Lakoff's book on how to argue politics

Do read Lakoff's short book on how "framing" has been used by the likes of Karl Rove:

Do not use their language. Their language picks out a frame -- and it won't be the frame you want.

Let me give you an example. On the day that George W. Bush arrived in the White House, the phrase "tax relief" started coming out of the White House. It still is: It was used a number of times in this year's State of the Union address, and is showing up more and more in preelection speeches four years later. Think of the framing for relief. For there to be relief there must be an affliction, an afflicted party, and a reliever who removes the affliction and is therefore a hero. And if people try to stop the hero, those people are villains for trying to prevent relief.

When the word tax is added to relief, the result is a metaphor: Taxation is an affliction. And the person who takes it away is a hero, and anyone who tries to stop him is a bad guy. This is a frame. It is made up of ideas, like affliction and hero. The language that evokes the frame comes out of the White House, and it goes into press releases, goes to every radio station, every TV station, every newspaper. And soon the New York Times is using tax relief. And it is not only on Fox; it is on CNN, it is on NBC, it is on every station because it is "the president's tax-relief plan."

And soon the Democrats are using tax relief -- and shooting themselves in the foot.

  -- George Lakoff, Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives

•  I'm on relief...

  Interesting that a term like "relief" which was the term for welfare back in the 60's, had a bad connotation (perhaps because of the immorality or laziness of the people afflicted) while tax-relief now has a much more positive connotation of people needing to fix an awful affliction.

  Anyway, thanks for sharing that.  And it's true, the Dems have done just that -- pick up the frames put forth by Republicans (i can think, off the top of my head, about how health care reform is framed nowadays).

  by anju on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 09:46:03 AM PDT

•  Another GOP Myth Exposed

  Republicans like to claim that they are pro-growth, anti-government tax slashers while Democrats are anti-business tax raisers.

  But Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist for Standard & Poor's, says that since 1945, the S&P 500 index has averaged annual increases of 10.7 percent when Democrats are in the White House, but only 7.6 percent when the President is a Republican.

  What happens when incumbents win, or when the incumbent party retains the White House?  The next year, the market rises an average 5.5 percent for Republicans, but rises 16.8 percent for Democrats.

  What happens when the incumbents lose?  When a Democrat is beaten by a Republican, the market falls the next year on average 10.2 percent.  When a Republican is beaten by a Democrat, the market rises the next year on average 6.2 percent.

   "So, no matter which way you slice and dice, the market does better under Democrats," Stovall said. "If you go by the statistics alone, you want to vote Democratic."

  [from a story in the Cincinnati Enquirer by John Byczkowski.]
  

  by wcalvin on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 11:12:53 AM PDT