|
 aliasinkhorn rated 7 months ago - From the page: How does language influence the terms of political debate?
Language always comes with what is called framing. Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like revolt, that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ...
|
|
12 Reviews
-
-
- aliasinkhorn rated 7 months ago
- From the page: How does language influence the terms of political debate?
Language always comes with what is called framing. Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like revolt, that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame.
'Conservatives understand what unites them, and they understand how to talk about it, and they are constantly updating their research on how best to express their ideas.'
-George Lakoff
If you then add the word voter in front of revolt, you get a metaphorical meaning saying that the voters are the oppressed people, the governor is the oppressive ruler, that they have ousted him and this is a good thing and all things are good now. All of that comes up when you see a headline like voter revolt - something that most people read and never notice. But these things can be affected by reporters and very often, by the campaign people themselves.
Here's another example of how powerful framing is. In Arnold Schwarzenegger's acceptance speech, he said, When the people win, politics as usual loses. What's that about? Well, he knows that he's going to face a Democratic legislature, so what he has done is frame himself and also Republican politicians as the people, while framing Democratic politicians as politics as usual in advance. The Democratic legislators won't know what hit them. They're automatically framed as enemies of the people.
Admittedly, I was pleased as I read this article and was ready to Stumble it before finishing. A sentence caught my attention and I continued to read. By the time I finished, it was difficult to accept this gentleman as an academic scholar. Reflecting further, I realized he's cloistered in a world of mind that hasn't been in political campaigns - in any party, accept on campus, perhaps, where academic politics can be petty, viscious and feudal.
In any event, back on topic. The idea of framing is nothing new to Democrats. Roosevelt did a handsome job with it. The difficulty, admitted within the Democratic party, is that there are too many interest groups to sum in a phrase, to vocalize in a sentence that resonates with most of the voters. And framing usually anchors with core values. Here the Democratic Party is found wanting - contrary to 35 plus years ago, when it had the franchise on 'values' and 'moral imperatives'.
The best 'framing' the Democratic Party has currently is Obama's phrase - which is not 'values' based - it's personal 'gains' based, process based - but not 'values' or 'goals' based.
Compare Obama to Reagan, as an old colleague in the party wrote recently. 'Reagan framed his second election on traditional family values. And we couldn't fight him on it.'
- cbarcus rated 26 months ago
- An amazingly insightful look at the role of language in politics. I believe understanding this is essential to effectively communicating political ideas in the United States.
- Codebender rated 28 months ago
- Dems are no good at "weasel words," and make lousy politicians as a result.
- Doctor-Esquire rated 34 months ago
- This is one of the best articles I've read about political thought and publicity. It would be easy to just dismiss what right wing politicians do as "dishonest spin" or "propaganda" but that attitude is part of the reason why leftists are doing so poorly in American politics: Left wingers feel that the content should speak for itself and spend very little effort on actually presenting it, while right wingers know that perception is power, and spend a lot of time and money on developing that perception in their favor.
This article is a summary of the problem, presented by a progressive think tank that's devoted to developing ways for left wingers to end the stranglehold that right wingers have on public perception.
- Laukev7 rated 35 months ago
- From the page: ""Conservative foundations give large block grants year after year to their think tanks. They say, 'Here's several million dollars, do what you need to do.' And basically, they build infrastructure, they build TV studios, hire intellectuals, set aside money to buy a lot of books to get them on the best-seller lists, hire research assistants for their intellectuals so they do well on TV, and hire agents to put them on TV. They do all of that. Why? Because the conservative moral system, which I analyzed in "Moral Politics," has as its highest value preserving and defending the "strict father" system itself. And that means building infrastructure. As businessmen, they know how to do this very well. Meanwhile, liberals' conceptual system of the "nurturant parent" has as its highest value helping individuals who need help. The progressive foundations and donors give their money to a variety of grassroots organizations. They say, 'We're giving you $25,000, but don't waste a penny of it. Make sure it all goes to the cause, don't use it for administration, communication, infrastructure, or career development.' So there's actually a structural reason built into the worldviews that explains why conservatives have done better.""
Merci, frenchfrog.
- ActionJeans rated 13 months ago
- A linguistics professor discussing the power of language in politics. I don't what else to say, just a really interesting read that Amyss sent me. You should read it.
- abbynormal92243 rated 15 months ago
- From the page: "Why was the Rockridge Institute created, and how do you define its purpose?
I got tired of cursing the newspaper every morning. I got tired of seeing what was going wrong and not being able to do anything about it.
The background for Rockridge is that conservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing."
THIS is why I want to dive into the field of linguistics!
- DickBeldin rated 15 months ago
- Very true.
- vashsunglasses rated 34 months ago
- I'm amazed. Here is a liberal who actually understands conservatives!
- DeanMetcalfe rated 34 months ago
- http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm....................................
ht tp://www.911dossier.co.uk/hj07.html.......................................
http ://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/9.html.....................
http:/ /www.septembereleventh.org/index.php..................................
http://n ews.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4508640.stm..........................
http://www .mycountryrightorwrong.net/
|
