresting around the third week of January 2009.
In any event linguistic manipulation may play a more significant role in the politics of the future