Luntz tells everybody to say, "As a matter of principle..."
I'm not really ure that I am sticking this in the right place, but it felt like I should stick it someplace, so here's where I'm sticking it. If I should have put it somewhere else, educate me....
Luntz's new playbook for the Repubs: http://www.usnews.com/[…]/postelection.pdf
Luntz has one big hole in his analysis that you could yell at and wait half an hour for the echo: “It's the war, stupid”.
He hit one nail on the head, though. My heart jumped around in my chest when I saw #1 on his list of observations he used to base his recommendations:
«“I was wrong.” Those three simple words never came from the lips of any Republican
anywhere, and it is one reason why so many Republicans were defeated. Voters saw
hubris instead of humility, and voting against the GOP was the only way they could send
a message of rebuke.»
An Opinion Related to “I was wrong”
===================================
I'm literally scared about what toe Bush0.43 will stick in which mouth because he never admits that he could make (made) a mistake. If the Republicans had started using those three words sometime around last June, I doubt that the liberals would own either house of Congress today.
I wrote a diary about Bush0.43's inability to admit fault or error on DailyKos called “What the World Thinks It Knows...” (Yeah, I know. My titles suck. Retrospect is always so much easier.) at http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/27/204646/55 I'll save you a read: the conclusion is that it would take someone who could admit fault to rehabilitate the reputation of the USA in the eyes of Europe and the Middle East, and someone who could fall all over himself saying, “I'm sorry” at anyone who would listen (i.e., “show humility”) to get a true multi-national peace-keeping force that would actually help *achieve* order in Iraq rather than *destroy* it.
An Aside
========
(section omitted because it violated posting guidelines by promoting a candidate, despite the fact that the candidate promotion was mostly tongue in cheek with full knowledge that said afore-omitted candidate "if nominated as candidate, would decline and, if elected, would not serve." Those aren't his words, of course, but, by putting them in quotation marks, I become more authoritative and humorous.)
Back to Luntz
=============
Some high points:
. he says that the elections were lost because of swing voters who typically vote on “personality” rather than ideology (whom he calls “Republican Rejecters”) were agreeing with “I'm mad as hell and I am not going to take it any more.”
. voters want change, and the change they want most is “wasteful government spending”
. he thinks that the number of traditionally republican voters was not down (as “pundits” [other than him]) say, but rather way too many (16%? that number sticks in my brain, but don't quote me on it) decided to split the ticket and vote Demo for major races
. this chart:
«For more than a year, the Democrats held the political advantage on most issues, but it’s
not issues that matter to voters, it’s the *attributes*. Below, for the first time since 1994, is in
graphic detail the Democrat advantage on image and attributes as scored by the people who
voted for you in the past but not in 2006:
AMONG REPUBLICAN REJECTERS Democrats Republicans
“Best represents middle class” 64% 17%
“Listens to the people they represent” 53% 10%
“Gets things done for their constituents” 42% 31%
“Demonstrates accountability” 47% 24%
“Has good common sense” 52% 16%
“Best solutions for the problems facing the community” 46% 23%
“Best solutions for the problems facing America” 43% 21%
“Has a vision for the future” 48% 23%»
. most voters want change and Repubs should “own the reform” He says that the Democrat language of “new direction” is weak compared to a “path toward real, meaningful reform
. though this came fifth in his recommendations, it seems to be the point most strongly based on language:
«Recommendation #5: “Principles” are the most effective means to articulate
a vision – but that is not enough. You need “a comprehensive long-term
agenda.” On every issue, from taxation to regulation to litigation to
immigration, every American should know exactly where we stand and
where we want to lead. And that means a clearly-defined set of principles for
every issue raised by every committee from now on. I want to hear every
Member say the words, “As a matter of principle…”»
Later on, he says to seek good ideas from whatever source—specifically including Demos—and take ownership. One good idea that he focused on was "idea-raisers" (a phrase he really liked) to get ideas from potential voters of any stripe. He hyped that the results of these idea-raisers produced a book that was not released until after the campaign because it was not intended to be a partisan tool.
. another place where he focuses on language:
«“How does it provide value for the cost?” This is the perfect line for the coming months.
As Democrats offer their “change,” you need to do a cost-benefit analysis for the
American people – only don’t call it that. How will the newest Democrat program,
earmark, regulation, or addition in Washington provide hardworking Americans with
value – and is it really worth the cost? This is another step toward regaining the
accountability attribute and fiscal responsibility image. The key word: VALUE. Again,
voters are not concerned with how large government grows. They want a watchdog to
protect their investments.»
. last but not least, in big bold letters with a humongous hunk of pie (from the chart), «National Issues Are ALWAYS Most Important»
obligatory whine: neeeeed mooore sooftware [options when I am typing in these entries]
Not specified
N/A
Not specified
collapse all
| Show as "new" comments posted within the last:
and what principle would that be...?
- "I want to hear every member say the words,
As a matter of principle"
This is really a core problem with politics, especially Republican politics.
"To be honest, I'm not human - I'm from mars" -- but no, I'm not from Mars, and saying that is not being honest. "To be perfectly clear, the firgent is upstaking the liberal perimetacious grudes" -- but no, that's not clear at all, but gobbledygook.
And principle? The principle is, very apparantly, lying at will, telling people what they want to hear, and changing what one says as the wind blows -- which is not principled at all. None of Luntz's stuff is principled, but rather advocating manipulation and flim-flam. It's like sayingI stole this fair and square. The contradictions are inherent in the Republican conservative platforms and practices.
I suggest we need to make a distinction between framing and context and just outight lies. When Bush said he was invading Iraq to battle terrorists or eliminate WMDs, that wastn't framing -- those were damnable lies. So is most of what I have heard from the right wing.
The question, then, is not just how do we reframe so people understand some portion of reality in a different way, but how do we expose the blatent dishonesty, and how do we get people to care about it?
This is what really bugs me about thistaking impeachment off the tablebusiness: Bush is traitor and war criminal, but I keep hearing about how it isn't politically correct to talk about that. And where are the matters of principal, and thevaluesand morality there? Reframed dishonesty is STILL dishonesty, and the same goes for cowardice, racism, corruption, and other things which are just plain wrong. That's the thing that most politicians of either party either don't seem to understand, or don't care about. No amount of lipstick on a pig will change into something other than a pig, and we need people and leaders who will say that and act on it. We need real principles.
the subject does not matter
Luntz is trying to convey to elected representatives a way to frame whatever legislation (or position on legislation) is under discussion. Perhaps my summation was not clear. I recommend you go through http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/washingtonwhispers/061212/postelection.pdf yourself. It has some eye-opening things in it.
Remember, for a lot of these guys, a lot of times their wrong-minded asinine BS is done as a matter of principle. The way to deal with them is not to simply denounce their position on issues, but to employ phrases which re-frame the position.
As far as "re-framing lies", I do not believe that there is of a way to frame a rebuttal to a lie that does not entail a simple presentation of the facts which show the claim to be a lie. That is, unless you can spot an internal inconsistency in the lie, in which case you needn't engage in mental judo: you come out with your facts blazing! If you can't do that, the only way two ways to deal with it are a) to call him a liar (possibly in some mealy-mouthed "that does not appear to be consistent with the facts" kind of way) or b) to reserve rebuttal until such time when you can present objective evidence which allows you, again, to come out with your facts blazing.
I believe I can safely say that the primary focus of this site is less to discuss issues that we like or do not like than to discuss the methods of altering perspective and perception of issues. I feel it is important to keep that in mind when posting.
=============================================================================================
obligatory thank-you: Hallelujah! I have a full screen to edit stuff in! The other part of the suggestion was to put the Rockridge Institute policy guidelines at the top of the edit screen so that you would have to read (er... see?) it before you scrolled down to the edit box. It's not a big deal, though, and thank you for doing making the edit box bigger. It makes a lot of difference.
issues
- "I believe I can safely say that the primary focus of this site is less to discuss issues that we like or do not like than to discuss the methods of altering perspective and perception of issues"
I think that while issues are not the primary focus of the site, they do, and must, be an underlying structure and context: this is a progressive site and should support progressive values and a progressive world view.One of those values is truth - as elusive as that is. "Always seek the truth" is not just a value, but a frame too. Another value is what is morally and ethically right, and one's judgement concerning that is part of the progressive or liberal frame.
Now, as it happens, truth and rightness are also core values for many conservatives -- although they may indeed see rightness through different eyes, using some scripture or religious belief as the final standard. Yet, much is shared even among most atheists and most Biblicaly based believers -- some of the Ten Commandments, for instance: no stealing, no lying, no murdering, and to act in honorable and respectful ways. Beyond that there is also a body of religious tradition and commentary which establishes values. Comparing the Abrahmaic religions (people of the book) with other religions generally yield common values shared by pretty much all humans.
The right, the christian right particularly, has tried to portray progressives, secular humanisits, and atheists as having no moral center. That's not a frame -- that's a lie. The progressive issues certainly have a moral and/or ethical underpinning, and those issues, and the way they are presented, are part of the overall progressive frame. Social welfare -- taking care of other people -- is an issue which can be supported both a progmatic secualr humanist and a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, within their own perspectives, or deep frames. The extreme right, on the other hand, is actually quite outside these religious traditions and values.
If the practice of framing becomes nothing more thantricksandmethods, then it flies in the face of both progressive and conservative values. It becomes like a gun which anyone,good guyorbad guy, can pick up and attack people with. That disrupts the deep frame of progressivism which we are trying develop and spread, and, as such, is intrinsically limited in its effectiveness. Good framing must have conceptual integrity. This is, in fact, one of the great weaknesses of the right wing: trying tosave the village by destroying it, prototypically.
http://www.foucault.info/documents/parrhesia/foucault.DT4.praticeParrhesia.en.html
Paragraph 14 and surrounding, discusses "basanos" -- the concordance of what one says with what one does, and how it affects people's willingness to hear the speaker (Socrates). This quality is missing in the oportunistic and manipulative right wing -- and THAT is a way to disrupt the frames they try to use, and their propaganda. In the last election the issue of government corruption was a major reason many conservatives voted against Republicans, in fact.
While framing should be emphasized here, issues can not be divorced from the frames anymore that the form of a piece of art can be decoupled from the content. What we need to do is to make apparant the links between the linguistic framing and deep frames and values of progressive / liberal views. That includes seeking the truth. There are certainly issues where the differences between the liberal and conservatives views are largely a matter of how to go about reaching the same general goals, and there are also philosophical differences in what the most desirable goals are -- but these are separate issues from the lack of integrity and adherance to stated principles, such as honesty and valuing life, and the violation of these values. Corruption, lying, and murder are not conservative values -- but they are issues which are important to address, however the framing is done to addres them.
I read about this
over at DailyKos.
The thing about Lunz is he is effective at what he does. His logic about why the republicans lost was from another planet, but that is for another place.
What the opposition to a tactic like Lunz suggests must do is be ready to show up the hypocrisy that will eventually break out. Lunz's team will start saying "as a matter of princiole" as unconciously as breathin. They will then proceed to violate those priciples, and that's where we must be ready to punce. Pretty soon they'll be very caredul when talking about their pricnciples.
New! bah
After all the work to get the table to line up in the editor, the "save" gobbles my white space.
Obligatory whine: need blogging software with "preview" button.
Offhand remark that makes me sound like I know something: Are you sure that a "blog" is the correct medium for this part of the site? Perhaps a "wiki" like wikimedia (as used by the wikipedia.org) with the ability to create articles [from a template! Oh, YES sweet Jesus!] and have "discuss" pages where the article can be discussed and honed collaboratively. It seems that the purpose of a section like this should be less about getting stories about framing than about getting articles about framing that start their life as stories.