When will the Dems learn?

[sleigh]

Someday, the Dems need to figure out that words actually matter, and that if they let the conservatives define the vocabulary, they will lose every time.

The latest example is the Immigration Bill. The right immediately started pointing and shrieking "It's amnesty! Amnesty!" -- a word designed to make the majority of the public feel uncomfortable and negative, and rather than redefining the issue, using another term, and refusing to fall into that trap, we have everyone on the left saying (with a bewildered look on their faces) "But it's not amnesty. Really, it's not amnesty. Not amnesty."

Look, when you sputter "Really, it's not amnesty," the only word people hear is "amnesty." All you do is reinforce the effect of the word and sink it deeper into the subconscious. You're playing their game. You're doing exactly what they want you to do.

You've already let them turn 'liberal' into a dirty word, which just boggles my mind. After all, 'conservative' can mean to be afraid and tentative, to be behind the times, to be conventional rather than creative, to be overly cautious, to be adverse to change. If anything, you should have made 'conservative' into an invective... and yet you've let them twist 'liberal' into something resembling a curse word -- so much so that half the Democrats are afraid to even use the term.

They did it to you with "cut-and-run" too -- you let them frame the debate with that phrase, then made the problem worse by using the term yourself. "I'm not advocating a cut-and-run policy..." Again, the only word in that sentence that gets heard is "cut-and-run"...

Stop it, would you?

Comments

[maiac.livejournal.com]

The right has the advantage of greater dishonesty. They view "framing" as outright manipulation of the media and the electorate. Cf. Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz, with their advice to use certain phrases and buzzwords to evoke an emotional response. The Democrats suffer under the fallacy that honesty, being better than dishonesty, must be more effective.

Framing isn't "dishonesty", of course, but the Democrats don't seem to be able to understand that connotation matters.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

But framing is much much easier if you're dishonest, and it's (just) much easier if you're willing to put rhetoric above content. I continually wrestle with trying to write at both levels at the same time. But so many issues are heavily nuanced, and simply don't reduce to sound-bites in an ethical manner.

B

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's 'dishonesty' or 'honesty.' It's just human inclinations. The average person, I would contend, won't listen to or read or bother to understand complex, well-reasoned arguments, for whatever reason or reasons. For the bulk of people, it's all about the rhetoric, not the content (as B says). It's the soundbite or the slogan, not the arguments for or against.

In politics, certainly, slogans and buzzwords matter a great deal. It's the bumper sticker; it's the stump speech with the right applause lines. That's not going to change, I would contend. And if it's not, then a political party that refuses to learn how to use those tools for its own best interest -- like it or not -- is dooming itself.

The far right knows, grasps, and uses those concepts; it doesn't seem that the left does. Until they do, they will continue to lose.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

There's an argument to make that today's issues are simply too complicated -- too nuanced, too dependent on minor details -- for the average voter to understand. I see evidence of that again and again; perfectly reasonable policy initiatives completely derailed by an obscure provision in the bill inserted by some lobbyist somewhere.

B

[madtruk.livejournal.com]

Why? What is "the avereage voter?" Who gave them the right to not understand important issues? Or, perhaps, their understanding doesn't meet your criteria? Sorry B-I'm feeling a little defensive of those poor average folks..wait, crap, what if I'm one? How would I know?

I'm fond of saying "Have you met the average American? Be damn glad they don't vote!" Their level of understanding slides to a much lower level than "the average voter."

With sleigh's original argument (and subsequent follow-ups) I agree. Except for the honesty bit-it is easier to frame a debate when you're willing to be intellectually dishonest, and I think many politicians make that calculated judgement that the end justifies the means, etc...

Perhaps 'earmarks' 'poison pills' and 'amendments' should be dealt with separately? Average voters don't have to understand the entire crappy process in order to know, at some level, something's wrong. Maybe there are too many lawyers around...

"But the universities are all closed, and there are no lawyers anymore." Abridged quote from what book?