Comments on: Politics of Language

By: Ted M

Ted M — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:42:00 +0000

For “gay marriage,” don’t lead with “gay,” which gives some of the audience the opportunity to reflexively object, and the “gay” modifier marks it as some special case of marriage. The issue is “Equal Marriage”—and who can be against that?

By: Ross Silverman

Ross Silverman — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:49:00 +0000

The poll is now up at my site. Thanks to everyone for their feedback!

By: blurry

blurry — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 03:49:06 +0000

trotsky- check out a salon article from today on forest policy, the bush administration, and small-scale loggers: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/07/27/healthy_forests/index.html

By: r. clayton

r. clayton — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:51:03 +0000

I’d be happier with the concept of framing and Lackoff’s promotion of it if somebody could bring up some examples of the consistent use of framing that didn’t make the framer look like reprehensible slime; media-intensive Republicans and the advertising industry certainly don’t meet that criterion. Given that framing is based on not-quite lying, incomplete truths and hypocrisy, I expect such examples, if they exist, would be uninspiring.

By: Trotsky

Trotsky — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 06:25:37 +0000

Blurry, Sure. We can only make laws for ourselves. That being the case, would it not be wise to ask, for instance, “How can we sustainably meet our needs for wood and other building materials?” (The Reagan-era clear-cutting was not, I’ll stress, sustainable.) Again, part of the framing depends on which experts you ask for advice. A forest ecologist will give you different answers than will a forester, who’s just a glorified tree farmer (not that there’s anything wrong with that). I’ve heard Sierra Club spokespersons dismiss the arguments of foresters simply because they are foresters who by professional necessity belive that cutting trees down is OK, and vice versa. Again, without even venturing into the global economy, it seems fair to ask that human needs be taken into account in environmental discussions. What’s the best way to harvest the wood we need, to divert the water we need. Most environmentalists, at least on the Left Coast, don’t feel they need to even address that kind of issue. I suppose it’s understandable for them to think they’re saving the Earth and the conservatives’ blessed free market forces can work out who pays for it, but they shouldn’t be surprised when the working-class types whose mills shut down decide that they’re going to vote for the guy who advocates raping the planet.

By: blurry

blurry — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 05:05:19 +0000

trot- While I entirely agree with your point, it’s somewhat unrealistic to expect environmental experts to advocate policies that are unsupported by existing regulatory structures. Transnational environmental governance would be best for the environment, but I seriously doubt that scientific experts would be taken seriously by policymakers if, when asked ‘should we cut down California’s trees?’ they responded by saying something like ‘yes, but only because it provides a market disincentive for timber firms to move production to the more fragile canadian boreal forest.’ The policy that experts advise for is always done within the context of social structures of governance and concern. Global environmental concern is growing, it’s unfortunate governance hasn’t kept pace. Is expecting otherwise some kind of defense of Bush’s science ‘policy?’

By: trotsky

trotsky — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 01:57:01 +0000

Another example he pointed to on the show concerned the Bush Administration’s environmental policy. Bush touts “common sense regulations,” which is short hand for saying: “We don’t need to consult environmental experts (who almost universally oppose what we’re trying to do.” But it carries a compelling double message — we’re doing something straightforward, and those who oppose it are not using common sense. As someone who lives in a rural western U.S. region that has been among those bearing the economic brunt of federal environmental regulations, I can assure you that a dose of common sense is indeed needed. Let’s consider framing and the questions we ask. “Environmental experts” disagree with the Bush adminstration’s policies. Fine. How does one become an environmental expert and what types of people are inclined to become such? The federal government’s policies over the Clinton years especially tended to lock up federal land and prevent any human use. This has undeniable environmental benefits, particularly to wildlife. Fine, but in the case of forests, in particular, we now have a case where California’s timber harvest has been reduced by 90 percent from its peak, but the state is using no less wood. Instead of being harvested here, that wood is clear-cut from the formely pristine Canadian boreal forests, because the Canadians have plenty of territory and, collectively, don’t give a snort about those deep dark woods. Now, not cutting wood in California’s national forests has undeniable benefits for spotted owls and other critters, but is there really any net, global environmental benefit if the net, global timber harvest remains the same, but is shifted to the convenient locales with the most relaxed regulations? It’s possible, but I doubt it. This redneck would have more respect for environmental experts if they thought about the whole supply chain, rather than just outsourcing U.S. environmental damage along with its jobs.

By: blair berbert

blair berbert — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 01:48:12 +0000

Well Ross, you’re starting off on the right foot. I mean, who doesn’t want “Progress”? Now those Liberals though, flaunting traditional American values, it’s horrible! A rose by any other name?

By: liberal japonicus

liberal japonicus — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 01:13:31 +0000

Specifically, he says they must develop the ability to counter Conservatives’ ruthless efficiency and almost fanatical devotion… No one expects a Spanish Inquisition!

By: abb1

abb1 — Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:27:10 +0000

The trick is not a good slogan, actually, it’s the homogeneity of it. Once a slogan or talking point has been approved by the Politburo, no rank&file member can be allowed to rephrase it, to use different words or change the order of them. Otherwise the party line will inevitably become distorted. Our Republican comrades understood the importance of language about a decade ago: Language: A Key Mechanism of Control, Newt Gingrich’s 1996 GOPAC memo. Clearly, now is time for our Democratic comrades to follow suit and successfully complete transformation of the US political system into nightmarish Orwellian dystopia.

By: fyreflye

fyreflye — Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:21:58 +0000

Clinton’s health plan didn’t fail becase of faulty labeling. It failed because he had no plan when he went into office and spent too long a time formulating one too publicly. By the time his team had come up with an unwieldy structure designed to subsidize the insurance industry everyone was sick of hearing about it and Republican hordes had retaken the House. Why everyone thinks Clinton was a brilliant politician has always puzzled me.

By: Max

Max — Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:31:24 +0000

What is guaranteed, affordable health insurance? I’ll take Monetary Policy for $100, Alex.

By: sq1

sq1 — Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:28:54 +0000

I think that I might have cause to disagree with this idea that “framing” will solve our problems. Now, don’t get me wrong, I like the idea, and think it’s great. I think it’s a natural thing that politically active people do – they try to put the best face on a policy that they support. I don’t think it’s the be-all, end-all because of what Ross said above. One of the first ideas for “reframing” the Health Care debate was Health Security. As we all now know, Pres. Clinton already advanced that as a “reframe.” And we know how that ended. “Reframing” is a good idea – I’ll be the last in the world to dissuade you all – but a much more important goal is build an unassailable position. Build your argument (my latest favorite is that Public Health is the linchpin of Homeland Security), then consider how it will be countered. Anyone who thinks that the Clinton White House effectively argued against the “Big Gov’t – Harry and Louise” ads is asleep, I think. They should have hired “Harry” and “Louise” first and made their own commercials arguing against “Big Business in our medicine cabinet.” The reason that conservative ideals catch hold in the mainstream isn’t because of effective framing. It’s because their framing attempts get played in the press over and over and over and over. Well, we’ve reached the part where I decide I’ve been rambling. Keep up the good work, all.

By: bull

bull — Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:04:30 +0000

I love this stuff: We’ve got such a great product and yet people aren’t buying it. Instead they’re buying that crappy product being peddled by our competitors! Why? It must be the advertising! It can’t be the product! It might also be that the customers are kind of dim. So we just need better advertising! Yeh, that’s it! Better slogans, that’s what we need! Actually, Charlie, it’s the product.

By: BigMacAttack

BigMacAttack — Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:55:40 +0000

Everyone does this already. Pro-Choice. Who is against choice? 40 million Americans without access to health care. All dying in front of the hospital. Well not really. All using the emergency room as a primary health care giver. But 40 million Americans using the emergency room as a primary care giver doesn’t quite have the same ring as 40 million Americans without access to health care. Maybe it works maybe it doesn’t. I doubt it.