Description
Author George Lakoff, who has become a key advisor to the Democratic Party, asserts that the Republican Party has enjoyed recent success because of the way it expertly "frames" the issues. Using carefully chosen terminology like "tax relief" and "family values," conservatives have cast themselves in a positive light and convinced many Americans to vote against their true beliefs. Now Lakoff shows how progressives can beat conservatives at their own game.
Status
Available
Call number
Genres
Publication
Chelsea Green Publishing (2004)
User reviews
LibraryThing member tmph
Well, it's a little book. Even so, it's still repetitive and simplistic. But, the fundamental point is very important to be aware of all the time.
LibraryThing member myfanwy
This has been touted as the key to understanding why the conservatives are doing so well, the perfect pick me up to downhearted liberals. Perhaps I'm simply still too exhausted by politics, or perhaps it was too built up, but I found this disappointingly incomplete.
I must concede Lakoff makes an
In any case, his ideas do have a kernel of truth in them. The conservatives are doing well because they have chosen the terms of the debate. We think in terms of "tax relief" and "pro-life" instead of using terms that would more accurately reflect our own beliefs. That is a good point. What I wish he didn't do as much was say "this is what conservatives think". Forgive me for saying, but I will never take a progressive university professor from Berkeley, CA, as an expert on what conservatives think. On page six he starts a long paraphrase of a conservative book. Maybe he's saving time here (it is a short book), but couldn't he have used their own words to prove his point? I have no idea how much is filtered through Lakoff to fit his lens and how much is from the original source!
If you read this book (and it does have a few good nuggets) be sure not to read it quickly as I did. It is best read as a series of lectures a week apart, or read while a three year old terrorizes your house, or while you are thinking about what groceries to buy or whether your stop on the subway is next. Then you will miss half of the text and not mind that he is repeating the same ideas using the same phrases in every single chapter. The books only 100 pages, long, but it could really have been cut down to one hour long speech.
I must concede Lakoff makes an
Show More
interesting argument here. He presents us with a lens, and like any lens, certain things become clearer while other things remain a little fuzzy. In essence this book is the Cliff's Notes version of his text Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. In that book he posits a theory: conservatives can be viewed as having a "strict father" frame which supports obedience and heirarchy, while progressives (he avoids the word "liberal") have a "nurturing parent" frame based on cooperation and responsibility. Lakoff then lists off all the things that fit this "there are two kinds of people in the world" philosophy. It does explain a fair bit, but naturally there are a few big holes. Lakoff explains over and over again that conservative ideology is based on self-interest and then tries to explain why conservatives do not vote according to their own self-interest. He explains that people do not vote rationally, and then discusses politics as if progressive ideology were the only rational ideology. (Thus, all democrats are voting rationally while conservatives vote irrationally.) Lakoff makes the claim that conservatives are doing well because they think long term. (And progressives don't? Hello, environmentalism!) He then goes on to discuss how this framing affects certain issues such as September 11th, the War on Terror, and gay marriage. (Including a rather ridiculous claim that people's feelings of impotence on September 11th related to the destruction of the phallic image of the twin towers. Okay, maybe if it were one tower I could see the analogy, but two? And what about all the women in the country for whom buildings don't automatically bring forth that imagery?)In any case, his ideas do have a kernel of truth in them. The conservatives are doing well because they have chosen the terms of the debate. We think in terms of "tax relief" and "pro-life" instead of using terms that would more accurately reflect our own beliefs. That is a good point. What I wish he didn't do as much was say "this is what conservatives think". Forgive me for saying, but I will never take a progressive university professor from Berkeley, CA, as an expert on what conservatives think. On page six he starts a long paraphrase of a conservative book. Maybe he's saving time here (it is a short book), but couldn't he have used their own words to prove his point? I have no idea how much is filtered through Lakoff to fit his lens and how much is from the original source!
If you read this book (and it does have a few good nuggets) be sure not to read it quickly as I did. It is best read as a series of lectures a week apart, or read while a three year old terrorizes your house, or while you are thinking about what groceries to buy or whether your stop on the subway is next. Then you will miss half of the text and not mind that he is repeating the same ideas using the same phrases in every single chapter. The books only 100 pages, long, but it could really have been cut down to one hour long speech.
Show Less
LibraryThing member lukeasrodgers
As all the endorsements of this book state, it's necessary reading for "progressives."
Not much to disagree with, except perhaps a tendency to oversimplify with the two family models Lakoff identifies. I think Lakoff also prematurely extends his analysis of American politics to politics tout court:
Not much to disagree with, except perhaps a tendency to oversimplify with the two family models Lakoff identifies. I think Lakoff also prematurely extends his analysis of American politics to politics tout court:
Show More
I would venture that American politics is, among post-industrial countries, uniquely characterized by tendencies to vote according to one's values rather than according to a candidate/party's proposed policies. Show Less
LibraryThing member booklvr
This is a must read for any progressive out there. Gives straight forward suggestions and explains why the Dems are losing debates time and again. A true teaching book.A Democrats Abroad Book Club recommendation.
LibraryThing member jordanjones
This is an essential guide to understanding how the political discussion is not about the topic itself, but how it is framed. For liberals, the fact that conservatives have been able to frame inheritance taxes (usually on previously "unrealized" and therefore never previously taxed gains) as a
Lakoff, experienced as a philosopher and cognitive scientist lays out the ways in which arguments are framed to lead people to "obvious" conclusions, which would not be obvious if there were different framing.
This is a compelling, entertaining, and brief book. For a more in-depth discussion of framing and the standard constructs of liberals and conservatives, see the Lakoff's "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think."
Show More
"death tax," means that the debate is over before it begins.Lakoff, experienced as a philosopher and cognitive scientist lays out the ways in which arguments are framed to lead people to "obvious" conclusions, which would not be obvious if there were different framing.
This is a compelling, entertaining, and brief book. For a more in-depth discussion of framing and the standard constructs of liberals and conservatives, see the Lakoff's "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think."
Show Less
LibraryThing member mrkay
Excellent book on understanding our values and ethics systems -- related to the power of propaganda and suggestive thinking. Regardless of political beliefs one should read this to understand the power of words and how they are manipulated to affect our emotive understandings.
LibraryThing member DLMorrese
The difference between conservatives and progressives? It's all about morality, specifically family morality or how people subjectively define a 'good' family. That's what George Lakoff, a cognitive scientist from University of California at Berkeley, claims in this book. Conservatives are
He may have a point. Let me share a personal anecdote. A few years ago, a nephew and his wife and kids were visiting. They are lovely people, but both parents are politically conservative (which I am not). Their kids were in the backyard and happened to start walking on a narrow, tile covered strip that runs between my concrete patio and some landscaping. It's a drainage system, a buried plastic pipe surrounded by rocks and covered by thin tiles. It is designed to shed water away from the patio and works quite well, but it's not substantial enough to use for a walkway. I began to say something like, "You shouldn't walk on that because—" I had intended to explain what it was and why the kids should use the concrete path instead, when their dad shouted at them, ordering them off. They complied instantly. "That's how you do it," he told me. I said nothing. They were his kids, after all, but I felt that what he had done was fundamentally wrong. His kids obeyed but they didn't understand. I didn't want blind obedience. I felt it important, essential really, for the kids to know why they shouldn't walk there. In my mind, blind obedience to authority is wrong. To my nephew, a child's blind obedience to his father is good.
But, back to the book.... Lakoff claims that these two different understandings of family values, 'strict father' versus 'nurturant parents,' helps explain the deep political divide between conservatives and progressives. It's not quite as simple as my short review makes it sound. If it was, all conservatives would agree on just about everything, as would all progressives. They obviously don't. To explain this, Lakoff identifies several variants within each of these two broad groups, but each, at their core, shares the applicable view of family.
He devotes much of this short book to 'framing,' which is about how people frame their beliefs and arguments about specific topics. Since this book is primarily about political issues, he uses those as examples. His advice is that it is important when discussing your views to present them within the context of your own framework. A conservative, for example, may see the great divide between rich and poor as perfectly legitimate because the rich deserve to be rich. Progressives might see the same issue as an unjust denial of equal rights and equal opportunity, and should speak to it in those terms.
Show More
operating within a framework constructed around a 'strict father morality' that stresses authority and obedience. Progressives, on the other hand, operate within a 'nurturant parent' framework that is founded on cooperation and understanding. These two different moral frameworks lead to fundamental disagreements between people about what is good, what is right, and what should be done in a wide variety of situations.He may have a point. Let me share a personal anecdote. A few years ago, a nephew and his wife and kids were visiting. They are lovely people, but both parents are politically conservative (which I am not). Their kids were in the backyard and happened to start walking on a narrow, tile covered strip that runs between my concrete patio and some landscaping. It's a drainage system, a buried plastic pipe surrounded by rocks and covered by thin tiles. It is designed to shed water away from the patio and works quite well, but it's not substantial enough to use for a walkway. I began to say something like, "You shouldn't walk on that because—" I had intended to explain what it was and why the kids should use the concrete path instead, when their dad shouted at them, ordering them off. They complied instantly. "That's how you do it," he told me. I said nothing. They were his kids, after all, but I felt that what he had done was fundamentally wrong. His kids obeyed but they didn't understand. I didn't want blind obedience. I felt it important, essential really, for the kids to know why they shouldn't walk there. In my mind, blind obedience to authority is wrong. To my nephew, a child's blind obedience to his father is good.
But, back to the book.... Lakoff claims that these two different understandings of family values, 'strict father' versus 'nurturant parents,' helps explain the deep political divide between conservatives and progressives. It's not quite as simple as my short review makes it sound. If it was, all conservatives would agree on just about everything, as would all progressives. They obviously don't. To explain this, Lakoff identifies several variants within each of these two broad groups, but each, at their core, shares the applicable view of family.
He devotes much of this short book to 'framing,' which is about how people frame their beliefs and arguments about specific topics. Since this book is primarily about political issues, he uses those as examples. His advice is that it is important when discussing your views to present them within the context of your own framework. A conservative, for example, may see the great divide between rich and poor as perfectly legitimate because the rich deserve to be rich. Progressives might see the same issue as an unjust denial of equal rights and equal opportunity, and should speak to it in those terms.
Show Less
LibraryThing member greeniezona
I was interested in this book as I was reading it, but looking back, having already read Moral Politics, I wonder if I got much new out of it. I suppose I would recommend this to progressives new to Lakoff's theories, who just want a concentrated primer on why framing matters so much. As for me, I
Show More
would be more interested in seeing the results of the new think tank to get concrete examples of ho to reframe current political issues. Show Less
LibraryThing member chellinsky
Don't Think consists, largely, of a series of articles or speeches that Lakoff gave in the years leading up to the 2004 election. He claims he wrote the book "people like Penney Kolb"--someone he cites in the book for having used his reframing techniques to alter a debate between conservatives and
The non-self-interested arguments are so appealing because, Lakoff suggests, they draw on underlying "moral identit[ies] and values" (Hazen's Introduction, xi). Thus, a large portion of the book is devoted to conceptualizing what moral identities and values conservatives and progressives possess. He defines conservatives as devotees of the "strict father model" and progressives as "nurturing parents." Using this metaphor, he slowly creates a frame progressives can use to rehash political commentary on their terms. He gives some guidelines about how to do that, but if I told you those, you wouldn't have to read his book ;).
That's all well and good. I'm fairly convinced that Lakoff is on to something here. I'm saddened that he thinks it will take considerable investments in time and money, but that's to be expected. However, I find his grasp of international relations theory (IR) a lacking most of the time.
He begins traveling down a shaky intellectual road when defining "rational actors" and "self-interest" (10). He adopts that founding assumptions of IR Realist thought when defining these two terms (e.g. the international system exists in anarchy). However, he then converts these academic assumptions into the popular political notion of "rogue states" and "friendly nations"--two terms that have no meaning in a Realist's world. There aren't value judgments placed on other states in this type of IR. We should be worried about everyone. Thus, no state is a friend. At the same time, everyone is a rational actor, so no state can be rogue. In essence, he adopts political framing language from the conservatives that would be best left out of the progressive dialogue. [I'll ignore the fact that he is incredibly reductionist in his discussion of self-interest for now.] This misuse of "rationality" reappears throughout the book (see page 71 for a poor application of the idea).
To be fair, Lakoff does get some of his IR conceptions correct. Most of his cognitive science approach correlates directly with the work of Operational Code (OPCODE) researchers that use language within public statements to determine what frame policymakers use. (See some of the recent work by Mark Schafer for the current state-of-the-art in OPCODE.) Additionally, his discussion of terrorists and their motives rings true with many of my beliefs regarding international politics and politics more generally. Namely, there is a socioeconomic component that traditional "hard power" does not reach. Thus, a war to end terrorism misses the "primary cause" of terrorism, or most international crises for that matter (61). Last, Lakoff appears to channel Wendt's concepts of IR when describing the "moral norms of the international community" (64). The classic, "Anarchy is What States Make of It" (PDF) works well here.
Show More
progressives (112). This concept of reshaping the debate permeates and motivates his book. Put simply, Lakoff writes, "Do not use their language" (3). He has a point. As he goes on to demonstrate, so many of the policies people support that are not actually in their best interest can best be described as well framed. In other words, people think they are beneficial because that is their concept of reality based on the language conservatives use.The non-self-interested arguments are so appealing because, Lakoff suggests, they draw on underlying "moral identit[ies] and values" (Hazen's Introduction, xi). Thus, a large portion of the book is devoted to conceptualizing what moral identities and values conservatives and progressives possess. He defines conservatives as devotees of the "strict father model" and progressives as "nurturing parents." Using this metaphor, he slowly creates a frame progressives can use to rehash political commentary on their terms. He gives some guidelines about how to do that, but if I told you those, you wouldn't have to read his book ;).
That's all well and good. I'm fairly convinced that Lakoff is on to something here. I'm saddened that he thinks it will take considerable investments in time and money, but that's to be expected. However, I find his grasp of international relations theory (IR) a lacking most of the time.
He begins traveling down a shaky intellectual road when defining "rational actors" and "self-interest" (10). He adopts that founding assumptions of IR Realist thought when defining these two terms (e.g. the international system exists in anarchy). However, he then converts these academic assumptions into the popular political notion of "rogue states" and "friendly nations"--two terms that have no meaning in a Realist's world. There aren't value judgments placed on other states in this type of IR. We should be worried about everyone. Thus, no state is a friend. At the same time, everyone is a rational actor, so no state can be rogue. In essence, he adopts political framing language from the conservatives that would be best left out of the progressive dialogue. [I'll ignore the fact that he is incredibly reductionist in his discussion of self-interest for now.] This misuse of "rationality" reappears throughout the book (see page 71 for a poor application of the idea).
To be fair, Lakoff does get some of his IR conceptions correct. Most of his cognitive science approach correlates directly with the work of Operational Code (OPCODE) researchers that use language within public statements to determine what frame policymakers use. (See some of the recent work by Mark Schafer for the current state-of-the-art in OPCODE.) Additionally, his discussion of terrorists and their motives rings true with many of my beliefs regarding international politics and politics more generally. Namely, there is a socioeconomic component that traditional "hard power" does not reach. Thus, a war to end terrorism misses the "primary cause" of terrorism, or most international crises for that matter (61). Last, Lakoff appears to channel Wendt's concepts of IR when describing the "moral norms of the international community" (64). The classic, "Anarchy is What States Make of It" (PDF) works well here.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bangerlm
The gist of this book is that you should not use the language of those you are debating because it reinforces their frame/world view/idea. You want to tie your own ideas to your frame/world view/idea and use only that language. For instance for progressive ideas you would say taxes = investments,
He also explains how the right has a father figure world view, while progressives have a nurturant parent world view. The father figure/authoritarian male world view description helped me understand how people can rationalize their hypocritical positions on various issues more than any other explanation I have encountered thus far.
Show More
regulations = protections, protest is patriotic, etc. He notes that gay rights was successful in this with the messaging "Freedom to Marry" and "Love is Love". He also lays out how the Republican party has been training their members, and implementing this idea very consistently for decades.He also explains how the right has a father figure world view, while progressives have a nurturant parent world view. The father figure/authoritarian male world view description helped me understand how people can rationalize their hypocritical positions on various issues more than any other explanation I have encountered thus far.
Show Less
Subjects
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
2004
ISBN
1419339788 / 9781419339783
UPC
807897027826