Menu
Only a Communications Problem?
I pulled this from www.huffingtonpost.com — a commentary by George Lakoff of UC Berkeley, who for years has been talking/writing about “framing” public statements from a liberal or progressive (I detest these labels now) viewpoint. Read what he thinks about the communications problem that’s damaging President Obama’s policy prospects.
What he asserts in the quote I pulled out below has become a truism of the political dialogue in the nation. But why exactly do the conservatives have (or, are perceived to have) such a strong advantage when it comes to talking about politics, especially since so many people with advanced formal education believe in a different philosophy of governing? I think it has a lot to do with attitudes about civic engagement and to what endeavors people are willing to devote their talent, energy, time, and reputations.
The conservatives have a superior message machine: Dozens of think tanks with communications facilities, framing experts, training institutes, a national roster of speakers, booking agents to books their speakers in the media and civic groups, and owned medias like Fox News and a great deal of talk radio. Their audience will hear, over and over, “No one should have their taxes raised.”
There is no comparable progressive message machine. But even if one were to be built, the Democrats might still be using messages that are either ineffective or that help the conservatives. Why?
Conservatives do not have a better communications system then the liberals.
Let’s examine the word liberal first. “Liberal” in the classical term meant limited government and individual’s freedoms. Somewhere along the line it got hijacked by the left. Concervatives highlighted the failures of liberal policies and it became a dirty word. The left in an attempt to reinvent themselves came up with the term “progressives” to rebrand themselves (even while keeping the same failed policies).
When I was going to school in the late 70’s conservatism was all but an afterthought. The liberals controlled all three branches of government. The Republican Party was a total failure. Out of necessity, independent groups were created to counter the GOP failures. This was the beginning of a small network of alternative political action groups which became the farm team for the leaders of the right today.
The right does not have a monopoly of think tanks, training institutes. I have never seen a list or enumeration of right vs. left institutions but suspect that there may be an equal number on each side. The left has and still does have a monopoly on media and getting the message out. They have ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN and the labor unions manpower and money. Maybe the right’s success is just because that is whom the American people agree with.
I had difficulty getting past your “so many people with advanced formal education believe in a different philosophy of governing” comment. You couldn’t have more clearly defined the elitism and arrogance institutionalized in liberalism where the absolute belief in formal advanced education is so strong that anyone who is lacking – no matter how decent or hard-working a person – is seen as having fallen short.
Liberalism has long defined itself from a position of expertise and wisdom about the potential of government to ensure economic fairness by restraining wealth and regulating commerce.
I’ve met and argued with many who have advanced degrees, but a formal education is no indication of intelligence. Liberals run America’s schools and colleges. Thus, the longer you stay there, the more chance they have to brainwash you.
As the saying goes, “If you’re not liberal when you’re young, you have no heart. If you’re not conservative when you’re older, you have no brain.”
Somewhere out across the fruited plain is a meme in development about “credentialed vs educated” and in this meme the “Left” is seen as credentialed, rather than educated. Push back.
Regards —®ards: Cliff
America has a credential fetish.
Each subculture sets its own metrics. But once the bar is set, to them you are “less” until you achieve it. One odd twist in this paradigm is that those that do not worship that specific achievement will actually scoff at it.
Hence. to a plumber, a masters degree is a negative. And to a Prof., a plumbing license is hardly a worthy credential.
This whole thing reeks of that squabble in Cambridge between the cop and the prof. The race angle just blew it out of proportion.
Oh, I see now. It’s all about the way the message is delivered, not the message itself.
LMAO! In the sportsworld, they call such nonsense excuse making. Winners enjoy the spoils of victory. Losers make excuses. Liberals have been election losers for so long, they’re skilled at making excuses for those losses. “Must be the way the message is being framed.” Too funny. Too, too funny.
Anything except admit the obvious. America is a centrist-to-conservative country. Liberal policiies are out of touch with the mainstream. Its so simple, yet so hard for the losers to grasp.
My point is about civic engagement and scholars. I think more academic liberals have to join the political fray and promote their ideas among the voters, face to face and through the media, if they want their views to be accepted and supported by the majority of the citizens. Barack Obama could have had a comfortable life as an academic teaching constitutional law in Chicago or elsewhere, but he engaged activily with American democracy and took his ideas into the political marketplace. President Obama needs hundreds and thousands like him to line up behind him, putting themselves forward as candidates for school committees, state senates, county commissions, the Congress, and other bodies. Others can help when they write and talk and organize on behalf of liberal policies. For the past 30 years, the “right” seems to have had more of an appetite for the political ground battle. We have a good model of a public intellectual in Lowell with Prof. Bob Forrant of the UMass Lowell History Department. He writes for newspapers and blogs, serves on local nonprofit boards of directors, advises on state economic development policy, and conducts research that he connects up to current issues like immigration.
I take Paul M’s point and it is a good one. And it applies to all sides. The expression “innocent civilians” always bothers me, because it is the civilian citizens who are responsible, at the end of the day, for what the Government does, either through their active action in voting or through their inaction in not voting and, when needed, petitioning and protesting. On the other hand, I may be over-reading “The Declaration of Independence”.
I will note that I always thought of Professor Bob Forrant as being a classic Liberal—one of us. Am I mistaken? :-)
Regards — Cliff
Paul, I have to disagree. Liberals have controlled academia and, up until the creation of Fox News, television media for over half a century. Except for a brief, shining decade brought about by Kennedy/Camelot, they’ve been out of touch.
The main problem with liberals being unelectable except in places like Massachusetts and California is that their ideas are out of the mainstream. You can run as many liberal candidate as you’d like, but they’re going to lose in the South and in the heartland of America. This country was founded on an anti-tax platform and small government. You migth not be able to see that from within this little world we call Massachusetts, but travel outside these borders and you’ll realize it. Anything else is akin to burying your head in the sand and pretending it doesn’t exist.
And unless the problem is addressed within the hallowed halls of the Democratic party, you’re going to continue losing elections. You need more Clintons/Centrists and less Obamas/Progressives. Take it from someone who abandoned the party because he feels abandoned.
R–We agree that it’s not enough for them to control academia. They need to build a stronger presence at local, state, and county levels, and then make the case at the federal level. And the media universe is a new ballgame now with cable, the web, and instant messaging. I think you are overstating the conservative strength countrywide. Obama won, and may win again. The Senate has not yet flipped to R’s. Also, look at populations, not national real estate. The D’s (not all of them liberals, it should be noted) still have strong support in urbanized, heavily populated states on the coasts.
You’re assuming a stronger presence can be built, while I’m arguing Liberals have already shown their strength.
The deck was stacked in their favor from 2006-2008 because of what I’ll call Bush fatigue and Gingrich fatigue. Yet all you got out of it was 2 years of total Democratic control. That’s all it took for Americans to realize why they didn’t like Liberals in the first place. They gave the donkey party a chance to change, and the donkey party couldn’t wait to move to the extreme left and slap centrist America in the face.
We can argue this all you want, but look at election and electoral maps since 1994, and you’ll realize your party has a huge election night problem if it won’t move away from the extreme left. I, for one, hope you guys keep deluding yourself and making excuses. Makes it so much easier to trounce you on the first Tuesday in November.
Forget for a minute the 60+ seat gain in the U.S. House. Forget the recent Senate gains. Look at the gains Republicans made in Governorships and nearly 700 state senate and house seats. Those folks are the ones with the say in redistricting and tilting the playing field even more in Republicans favor come 2012. The census shows strong migration away from Democratic strongholds and into Republican areas. It’s only going to get worse for you my friend.
Yes, I think a stronger presence can be built because I don’t think enough effort has been put into making the “left” case. You have to be willing to get out among your fellow citizens and eat a peach at the Georgia fair or whatever fruit and state one might favor. If the “elites” are guilty of something, it is not often enough talking to people unlike them on neutral ground or common ground, like, say, a town common. I think people will listen to a different view if they are not talked down to. For all his faults, Bill Clinton is still able to distill the common sense in many policies associated with the Democrats and persuade listeners that those policies will benefit them.
I still recommend to the Democrats Deer Hunting With Jesus.
But not too strongly, lest they might actually read it.
Regards — Cliff
If they go eat a peach with the common man at the fair, they’ll realize they have nothing in common with the common man and they’ll either change their political ideology, or continue to hide in the elite circles for fear of mingling with the common man.
I think we’re actually coming to the same conclusion here Paul. We’re just arriving at it from a different outcome.
Cool conversation – thanks Paul Marion for the compliment. You stay away a few days grading papers and do miss a lot here at Richard Howe, et.al. I think we need much more civil discourse than we have now – the issues are so complex and we so easily tend to the knee-jerk as opposed to thinking-listening-considering-reconsidering.
One of the excellent things about a job like mine as a history teacher – lots of room to rethink the past and as well study how we all use bits and pieces of it as it suits our current situation. I just read David Hackett Fischer’s book on Paul Revere and in the back of the book is a conversation about how historians have defined and redefined Mr. Revere over the years as the nation evolved – fascinating.
I enjoy discussing the past and present with anyone who wants to take the time to do so. Ironically, one of my favorite platforms had been the Sunday Focus Section of the Lowell Sun, where I was able to write a monthly piece on regional economic and politics. Sadly, Mr. Campanini decided to excise me from the newspaper – which is why my columns are no longer there. Just when I thought I might win an Edward R Murrow journalism award – oh well.
He decided just before the November election that he had had enough of my ilk and the work of economy writer John Edwards as well. The reason – we had opinions – and he already paid writers like Anne Coulter for her opinions – so since he did not pay us – we could not have a point of view but needed to be agnostic. No thanks.
@R. Bulger, You say,
“We can argue this all you want, but look at election and electoral maps since 1994, and you’ll realize your party has a huge election night problem if it won’t move away from the extreme left. I, for one, hope you guys keep deluding yourself and making excuses. Makes it so much easier to trounce you on the first Tuesday in November.”
Great idea. Let’s “look at the election and electoral maps since 1994.” In the eight elections after 1994, the Republicans have gained House seats in only three of them, Senate seats in four of them, and the White House in two of the four presidential elections, while losing the popular vote in three of those. Where exactly is this “huge election night problem” you’re talking about?
Looking at elections over the last several years another interesting feature is the continued low voter turnout. So, folks who vote tell us something for sure; what do the millions who stay away signify? For both parties, the voter alienation and cynical attitude toward politics and politicians is a massive problem and one getting worse not better.
It increasingly means elections are controlled by the monied interests on both sides of the aisle, honed in on particular buzz words by polls and focus groups, and there is little real discussion about the state’s and the nation’s serious problems. Buzz goes ‘Obama’s not a citizen’! Buzz goes Republicans ‘only care about the rich.’ Buzz goes ‘death panels’. etc., etc. Black Friday, Cyber Monday – please stop.
Sound bite politics will not get us anywhere any time soon and in case anyone’s missed it this economy sucks and will continue to do so for some time to come. What’s going to happen to public education, for example, when $1.5B is cut from the state’s current budget? What’s going to happen to fixing our decaying infrastructure? What’s going to happen to health care costs in a state with a rapidly aging population? How do we begin to fix the national economy when the global meltdown is ongoing and we (esp. in MA) rely so much on the global purchase of what high tech products we still produce?
We need an adult conversation about this stuff and not ‘tweety’ bird politics, 30 second sound bites, war on Christmas illusions while Iraq and Afghanistan heat up once more, orange-skiined John Boehner weeping, Barney Frank saying it wasn’t my fault, and Wall Street thumbing its nose at the nation with its record Christmas-time bonuses!
2011 is going to be one ugly year and without any serious leadership in our state house and in Congress there is little we can expect by way of intelligently-crafted relief. Left-Right is a nutso argument to be having – we need the best ideas and an adult conversation, not the food fight that passes for political leadership currently.
Happy holidays from Dr. Doom:)
Here’s another thought – time for UMass Lowell’s chancellor to bring back the Sunrise radio program or some reincarnation of it where there can be the sort of conversation I am calling for in the above post.
The University needs to step up to the plate right now, work with others, and establish a series of pointed discussions about how we get the regional economy moving forward. UML has done its part on the real estate side and on the science and technology side. Now it must become a much better promoter of the development of a set of IDEAS regarding the sustainable social and economic development of the region and how real estate, science and technology, public health, k-graduate school education, can come together to enhance the regional economy.
Not to belabor old history, but the university’s decision to dismantle the one academic department on campus (I was a part of it) dedicated to thinking about all of this was a huge mistake on their part. SO, what’s the alternative?
To not do this, to not be a champion of and a convener of this conversation, is to me as a faculty member at the University, a big let down and flies in the face of what a public university should be doing in tough times. The occasional downtown lecture in the ICC is not enough, nor is putting a Subway or other chain food provider on campus the solution for how we build the downtown. Sorry, Subway:(
To be a ‘college town’, which I think we can be, area cities and towns, the high school, Middlesex CC, and the University need to come together in a very serious way with others int he region to craft some sort of 10-year social and economic development blueprint. The clock’s ticking, budgets are shrinking, the population is aging, our graduates are fleeing, companies are leaving.
Michael, Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 and only relinquished it from 2006-2010. Unless my math is off, the scorecard after 16 years reads: GOP 12, DEMS 4
As for the White House, going back to 1968 the scorecard reads GOP 7, DEMS 4.
If you consider that a good thing for the donkey party, keep drinking the Kool-Aid!
The White House scorecard, btw, was in referrence to the number of presidential elections won.
@R. Bulger,
Remember, you said that since 1994 election night has been a disaster for Democrats because they moved to the “extreme left,” which is the most laughable thing said on this thread. You make it sound like there’s been this mass exodus away from the Democrats, when in fact come January the GOP will have just 8 more seats in the House than they did in the 104th Congress, and will have 6 LESS seats in the Senate. As for the presidential election tally, why stop on 1968? Hell, why not make it 1928? I’ll even give you Hoover. In which case the count is 11-10 Democrats, 12-9 if you go by popular vote. And five of those Republican victories are split between two of the most unpopular presidents in history with Hoover, Nixon and GW Bush.
But yes, the GOP has controlled Congress for most of the last 16 years, but this fact is hardly evidence that the electorate has spurned the Dems. After all, one of these two putrid parties has to be in control.
To say that a particular election shows that the country is shifting to the left or right is lazy and assumes the parties’ policies line up with those of the electorate. But we don’t vote FOR parties anymore. We vote AGAINST parties. 2006 and 2008 were a repudiation of Republican rule due to the Iraq war and financial crisis, respectively. 2010 was a repudiation of Democratic rule because the economy is still in the tank. That both parties managed to win elections at a time when the other was wildly unpopular does not impress me in the least.
All this is kabuki, anyway. Neither party is viewed favorably. According to a recent Bloomberg poll, 48% view the Democratic Party favorably, while Republicans garnered 43%. So how do you explain this kind of parity given your statement about the Dems having moved to the “extreme left”?
Elections are not about policies. They are about rhetoric, presentation, message framing in the like and are run by the public relations industry.
@R. Bulger,
Remember, you said that since 1994 election night has been a disaster for Democrats because they moved to the “extreme left,” which is the most laughable thing said on this thread. You make it sound like there’s been this mass exodus away from the Democrats, when in fact come January the GOP will have just 8 more seats in the House than they did in the 104th Congress, and will have 6 LESS seats in the Senate. As for the presidential election tally, why stop on 1968? Hell, why not make it 1928? I’ll even give you Hoover. In which case the count is 11-10 Democrats, 12-9 if you go by popular vote. And five of those Republican victories are divided among three of the most unpopular presidents in history with Hoover, Nixon and GW Bush.
But yes, the GOP has controlled Congress for most of the last 16 years, but this fact is hardly evidence that the electorate has spurned the Dems. After all, one of these two putrid parties has to be in control.
To say that a particular election shows that the country is shifting to the left or right is lazy and assumes the parties’ policies line up with those of the electorate. But we don’t vote FOR parties anymore. We vote AGAINST parties. 2006 and 2008 were a repudiation of Republican rule due to the Iraq war and financial crisis, respectively. 2010 was a repudiation of Democratic rule because the economy is still in the tank. That both parties managed to win elections at a time when the other was wildly unpopular does not impress me in the least.
All this is kabuki, anyway. Neither party is viewed favorably. According to a recent Bloomberg poll, 48% view the Democratic Party favorably, while Republicans garnered 43%. So how do you explain this kind of parity given your statement about the Dems having moved to the “extreme left”?
Elections are not about policies. They are about rhetoric, presentation, message framing in the like and are run by the public relations industry.
I love how liberals cherry pick stats. Bottom line. You lose elections from 1994 on, because Americans polled consistently characterize themselves as conservative as opposed to liberal by a roughly 2-to-1 margin. We don’t go back to 1928 because that’s ancient history. Look at recent history.
On second thought, continue to ignore it. We love the election night results. Don’t change a damn thing!!!!