The subtitle of this very small book is "Know Your Values and Frame the Debate," and I was expecting it make good on its claim that it's a practical resource for progressives. It's more of a series of essays about the concept of framing, values in politics, and the importance of thinking about identity and values more than policy and programs.
I would definitely recommend reading it - especially since it's only 118 pages - because it made me think about why I believe in the things I do, and it gave me a first step towards learning how to talk about those things without getting mad and losing all clarity of thought.
Here are a few bits that caught my eye:
Republicans have not just message discipline, but a clear sense of the ideas and values that their messages come from. I'm going to put these passages slightly out of the order they appear in the book to make his point:
One of the major mistakes liberals make is that they think they have all the ideas they need. They think that all they lack is media access. Or maybe some major bullet phrases, like partial-birth abortion.
But Luntz is about much more than language. He recognizes that the right use of language starts with ideas - with the right framing of the issues, a framing that reflects a consistent conservative moral perspective... For each issue, he explains what the conservative reasoning is, what the progressive reasoning is, and how the progressive arguments can best be attacked from a conservative perspective.
When was the last time you saw something like that from the Democratic Party? In issue advocacy, I usually see fact sheets, flyers, and action alerts that simply preach to the choir. If the choir was big enough, that would be a good strategy. But I'm not sure it is.
Lakoff gives a few hints on what we can do to "back up" the candidates who are running for office:
Progressives need to reclaim the moral high ground - of the grand American tradition of freedom, fairness, human dignity, and full equality under the law. ... We all have to put our ideas out there so that candidates can readily refer to them.
He also does an interesting analysis of the public's reaction to the lies of the Bush Administration:
Most people will grant that even if the statement happened to be false, if he believed it, wasn't trying to deceive, and was not trying to gain advantage or harm anyone, then there was no lie. ... These have been among the administration's defenses. ... The falsehoods have been revealed and they, in themselves, do not matter much to most people.
But lying in itself is not and should not be the issue. The real issue is a betrayal of trust.
He goes on to argue that the context of misleading the public (i.e. sending their children to war based on false pretenses) is more important than the specific issue of whether this or that statement was a lie. This amused me when I think of all the energy spent in the liberal blogosphere and elsewhere on "documenting" the lies told by the Administration. To most people, it's just what politicians do. They expect it, and they don't make decisions based on that behavior.
