There is some strong criticism coming from the far Left. It is not, however, directed at Bush, the Republicans, or Conservative Textbook. It is instead directed at the liberals (as opposed to liberal kooks which comprise the far Left). It comes from a man who was hired to end the continuing defeats of the Democratic Party. George Lakoff is his name, and he is a professor (it goes without saying that he is liberal) from Berkeley.
You see, it is unnatural for Democrats to not be in power. It is simply not the way the order of the universe is set up. Democrats should be on top, Republicans should be at the bottom. Therefore, since the Republicans are at the top right now, it is simply a small matter for the Democrats to regain the top spot in this country that they so despise. The way to do that, of course, is not to change their positions so that more people will vote for them. The way to regain power is to change their message, not their positions. Therefore, they hired Lakoff to help them “sound” different.
Lakoff, in his piece, states that the Democrats were doing fine lately. Bush’s poll numbers (can we really trust polls anymore?) are down, Iraq poll numbers (can we really trust polls anymore?) are down, and supposedly the polls for the Republican Party (can we really trust polls anymore?) are down. Lakoff claims that the Democrats were doing their job correctly, until Karl Rove (that evil genius) spoke a while ago. Lakoff writes:
The first lesson of framing is not to activate the other guy’s frame. Negating a frame activates it in the minds of hearers, as Richard Nixon found out when he said “I am not a crook” and everybody thought of him as a crook.
This is so true. I learned on my debate team that you must never associate yourself with what you are debating against. It is an easy way to loose a debate. Continuing, Lakoff writes:
Rove managed to link Iraq with 911 again, and to delegitimate the Democrats in the process. And he did it with the Democrats’ help.
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.”
Lakoff then writes a long list of consequences that have come about because of Rove’s quote.
1.Rove changed the context of discourse, from Bush’s disaster in Iraq, to support for Bush in the wake of 911.
2.The Democrats had had the Republicans playing defense; Rove put them on offense and the Democrats on defense.
3.With the words “savagery” and “attack”, Rove evoked the frame in which war is the appropriate response. He thus made Bush the heroic Commander-in-Chief in the war frame, while making “liberals” wimps for wanting to deny Bush unlimited war powers.
4.Rove thus evoked the conservative branding of liberals as weak and conservatives as strong.
5.When the Democrats attacked Rove for his remarks and defended themselves, they wound up expressing support for Bush’s going to war after 911, and with it implicit support for Bush’s position in Iraq.
6.Rove made putative Democratic weakness the issue, and by negating the frame, the Democrats played right into his hands.
7.Moreover, using the word “liberal” and not “Democrat”, Rove made it look like any Democrat attacking his remarks was a lily-livered liberal, and that the party had been taken over by weak-kneed chickens – anyone against Bush’s use of the military.
8.This enabled the right-wing message machine to go to work, attacking the Democrats as being controlled by naïve unpatriotic weaklings – MoveOn,org, Howard Dean, George Soros, Michael Moore.
9.Rove, of course, stood tall and strong, sticking by his guns, with a loud chorus of supporters.
10.This enabled Scott McClellan, the administration mouthpiece, to call for a nation debate on conservative – liberal philosophy, beginning with the handling of 911.
Though I disagree with most everything this guy stands for, I applaud him for being correct in every one of those consequences. He is completely right.
Moreover, using the word “liberal” and not “Democrat”, Rove made it look like any Democrat attacking his remarks was a lily-livered liberal, and that the party had been taken over by weak-kneed chickens – anyone against Bush’s use of the military.
That statement right there is probably the most important of the entire list. Remember how it seemed like after Rove (that evil genius) said what he said, every Democrat on this good Earth seemed to start crying and protesting that “Rove would call Democrats weak!” What does that mean? It means that most Democrats are, in fact, liberals!
This is profound. You see, except for the unenlightened and intolerant kooks at MoveOn.org and The Blue Voice, Democrats do not want to be called liberal. The word liberal invokes the images of high taxes, weak defense, communism, LBJ, and so on. Those are things that do not win anymore at the ballot box; therefore, Democrats do not want to be associated with the word liberal.
However, when Rove spoke, many Democrats, who claim to be moderate, wanted Rove to retract his insulting comment. Well, if the comment was insulting to someone, it means the comment attacked them personally. And if it attacked them personally, then they must be liberals.
(Gasp!) I thought Democrats were moderates! I guess not. So it seems that Democrats are still liberal. And thanks to Rove, we know exactly which ones are liberal. Lakoff knows it, Rove knows it, I know it, and basically everyone except the intolerant folks at The Blue Voice knows it. Rove (that evil genius) is brilliant.
Your favorite 17 year old snowboarder and political guru,
Caleb
No comments:
Post a Comment