Booman Tribune

How to Win a War of Words

by BooMan
Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 12:41:16 AM EST

Some dude sent a memo around the Hill. Yawn. What insight!

“Republicans have been kicking our rhetorical butt since about 1995,” [Dave] Helfert wrote...

His memo is sharply critical of Republican policies but also suggests a neurological explanation for Republican message success: By using emotional appeals and warning of dire threats, Republicans can trigger neurons called “amygdalae” in the temporal lobe, which is the seat of the “fight or flight” response in the brain.

“Almost every Republican message contains a simple and direct moral imperative, a stark contrast between good and evil, right and wrong, common sense and fuzzy liberal thinking,” Helfert wrote. “Meanwhile, we’re trying to ignite passions with analyses of optimum pupil-teacher ratios.”

Score one for George Lakoff. Who cares?

Here's what interested me (emphasis mine).

But another Democratic aide said Helfert’s memo reflects the frustration of many of those with a role in getting the message out. Several hundred of them assembled for Monday’s meeting in the Ways and Means Committee room. “I don’t agree with every point he’s making, but the sentiment of exasperation I totally agree with,” said the aide.

As a case in point, he cited Democrats’ frustration over the likely showdown with President Bush over supplemental spending for the Iraq war. Democrats are discussing not sending a supplemental spending bill to the floor until Bush changes course on the war. But that makes many Democrats nervous that Bush will use the tactic to say Democrats aren’t supporting the troops.

“Are we any more prepared to deal with the threats that are going to come about cutting off funds to the troops?” asked the aide.

Okay!! Democrats are 'discussing not sending a supplemental spending bill to the floor until Bush changes course on the war.'. That's good. That's very, very good. Here's a piece of advice. Follow through on this idea. What's more, get the presidential candidates to support you and take the lead on this strategy. If any candidate won't support it, toss them aside. Just say no.

The president is polling at 24%. His idea of a comeback is to veto health care for children and cut off people's heat in the middle of winter. And you are afraid of this?

Republicans have done a better job by developing poll data into focus group-tested messages like “culture of life” and “defending marriage,” along with attacks like “cut and run” and “plan for surrender” in Iraq, he argued.

In particular, Helfert points to Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who helped develop the 1994 “Contract with America” and is credited with helping Republicans come up with terms for polices like “Healthy Forests” and “Death Tax.”

Here is our rebuttal. 'You elected us to get us out of Iraq and we are going to get us out of Iraq. We gave the president a surge...it hasn't worked. We will appropriate no more money for Iraq except funds to facilitate a total withdrawal of our troops. We will not drop this fiasco on the doorstep of the next president.'

Say it over and over again.



Display:
Democrats in general and liberals in particular need to get better at describing what they stand for and what they are going to do about it in a simple. direct, and strong fashion.

We need to get out of this whiney mode where we buy into stupid republican frames and then getting distracted by some silly mock scandal about a singer at a campaign event.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

by Luam (LuamDK at gmail.com) on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 02:08:57 AM EST
Dems form the worst political opposition ever, anywhere.

Even when they make a good move, they make sure to make it insignificant. And you can count on them to avoid doing exactly what is needed to be done.

by das monde on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 05:17:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Democrats spend too much time appealing to reason.  I understand why - it seems like the way that civilized human beings should go about making decisions.  It's actually a good chunk of the reason that I vote for Dem candidates nowadays - they usually have well-reasoned stances on issues that have been well-researched and don't just rely on "booga-booga vote for me or else" tactics and coded winks and nods to their "base".

Republicans spend a lot of time appealing to emotion.  This is, as BooMan points out, not any kind of new insight.  But it works.  That's why when Dems pull out the appeal to emotion card the GOPers go APE. SHIT.  Look at how they reacted to the S-CHIP debate when the Dems had the audacity to show people who had been helped by the program (which was actually an appeal to reason, I think, but they accidentally stumbled into a good emotional appeal):

APE. SHIT.  The GOP was reduced to throwing stinky monkey poo all over the place because they couldn't figure out how to react, they just knew they HAD to react.  They've been playing the "think of the children" card for decades and they KNOW that it works.  Suddenly the Dems were throwing the "think of the children" card right in their faces.  The smart ones knew it was coming and supported the program - the dumb ones were left slackjawed when the Dems used their own trick against them.

The problem with the Iraq war debate is that all of the good reasons for getting out of Iraq are reasonable ones.  And all of the reasons for staying in Iraq are emotional ones.  That's a tough sell - the folks who can be convinced by reason have been convinced.  And coming up with emotional reasons to get out of Iraq is HARD - especially when the troops there are volunteers and have a strong sense of loyalty to their fellows and a strong sense of duty.  When the folks on the ground get repeatedly quoted as saying "I want to stay here and fight until we win" it makes it hard to come up with an emotional appeal on their behalf.  And any emotional appeal for the Iraqis is a double-edged sword - there's always the argument that things might get worse if we leave.  That's a powerful emotional appeal right there - doing something that might make things worse is harder to justify than maintaining a status quo - even if maintaining the status quo actually makes things worse.

I wish there was an easy answer to this but there isn't.  But Democrats have to stop trying to govern with the citizenry they wish they had and start acknowledging the way the world actually works.  Work to change it by all means, but don't ignore the fact that people in this country just aren't as reasonable as one might want them to be and work with that.  If you want to call it "framing" fine, whatever, but the point is figure out what you want to do through reason, find a good emotional appeal to sell it to the masses and then DO IT.  Don't fret and panic and go through a litany of all the bad things that Republicans are going to do to you over it - commit to the damn action and make figuring out how to neutralize the Republican emotional appeals part and parcel with that action.  Stop being such whiny pissants and DO SOMETHING.  That is why we elected them after all.

by nonynony on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 09:22:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But Democrats have to stop trying to govern with the citizenry they wish they had and start acknowledging the way the world actually works.  Work to change it by all means, but don't ignore the fact that people in this country just aren't as reasonable as one might want them to be and work with that.

"You go to war with the citizenry you have, not the citizenry you wish you had"

Ahhhh.....the Rumsfeld spirit lives on!!!

Your comments sound very much on-the-mark to me.

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"

by MikeInOhio on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 09:51:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree that emotional appeals are important, though I would not say that the repubs did not know how to react in the CHIP debate. They knew exactly what they were doing - and they succeeded to won satisfaction (so far). On the other hand, Dems never now well they are connecting either with emotional or rational appeals - they can't see any midway results, and just hope that next election will be rewarding.

But I do not quite agree with this:

Democrats spend too much time appealing to reason.  I understand why - it seems like the way that civilized human beings should go about making decisions.

To me, dems are playing appeals to reason, and showing (whether willfully or not) that reason does not work. The regard of reason is the biggest casualty of the 21st century political process. Of course, it all started in full with the media liberalization act of 1996 (thanks, Clinton). But the thing is: Dems showed no capability to sustain rational manners of political discourse. Kerry missed a lot of chances, for example. We need to connect emotionally, but we badly need to (re)impose more rational discourse as well - rationality is on our side, and that is why it is skillfully diminished by the opponents.

On the other hand, routines of rational thinking should not be seen as restriction of ourselves. We can play with rationality more creatively and less predictively, so to overwhelm the opponents a little and take some initiative.

by das monde on Sat Oct 27th, 2007 at 01:40:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
From the article:

"Everybody's a message expert," said one Democratic leadership aide. "The fact of the matter is Democrats are working hard to communicate our accomplishments. There is work to be done and that's why Democrats are working together and mounting an aggressive campaign to discuss the real victories we have won for the American people."

I don't know who this unnamed aide is, but he's not only not listening (as usual) he's actually quite disdainful of the whole effort to turn things around.
I don't understand how the democrats are ignoring their low approval ratings, or how they're rationalizing breaking their most important promises, but this guy's comment certainly provides a clue.  There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.  It's kind of like my old man in this interminable argument we've been having, in which he says the argument is about anything but what it's about.

"We appreciate input from those who have been on the front lines, and we value their opinions," said Nadeam Elshami, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)."

How patronizing can you get?  These are people who are simply NOT LISTENING.  They seem to have told themselves a completely different narrative about what their 06 victory meant, and while I'm also pleased that "Democrats are discussing not sending a supplemental spending bill to the floor until Bush changes course on the war", I'm resigned to the fact that the leadership aides quoted above will probably have the final say in the matter.  Which means Bush will get more money, no strings attached.

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

by brendan on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 08:05:33 AM EST
only part that gets my attention:
But that makes many Democrats nervous that Bush will use the tactic to say Democrats aren't supporting the troops.

note how he is worried about what others will say as if that speech act was only available to one party and the dems were rendered in impotent silence at all times. tacit acknowlegement that dems have no message control, and the media is a hostile environment for the democratic perspective. you'd think a majority would try to do something about that, but instead today's dems just accept that playing field and always bring their trusty knives to the gunfight. what losers.


"Are we any more prepared to deal with the threats that are going to come about cutting off funds to the troops?" asked the aide.

what kind of threats, from whom? he's not talking about angry bobbleheads on teevee; he's already admitted that's a lost cause. he means threats from those who profit from continued war, those who are currently pouring money into dem coffers, those who once supported the bushies but have felt the popular tide turn. the ones paying for a political rebranding of the war (HRC's "fewer" troops).

by chicago dyke (anheduanna at yahoo.com) on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 09:00:10 AM EST
Nothing like doing something to increase your support among the lowly masses of common folk.

Clinton throws glitzy $1M birthday bash

The event doubled as a $1.5 million fundraising haul with the most expensive tickets going for the Federal Election Commission maximum of $2,300. The show's "cheap seats" in the balcony cost $100.

Man oh man........There is going to be some hay made out of this!!!!!!

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"

by MikeInOhio on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 11:26:21 AM EST
Can't be good throwing a 1 million dollar b-day party. Whatever happen to cake and ice cream or a pizza party at Show-Biz Pizza?

Maybe she is trying to deflect attention to her vote giving W defacto authority to invade Iran, I think it was  that traitor Joe sponsored the bill.

by americanforliberty on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 12:34:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
While I guess he was probably afraid to come out of the house on his birthday, I'm sure someone like Brit Hume will sarcastically point out the contrast with how Bush celebrated his 60th birthday.
So the president at 60 is hardly pulling the covers over his head. But neither was he interested in a showy celebration.

Bush's birthday party Tuesday was a low-key affair -- a buffet dinner of fried chicken, Cajun shrimp, potato salad and roasted corn, plus an oversize three-tiered chocolate cake.

His actual birthday today will be business as usual. Bush will meet with the prime minister of Canada, then fly to Chicago, where the most powerful Baby Boomer (and Republican) in America will spend the evening he turns 60 having dinner with civic leaders and Mayor Richard Daley -- a Democrat.

Faux News will be in full blown Category 5 spin mode on this one.  Way to go Hillary !!

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"

by MikeInOhio on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 01:38:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...it's what they should say relentlessly, repeatedly:

'You elected us to get us out of Iraq and we are going to get us out of Iraq. We gave the president a surge...it hasn't worked. We will appropriate no more money for Iraq except funds to facilitate a total withdrawal of our troops. We will not drop this fiasco on the doorstep of the next president.'

And some of them will. Unfortunately, that idea does [make] many Democrats nervous that Bush will use the tactic to say Democrats aren't supporting the troops.

It's been the same since January 2007. And it will be the same until January 2009. And then, who knows...?


"We're trying to give the illusion of due diligence." --Bennett Holiday to Jimmy Pope in Syriana

by Meteor Blades (tleelange@hotmail.com) on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 04:21:50 AM EST
It's hard work, but somebody's got to be the grown-up.  

Cut off the allowance - they used to call this tough love.

by Alice on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 07:32:06 AM EST
Well, it seems like another opportunity to prove they stand for something has come along.  Doesn't it just seem like the opportunities are endless?
Mukasey's Nomination Runs Into Trouble

Judge Michael Mukasey's nomination for attorney general ran into trouble Thursday when two top Senate Democrats said their votes hinge on whether he will say on the record that an interrogation technique that simulates drowning is torture.

"It's fair to say my vote would depend on him answering that question," Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told reporters late Thursday.

"This to me is the seminal issue," said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, another member of Leahy's panel. Asked if his vote depends on whether Mukasey equates waterboarding with torture, Durbin answered: "It does."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said his support could be in doubt over the same issue.

"I think if he doesn't change his direction in that regard, he could have at least one concern and that's me," Reid told reporters.

Sound like fighting words???

"As he always does, Judge Mukasey will answer all questions from the Judiciary Committee in a clear and forthright manner," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.

Hmmmmmm..........You mean like this, Tony?

   MUKASEY: If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional. [...]

    WHITEHOUSE: If it's torture. That's a massive hedge. I mean, it either is or it isn't. Do you have an opinion on whether waterboarding...is constitutional?

    MUKASEY: If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional.

    WHITEHOUSE: I'm very disappointed in that answer. I think it is purely semantic.

    MUKASEY: I'm sorry.

Okay, Democrats.  Once again I'm waiting with bated breath.  Show me the money.


"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"

by MikeInOhio on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 08:48:07 AM EST
To Republicans everything is "giving comfort" to terrorist. At 24% poling numbers for W, Democrats have nothing to fear, unless their afraid of their own shadow.

Nothing is working in Iraq, it is time to force the Iraqi Military to stand-up while the U.S. pulls out. A kinda of sink or swim mentality for the Iraqi Military.

by americanforliberty on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 11:28:19 AM EST


Display:
Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]
Menu
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password





Find textbooks at Alibris!

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Senator Edward M. Kennedy tells his extraordinary personal story:

True Compass: A Memoir
by Edward M. Kennedy.

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

Boran2 and maryb2004 recommend:

The Big Over Easy: A Nursery Crime
by Jasper Fforde

Must-have information for all presidents-and citizens-of the twenty-first century?

Physics for Future Presidents: The Science behind the Headlines
Richard A. Muller

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES

Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos
by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.


Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")



Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)


Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)


"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen


The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review


BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual

$79.95 * Sale: $59.95


Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)


The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!


The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan


Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----


Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review


Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey


1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus



Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"


Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)


The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids

by Madeline Levine


Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com

:





We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Alibris - Books You Thought You'd Never Find
Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:
www.Patagonia.com


Listed on BlogShares

© 2009 Booman Tribune