Political Bootcamp: Frank Luntz says I'm right.

[yesthattom]

FUCK!

Frank Luntz the Republican spin doctor (actually... the pollster that not only figures out what crypto words to use to sell Republican bad ideas, but make millions training politicians how to “speak”) has a new guide for 2005. Someone got a copy and scanned it in. It’s 160 pages of amazing “insider knowledge” on how the Republicans do their dirty tricks. The last few pages are the best.

But please don’t just skip to the end. Read the whole section in the first half that takes my “Opportunity For Everyone” idea and sells it as “Equality of Opportunity” as a way to oppress the underclass and enrich the wealthy. Page 7 says, “It’s time for the GOP to tackle and own the principle of fairness. Define fairness as “equality of opportunity.” Page 9 encourages politicians to say, “Fairness means that every American has the chance to succeed even if the ultimate outcome may vary.”

• The Daily Kos article with the link to download the document.

  Warning: it’s 8M big. However, it’s well worth it. 20 seconds to download, an evening of reading. Shit, it’s like reading “1984”. The Orwellian language is so damn scary. He literally tells you how to use words to manipulate people into being in favor of stuff that does them harm!

• ThinkProgess.org on the Luntz Playbook:

  In his memo on how to manipulate American perception on the economy, right-wing spinmeister Frank Luntz advises conservatives to “resist the temptation’ to use facts and figures about the economy. (You know, all those pesky statistics about lower wages, unemployment, skyrocketing deficits, etc.) Instead, he advises, you can’t go wrong if you continuosly remind people about the terrorist attacks of 9/11. “This is the context that explains and justifies why we have $500 billion deficits, why the stock market tanked, why unemployment climbed to 6%.”

Comments

[mangosteen]

My first reaction on reading your posting was "Okay, we got the one they wanted us to get. I wonder what the real one says."

[debbyl65.livejournal.com]

That was my thought as well. Reading through it, though (160 pages!), I'm sure it's the real deal but there may be an upper-level report that would never be allowed to fall into the hands of the Unbelievers. That would be an interesting read!

It's also interesting to see different levels of dissembling from Luntz. Some things he says just plain make sense (facts & figures go over people's heads; "foreign" has bad connotations). Other things make sense from a conservative worldview and you can tell he believes in them. Still other things don't make any sense unless you're a greedy b@st@rd and it's most fun to see the acrobatics he goes through to justify this position or the bait and switch he suggests to cover it up (outsourcing--America is just downright inhospitable to business--who needs safety regulations or decent wages?).

[dossy.livejournal.com]

Tom, FYI - this LJ entry got quoted here.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the pointer.

[holzman.livejournal.com]

The take-aways from this are, of course:

• Framing is not about the words themselves so much as the meaning connected to the words. Let me suggest everyone run out and read Korzybsku's Science and Sanity
  
• As Go players have observed for thousands of yeras, your best move is also your opponent's best move.
  

building a context for framing

[cos]

Framing is not about the words themselves so much as the meaning connected to the words.

Yes. Sometimes, the meaning you want is already prevalent and you just have to use the right words to evoke it. More often, you have to build up the meaning you want, over time, before you can effectively evoke it to large numbers of people.

Here's a snippet from an interview with George Lakoff that touched on this:

BuzzFlash: Do you have any suggestions to a person who says, "I do support our troops. That’s why I think they shouldn’t be in Iraq fighting a ginned-up war." How does that person frame that?

George Lakoff: It’s difficult. During the Vietnam War, people tried "Support our troops; bring them home," but it didn’t work that well. The reason it’s hard is that the groundwork hasn’t been laid. It’s very important: this is, again, the issue of hypocognition, of liberals not having the concepts they need, not getting them out there, not getting the language set up. As a result, when there is something like the Gulf War or 9/11 or the Iraq War, there’s silence.

Now, protection is a very, very important part of the progressive vision. You want to protect the environment. You want to protect your children. You want to protect investors. I do want to protect the country as well. But liberals and progressives haven’t developed a powerful language of protection. They haven’t put the effort into doing that. They haven’t put the research into doing that. This takes research. And the right wing knows it. They support that research for their side.

BuzzFlash: So you can’t just come up with a two-word phrase. You’re saying you have to develop the infrastructure and do your homework before the framing phrase will have its resonance.

George Lakoff: That’s correct.