That was the message of cognitive linguist George Lakoff’s excellent diary yesterday. He advised Obama’s message crafters (e.g., us) to watch word association.
BAD: McCain is no MAVERICK.
BETTER: McCain is a WEATHER VANE.
BAD: McCain offers no MEANINGFUL CHANGE.
BETTER: McCain means more of the SAME FAILURE.
BAD: McCain is not telling the TRUTH.
BETTER: McCain is a McFIBBER.
What’s wrong with the BADs?
Your mind associates words despite the "not"s and "no"s. (After all--your brain says--if there was no "Maverick" quality to McCain...why do I always hear "Maverick" and "McCain" together?) Ditto "MEANINGFUL CHANGE" and "TRUTH."
(Do you have any of your own BAD’s and BETTERs to offer? The BAD's are not hard to spot; but finding the right BETTER is a challenge.)
Watch our people on TV for a while, and you will see lot’s of chances to improve word associations. And I hope Lakoff’s message gets to Obama’s speech writers, ad people, and other message crafters.
Lakoff’s diary was great, but too much a dissertation to make it to the Rec list. (By the time you finished reading it, it had already been washed away by the fire hose that is DKOS.)
I hope some of you go back and give it a read.
And so you will have more time for that, I’ll end here. Beyond making Lakoff’s point about word association, the broader purpose of this diary is to pimp his.
P.S. I will add one thing. I think there are exceptions to this word association rule. First, how do you burst the (e.g.) "maverick" bubble without at least naming it? I think it’s an unavoidable evil--but then don’t keep saying it. Also, I think there is an exception for humor. Jon Stewart’s hilarious send-up of McCain the "Reformed Maverick" was spot on. I think humor and irony "dis-associate" associations, and that may be a key to humor. It jiggles the brain.