Blogcritics: Comments on don't think of an elephant! (review)

Comment by Randy

Mon, 7 Feb 2005 08:00:51 EST

There are certainly some great points about language usage, something both parties are adept at. The statement regarding asbestos and Haliburton is flat wrong though. Haliburton settled their asbestos lawsuit by paying to pay over 4 billion to a trust fund. That's water under the bridge. If you have a desire to understand the asbestos issue try reading some of Lester Brickman's articles. You would then understand how the trial lawyers have taken the issue as a right to fleece America.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 23:19:15 EST

"No guts, no glory," Dave.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 20:18:22 EST

Hal: He discusses the Republican "Contract With America" (since breached), coming up with "death tax" to replace "estate tax," "healthy forests," "privatize" and other emotive, manipulative words. What you call 'emotive and manipulative' some of us would call true and accurate. Hal: As to "nice," the word "unique" didn't communicate anything to me so I didn't see it one way or another. Exactly. Communicating what I really think of your site would not have been at all nice. Dave

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 20:12:21 EST

I tried it and you're right. Those first three results are their advertising push, to sell books they have in stock. Just below that list of three, they start a new list with the real Luntz stuff (which is out of print so they can't make any money off it ) first. What a country :-)

Comment by DrPat

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 19:55:00 EST

Hal, I did a cut-and-paste from your article to do the search, and Amazon replied "Most popular results for Frank Luntz:" followed by three Lakoff texts. The only way you don't get Lakoff first is by asking for Luntz inside quotes. If we're going to talk about co-opting...

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 19:37:21 EST

While we're on Luntz, you might find a Frontline interview with him interesting. He discusses the Republican "Contract With America" (since breached), coming up with "death tax" to replace "estate tax," "healthy forests," "privatize" and other emotive, manipulative words.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 19:13:19 EST

Ummm, it's easier if you search for Frank Luntz (note the "n" :-) You get several hits.

Comment by DrPat

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 18:58:07 EST

For anyone puzzled by finding only a Lakoff book list when searching for Frank Lutz at Amazon.com, try putting his name in quotes: "Frank Lutz". His book from 1988, Candidates, Consultants and Campaigns: The Style and Substance of American Electioneering, is probably the most inclusive in the sense of spelling out strategies, but more recent works are also of interest. If your local librarians are not too blue, there is may be a copy of the '88 volume available to check out.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:57:26 EST

Are you on dial-up rather than broadband, or hitting some really slow servers today? That's the only way I can think that you'd get the impression of constant reloading. The first link I gave does do one reload because I provided a direct link to a page that needs to be in a frame. It's coded so when it finds it's sitting out there naked, it goes and finds the frameset then positions itself where it belongs. In this case, I should have provided a direct link since that particular page is the default for that frameset and doesn't require reloading, so here it is. As to "nice," the word "unique" didn't communicate anything to me so I didn't see it one way or another.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:41:46 EST

Hal: "Unique," Dave? Just trying to be nice. I especially like the feature where the page reloads every 30 seconds. Dave

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:38:39 EST

"Unique," Dave?

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:34:40 EST

Wow Hal, never been to your site before. It's unique. Now I know exactly where to go for summaries of every leftist delusion I want to refute with a dose of reality. Dave

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 13:52:37 EST

Thanks, Shark. For "ownership," you migh start with my "Scam Alert" then go to my list of The "Ownership" Scam posts. Next in the series: health plans you "own."

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 13:45:09 EST

Shark: "Ownership" -- which we're going to be hearing a lot of during the next four years. Ownership is good. I bet I could 'own' you in a set of Tennis. Shark: Like, who's going to oppose "ownership"?! Well, Communists are as are most Anarchists. Shark: The one that I wanna see 'em explain is "the sanctity of marriage". No one has yet been able to articulate how a gay couple saying their vows will 'corrupt' the 'sanctity' of an abstract 'institution'. And what the hell does 'sanctity' mean, anyway? Because Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution, not a legal one. That's why the word Sanctity is used. And that's exactly the problem with the whole gay Marriage issue. No Marriage of any kind should be recognized by the government because it is a religious institution. Legally recognizing marriage is a violation of the separation of Church and State. The government should recognize civil unions regardless of the genders of the participants and leave the issue of Marriage entirely up to the churches. And there are plenty of churches willing to marry two men or two women. Dave

Comment by Shark

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 13:00:42 EST

BTW: The latest craze: "Ownership" -- which we're going to be hearing a lot of during the next four years. Like, who's going to oppose "ownership"?! The one that I wanna see 'em explain is "the sanctity of marriage". No one has yet been able to articulate how a gay couple saying their vows will 'corrupt' the 'sanctity' of an abstract 'institution'. And what the hell does 'sanctity' mean, anyway? Just keep yer eye on the swinging pocketwatch, America. You're getting sleepy... sleepy...

Comment by Shark

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 12:55:17 EST

Great review, Hal. The book sounds spot-on to me. For years, the Right has framed the debate, especially in their choice of words. There are a couple of right-wing think tanks that come up with these euphemisms and distribute them to GOP politicians and their constituents. Within days, the entire herd is using the same terms and phrases. It's sorta Orwellian; they're scary, but consistent. It's been incredibly effective, though, and I don't know that the Dems have any equivalent on their side.(?) Thanks for the heads-up on what sounds like important reading.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 02:21:58 EST

You really should ask Nick for his copy of the book when he's done, Dave - you seem to need it even more than he does.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 01:18:27 EST

But Hal, do you see how you undercut your own position by falling back on the same old loaded rhetoric that has been used so much that people now recognize it as the pandering that it is? You wind up saying that conservatives have essentially been duped into 'voting against their own best interests'. Liberals say this again and again and again, never understanding that the problem isn't that conservatives are voting against their own best interests, it's that liberals don't understand what we actually believe our best interests to be. Dave

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sat, 5 Feb 2005 23:34:29 EST

Sure, Ski, but that's not what the book is about and it wasn't my interest. The issue isn't clarity of presentation. I was more interested in the book as bringing the idea that debates are being framed to the attention of you and others, of any political stripe. As I mention in the post, I made a decades-long career of using language to influence people and have done quite a bit of study on semantics and linguistics, particularly in mass communications. Most of that had to do with "consumers" but it unavoidably spilled over into my observation of politics. It has been obvious to me for decades that politicians are playing with voters' minds. You can go back over the last 20 years and see how they name bills to sound like one thing when they accomplish another (probably should do a list of these, but it's too much work). This is bipartisan, although it has been Republicans doing it for the last decade since they have control of Congress. When I saw the book last month, it simply echoed what I had been saying during the entire run-up to this past election. In fact, the book is milder – the Democrats were so inept and oblivious to how language was killing them that I was running around calling them a "Republican front" and worse names than anything I've said on this forum about Bush and the neocons. Anyhow, I was sincere in the recommendation that conservative voters read the book, even though I deliberately worded the ending to piss them off. Many are voting against their best interests because they have been manipulated and the book could help them see through what they are being told (and not told). Really. The other side doesn't seem to have this problem so much, perhaps because their leadership strikes me as being so stupid and incompetent that Democratic voters have to make up their own minds, based on facts and the issues rather than manipulation. Good talkin' to you, but gotta go for now. I'll be back.

Comment by RJ

Sat, 5 Feb 2005 23:34:07 EST

Or UNILATERAL ATTACK. Or REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS. Or BUSH IS HITLER. You get the point..

Comment by RJ

Sat, 5 Feb 2005 23:31:24 EST

The Dems and the Left use these same linguistic tools to the same effect. Campaign Finance REFORM, for example. Al Gore's RISKY SCHEME, for another. UNILATERAL INVASION, for yet another.

Comment by SFC SKI

Sat, 5 Feb 2005 22:53:31 EST

Hal, you are inarguably correct. It is only the presentation of this argument by many, for lack of a better term, Left-leaning folks, aginst their opponents that only makes those on the Right even less likely to bother trying to communicate with the Left. Some on the Right do this too, obviously. The whole point is that if a person does not see your (not you individually) point after you present your case, maybe your case is not clearly made, or based on faulty logic, what have you, maybe you need to assess your case and the facts and tools you use to present it to see if it could be done beeter, and more clearly, and the most important, more accurately. It is a huge problem between us on this forum, in politics, etc.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sat, 5 Feb 2005 22:40:42 EST

In a few cases it's true, Ski.

Comment by SFC SKI

Sat, 5 Feb 2005 22:36:41 EST

Those who don't see things the way you do are obviously ignorant, deluded, brainwashed, or stupid. Getting them to see the truth is very hard when you are so obviously right but they are blind to your presentation of logic and fact.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sat, 5 Feb 2005 22:22:52 EST

No, Nick, the book is about how conservatives used language to pull the wool over your eyes. It shows how easy it was for the right to convince you of a completely false worldview, even though the facts plainly contradict the beliefs they have implanted. Your statement indicates that if anyone should, you especially should read the book. It would really help you.