This is going to be my very quick analysis and summation of the Luntz PDF report for those of you who don't have the time to read it. Don't mistake this for my own analysis, except where I note it's mine, or it's obviously contrarian and picking apart the analysis...
Why did Bush win election, and Kerry lose?
Credibility. Bush had it, Kerry didn't.
Further, Bush had fairly simple and idealistic visions of what he would do, and the benefit that he was currently doing them. People believed that Bush "says what he means and means what he says".
Meanwhile, Kerry was scoring points by spotlighting Bush's mistakes and failures, but left people utterly confused and unsure as to how he would do things differently. He failed to differentiate. This analysis tends to go a bit with mine, in that in random conversations on the street, people either didn't have a clue what Kerry was about or were wildly mistaken (often due to misleading information planted by the Right in media and church congregations).
It didn't hurt that most of Bush's simplistic straight talk was security-related, a forum which begs for fairly straight-forward prescriptions, since people don't have the time to parse complex strategies, and we were living in the wake of 9-11 and unsolved anthrax attacks. Meanwhile, Kerry incredibly failed to articulate a similar vision of security other than allusions to working with Europe (which the Bush team had already set up for ridicule long in advance).
The two key aspects that put Bush over the top, and helped him win the frame game, were the Swift Boat ads and the Republican convention (Luntz conveniently leaves out mention of 'kicking gays'). The big lead after the convention saved Bush from his pathetic showing in the first debate.
Luntz decries the Democrats claims that Bush won on fear, but then essentially admits that Bush won based upon the idea that he was the antidote of the people's fears - fears Bush clearly contributed to by hysterical claims and unfounded associations drawn between Saddam, Al Qaeda, and the anthrax WMD attacks (makes one yearn for the days of "there is nothing to fear but...").
Here, Luntz comes out with one of his self-regarded brilliant gems, but which in actuality are empty platitudes: electoral success is no longer guaranteed by saying no. Exactly which presidents he imagines won by campaigning on merely saying no is left to our imaginations.
"In the end, hope won." Good grief. Does he really believe this crap? Who is he kidding? Clinton won on hope, Bush won on fear and 'kicking gays' (along with being a straight-shooter and winning, inexplicably under the circumstances, the credibility vote).
Then, Luntz goes into a 7-point analysis of why the Republicans lost Congress in 1986, the six-year itch (incumbent president term) they face again in 2006. I'm not going to go into this, since I have little criticism of it, and it's worthy of your review if you find the time.
Setting the Context and Tone
"Although Republicans and Democrats share most of the same hopes and fears, they frequently look at issues from completely different perspectives. So what do the vast majority of Americans really want?"
In this section, Luntz drops the gauntlet, and in many ways pretense. First, in an eerie confirmation of Alex Carey's propaganda thesis in his classic book Taking The Risk Out Of Democracy, Luntz encourages the manipulation of treasured and patriotic American symbols to lend legitimacy to whatever it is you might be selling at the moment. Further, whatever you are selling, find a way to tie it into the mission for democracy and justice. Finally, explain the whole thing is about fairness, which means equality of opportunity irrespective of whatever wild or biased outcomes.
Here is where ownership steps into the fray, tried and tested in polling groups to work great with fairness and opportunity. As only Luntz could put it (in classic ideological slip fashion), "ownership is limited, but the opportunity of ownership is limitless." So, sell them on the fantasy and utopia of a world where all can succeed without human or natural limits, even though we realize that actual ownership, the outcome of the competition for ownership, will result in about a few % of people owning almost everything (and, as Luntz tells us, this is the American Dream).
Other platitudes spill out from polling group analysis, like that people like politicians who talk about "the next generation" (apparently, action is not necessary in this regard, either for passing on a vibrant society and economy without immense debt, or for ensuring that the world we pass on is not ecologically crippled). Other usual culprits make appearances - family values, being for rather than against stuff, and pretending to be in tune with your constituents even though you likely aren't (but Luntz knows his Republicans are).
Finally, for his 10 contextual keys he touts polling groups' love of the adjective effective, over efficient, better, and other such adjectives, and encourages the constant repetition of effective, along with "goals and results", not "partisanship and politics" (news to us...how about freeing science to pursue truth and the public interest?), and wraps it all up with a paean to accountability (which I was begging Kerry and Kossacks to champion, against its worst offender [Bush], during election season, to no avail).
Of course, he leaves out transparency, and there is little to no accountability without transparency folks, don't ever forget that.
Then, Luntz goes on extended explanation of the aforesaid contexts, explaining that Americans are realists (who would have guessed, listening to Bush, the great Idealist?), that they love talk about democracy and justice, that whenever speaking of fairness it is essential to couple and redefine it with opportunity (and accuse liberals of wanting equal outcomes, like they're communists or something), that as long as you dangle a sliver of a chance they might succeed like the top 2%, or just raise their real wages a percentage point or two, you can promise them the moon and deliver nothing since the actual outcome is irrelevant according to their analysis, that the illusion of ownership is always great to toss in as a tease, that compassionate conservatism still works (how it works is unclear), and that one shouldn't bother talking about limited government anymore, since that battle has been lost to the public in favor of effective mixed government, but one should just describe limited government, pretending and conflating that what one is talking about is effective government. Thus, we know that privatization of Social Security, for instance, is radical government shrinking ideology, but since people aren't buying that anymore, just propose government shrinking under the guise of making government more effective.
Once again, at this stage, Luntz runs off with silly sections like "Bush Words That Work" and "GOP Words That Work", and he means "work" strictly in a polling propaganda sort of way. Indeed, his ingenuity and innovation are less than startling.
He keeps going into words that work for Republican governors, for Democrats, and for John Edwards, and it's all worth some review, to be honest, even though I'm being harsh on Luntz at this point. But he has a tendency to repeat himself over and over, and it gets boring.
He closes out with emphasis on the twin assertions that "America is under attack, by terrorists without and within" [blatant fear and anxiety mongering] and "strong families and healthy communities", apparently something to wish for after we no longer have to circle the wagons against evil terrorists and low-cost, highly-skilled labor.
Of course, Luntz is never one to forget the constant reminder to speak of values, which liberals and Hollywood seek to subvert and relativize into sodomy and adultery. "As a husband, as a father, as a member of a strong and loving community [as long as you're not gay and in love], I have seen how these values make America both good and great. My opponents seem to appreciate HOLLYWOOD VALUES. I guess I'm more old-fashioned. I appreciate American values." (yawn)
In fact, Luntz coupling of good and great is the stuff of (mis)legend, as he later claims that "...it has often been said that America is great because America is good." Further insight is provided in the next sentence: "And our goodness...comes from values."
To close this down, Luntz finishes off with another admonition to talk about what you WILL do, not what you've failed to do in your current term (indeed, earlier he encourages politicians to spend less time at work in Washington, and more time at home campaigning, and that they should start campaigning now for elections that are still 18 months away - all while still collecting a paycheck of course).
Luntz reminds GOP politicians in no uncertain terms that the people's business should be put off, at least some of it, until 2006 so that it can be used for the reelection campaign, so discover what they really want most, and then don't do anything about it until you can promise to do something about it in 2006 (even though the GOP controls the presidency and both houses of Congress right now).
Lest that not be enough, always claim the high road of GOP bipartisanship, and take advantage of any and every pragmatic compromise Democrats may make to underscore just how bipartisan you are, since Luntz' polling shows that people like nothing more than bipartisanship.
So, Luntz wraps up, remember to talk accountability, always remind people about 9-11 so they think about their security first, speak of effective government while meaning in practice limiting government, and never make the mistake Bush Sr. made of not pretending effectively enough that you can relate to your constituents and empathize and understand their day-to-day concerns (such would ensure defeat).
*
keep in mind I'm rushing through this, and am merely trying to give a taste of Luntz' analysis for those of you who don't have the time (and obviously slanted with my own criticism and cynicism
*
Next: Luntz PDF Redux II - Economic Growth and Prosperity