Just this past Monday we were witness to the lovefest between Bush Jr. and Bill Clinton at the White House unveiling of Clinton's official presidential portrait. During his speech, Clinton made the following
somewhat meaningful statement:
"You know, most the people I've known in this business, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, were good people, honest people, and they did what they thought was right. And I hope that I'll live long enough to see American politics return to vigorous debates where we argue who's right and wrong, not who's good and bad."
As much as I like Clinton's acknowledgment of the divide in this country that has been caused by arguing good vs. bad, this quote demonstrates just how much better the GOP is with language.
Let me explain. Even if we debate right vs. wrong as Clinton suggests, we lose before we begin. The GOP represents the right. Sure this really means they represent the right side of the isle, as opposed to the left side of it. But since when does the true meaning of a word amount to a hill of beans? GOP = right. Conservative = right. Bush = right.
If the GOP represent the right, what about the Democrats? By simple word association, Democratic opposition of the right makes us "the wrong." This subconscious perception is all thanks to the very language used to describe the Democratic position in the political spectrum. And it's a losing one.
This quote, and the associated "wrong" reference, reminded me of writings by US Berkeley professor George Lakoff. The author of "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think." Lakoff has described in deail how the right uses language effectively to achieve their political aims. His analysis of Bush's State of the Union is a must read.
In short, Lakoff breaks right-wing speech down into a morals based code reliant upon one of two possible world views: the "strict father" perspective. As Lakoff describes it:
The strict father sees the world as a dangerous and difficult place, where evil lurks, and competition will always produce winners and losers. His job is to protect and support his family, and as moral authority, teach his kids right from wrong. Through example and painful punishment, he instills in them an internal discipline to act morally and become self-reliant.
Moral people are disciplined and deserve to prosper. Those who are undisciplined are not moral and should not prosper.
Does this description remind you of anyone in the White House right now? Lakoff discusses many examples of how democrats and progressives can use language to better frame the debate. For example, the right and Bush have framed the tax cuts as "tax relief":
It got picked up by the newspapers as if it were a neutral term, which it is not. First, you have the frame for "relief." For there to be relief, there has to be an affliction, an afflicted party, somebody who administers the relief, and an act in which you are relieved of the affliction. The reliever is the hero, and anybody who tries to stop them is the bad guy intent on keeping the affliction going. So, add "tax" to "relief" and you get a metaphor that taxation is an affliction, and anybody against relieving this affliction is a villain.
So with nothing but effective framing of an issue through well thought out language, Bush achieves political advantage. Anything Kerry does to counter the Bush tax cut puts him in a position of playing the villain, opening him up to GOP pot-shots that the average American will see as completely logical.
So what's a Democrat to do? Sell the idea of increasing taxes in a way the average American who works all day can understand: Taxes are dues that all Americans pay, just like union dues. It's not about taxes, it's about one's patriotic dues. Not paying these dues, especially if you are able or a corporation, is unpatriotic:
It is an issue of patriotism! Are you paying your dues, or are you trying to get something for free at the expense of your country? It's about being a member. People pay a membership fee to join a country club, for which they get to use the swimming pool and the golf course. But they didn't pay for them in their membership. They were built and paid for by other people and by this collectivity. It's the same thing with our country -- the country as country club, being a member of a remarkable nation.
I can't cover all Lakoff's use of linguistics here. It's just too much, and too good of a read. But the troubling part is that it doesn't seem to be sinking in on our side. Conservative think tanks are pouring billions into framing every issue. What are the Democrats doing:
Right now the Democratic Party is into marketing. They pick a number of issues like prescription drugs and Social Security and ask which ones sell best across the spectrum, and they run on those issues. They have no moral perspective, no general values, no identity. People vote their identity, they don't just vote on the issues, and Democrats don't understand that.
Think what you want about the psychology behind this. It's time to talk the talk.