Reply #46: Excerpt from the Don't Think of an Elephant! book i got is an email [View All]

[caligirl]

Sorry for the length, I don't think I have a link. This was in my yahoo mailbox. Nice letter.


Kerry SoCal Grassroots leader Michael Webber recently recommended that
everyone read this book: "Don't think of an Elephant." Here is an
article from the author:
http://www.winwithlanguage.com/

How to Respond to Conservatives
by George Lakoff
An excerpt from the book Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values
and Frame the Debate.

The following is a letter I received while writing this chapter. It
arrived several days after I had appeared on a TV show, NOW with Bill
Moyers.

I listened to Dr. Lakoff last Friday night on NOW with great
interest. I love the use of words and have been consistently puzzled
at how the far right has co-opted so many definitions.

So I tried an experiment I wanted to tell you about. I took
several examples from the interview; particularly trial vs. public
protection lawyer and gay marriage and used those examples all week on
AOL's political chat room. Every time someone would scream about
Edwards's being a trial lawyer, I'd respond with public
protection lawyer and how they are the last defense against negligent
corporations and professional, and that the opposite of a public
protection lawyer is a corporate lawyer who typically makes
$400-500/per hr., and we pay that in higher prices for good and services.

Every time someone started screaming about "gay marriage" I'd ask
if they want the federal government to tell them who they could marry.
I'd go on to explain when challenged that once government has crossed
the huge barrier into telling one group of people who they could not
marry, it is only a small step to telling other groups, and a smaller
yet step to telling people who they had to marry.

I also asked for definitions. Every time someone would holler
"dirty liberal," I'd request their definition of "liberal."

The last was my own hot button. Every time someone would scream
"abortion," "baby-killer," etc., I'd suggest that if they are
anti-abortion, then by all means, they should not have one.

I've got to tell you, the results were startling to me. I had some
other people (completely unknown to me) join me and take up the same
tacks. By last night, the chat room was civil. An amazing (to me)
number of posters turned off their capitalization and we were actually
having conversations.

I'm going to keep this up, but I really wanted you to know that I
heard Dr. Lakoff, appreciate his work, and am trying to put it into
practice. And it's really really fun.

Thanks, Penney Kolb

This book is written for people like Penney Kolb. Progressives are
constantly put in positions where they are expected to respond to
conservative arguments. It may be over Thanksgiving dinner, around the
water cooler, or in front of an audience. But because conservatives
have commandeered so much of the language, progressives are often put
on the defensive with little or nothing to say in response.

The earlier chapters are meant to explain who conservatives are, what
they stand for, what kind of morality they see themselves as having,
and how their family values shape their politics. They are also meant
to make explicit what is usually felt but not articulated —
progressive family values and how they carry over into progressive
politics. And finally there is an introduction to framing — what
mistakes to avoid and how to reframe, with some chapters providing
examples of how framing works.

But sooner or later, you are in Penney's position. What do you do?
Penney's instincts are impeccable, and provide us with guidelines.

* Progressive values are the best of traditional American values.
Stand up for your values with dignity and strength. You are a true
patriot because of your values.
* Remember that right-wing ideologues have convinced half of the
country that the strict father family model, which is bad enough for
raising children, should govern our national morality and politics.
This is the model that the best in American values has defeated over
and over again in the course of our history—from the emancipation of
the slaves to women's suffrage, Social Security and Medicare, civil
rights and voting rights acts, and Brown v. the Board of Education and
Roe v. Wade. Each time we have unified our country more behind our
finest traditional values.
* Remember that everybody has both strict and nurturant models,
either actively or passively, perhaps active in different parts of
their lives. Your job is to activate for politics the nurturant,
progressive values already there (perhaps only passively) in your
interlocutors.
* Show respect to the conservatives you are responding to. No one
will listen to you if you don't accord them respect. Listen to them.
You may disagree strongly with everything that is being said, but you
should know what is being said. Be sincere. Avoid cheap shots. What if
they don't show you respect? Two wrongs don't make a right. Turn the
other cheek and show respect anyway. That takes character and dignity.
Show character and dignity.
* Avoid a shouting match. Remember that the radical right requires
a culture war, and shouting is the discourse form of that culture war.
Civil discourse is the discourse form of nurturant morality. You win a
victory when the discourse turns civil. They win when they get you to
shout.
* What if you have moral outrage? You should have moral outrage.
But you can display it with controlled passion. If you lose control,
they win.
* Distinguish between ordinary conservatives and nasty ideologues.
Most conservatives are personally nice people, and you want to bring
out their niceness and their sense of neighborliness and hospitality.
* Be calm. Calmness is a sign that you know what you are talking
about.
* Be good-humored. A good-natured sense of humor shows you are
comfortable with yourself.
* Hold your ground. Always be on the offense. Never go on defense.
Never whine or complain. Never act like a victim. Never plead. Avoid
the language of weakness, for example, rising intonations on
statements. Your voice should be steady. Your body and voice should
show optimism. You should convey passionate conviction without losing
control.
* Conservatives have parodied liberals as weak, angry (hence not
in control of their emotions), weak-minded, softhearted, unpatriotic,
uninformed, and elitist. Don't give them any opportunities to
stereotype you in any of these ways. Expect these stereotypes, and
deal with them when they come up.
* By the way you conduct yourself, show strength, calmness, and
control; an ability to reason; a sense of realism; love of country; a
command of the basic facts; and a sense of being an equal, not a
superior. At the very least you want your audience to think of you
with respect, as someone they may disagree with but who they have to
take seriously. In many situations this is the best you can hope for.
You have to recognize those situations and realize that a draw with
dignity is a victory in the game of being taken seriously.
* Many conversations are ongoing. In an ongoing conversation, your
job is to establish a position of respect and dignity, and then keep it.
* Don't expect to convert staunch conservatives.
* You can make considerable progress with biconceptuals, those who
use both models but in different parts of their life. They are your
best audience. Your job is to capture territory of the mind. With
biconceptuals your goal is to find out, if you can by probing, just
which parts of their life they are nurturant about. For example, ask
who they care about the most, what responsibilities they feel they
have to those they care about, and how they carry out those
responsibilities. This should activate their nurturant models as much
as possible. Then, while the nurturant model is active for them, try
linking it to politics. For example, if they are nurturant at home but
strict in business, talk about the home and family and how they relate
to political issues. Example: Real family values mean that your
parents, as they age, don't have to sell their home or mortgage their
future to pay for health care or the medications they need.
* Avoid the usual mistakes. Remember, don't just negate the other
person's claims; reframe. The facts unframed will not set you free.
You cannot win just by stating the true facts and showing that they
contradict your opponent's claims. Frames trump facts. His frames will
stay and the facts will bounce off. Always reframe.
* If you remember nothing else about framing, remember this: Once
your frame is accepted into the discourse, everything you say is just
common sense.* Why? Because that's what common sense is: reasoning
within a commonplace, accepted frame.
* Never answer a question framed from your opponent's point of
view. Always reframe the question to fit your values and your frames.
This may make you uncomfortable, since normal discourse styles require
you to directly answer questions posed. That is a trap. Practice
changing frames.
* Be sincere. Use frames you really believe in, based on values
you really hold.
* A useful thing to do is to use rhetorical questions: *Wouldn't
it be better if...? Such a question should be chosen to presuppose
your frame. Example:* Wouldn't it be better if we had a president who
went to war with a plan to secure the peace?
* Stay away from set-ups. Fox News shows and other rabidly
conservative shows try to put you in an impossible situation, where a
conservative host sets the frame and insists on it, where you don't
control the floor, can't present your case, and are not accorded
enough respect to be taken seriously. If the game is fixed, don't play.
* Tell a story. Find stories where your frame is built into the
story. Build up a stock of effective stories.
* Always start with values, preferably values all Americans share
like security, prosperity, opportunity, freedom, and so on. Pick the
values most relevant to the frame you want to shift to. Try to win the
argument at the values level. Pick a frame where your position
exemplifies a value everyone holds — like fairness. Example: Suppose
someone argues against a form of universal health care. If people
don't have health care, he argues, it's their own fault. They're not
working hard enough or not managing their money properly. We shouldn't
have to pay for their lack of initiative or their financial
mismanagement. Frame shift: Most of the forty million people who can't
afford health care work full-time at essential jobs that cannot pay
enough to get them health care. Yet these working people support the
lifestyles of the top three-quarters of our population. Some forty
million people have to do those hard jobs — or you don't have your
lifestyle. America promises a decent standard of living in return for
hard work. These workers have earned their health care by doing
essential jobs to support the economy. There is money in the economy
to pay them. Tax credits are the easiest mechanism. Their health care
would be covered by having the top 2 percent pay the same taxes they
used to pay. It's only fair that the wealthy pay for their own
lifestyles, and that people who provide those lifestyles get paid
fairly for it.
* Be prepared. You should be able to recognize the basic frames
that conservatives use, and you should prepare frames to shift to. The
Rockridge Institute Web site will post examples from time to time.
Example: Your opponent says, We should get rid of taxes. People know
how to spend their money better than the government. Reframe: "The
government has made very wise investments with taxpayer money. Our
interstate highway system, for example. You couldn't build a highway
with your tax refund. The government built them. Or the Internet, paid
for by taxpayer investment. You could not make your own Internet. Most
of our scientific advances have been made through funding from the
National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health —
great government investments of taxpayer money. No matter how wisely
you spent your own money, you'd never get those scientific and medical
breakthroughs. And how far would you get hiring your own army with
your tax refund?
* Use wedge issues, cases where your opponent will violate some
belief he holds no matter what he says. Example: Suppose he brings up
abortion. Raise the issue of military rape treatment. Women soldiers
who are raped (by our own soldiers, in Iraq, or on military bases) and
who subsequently get pregnant presently cannot end their pregnancies
in a military hospital, because abortions are not permitted there. A
Military Rape Treatment Act would allow our raped women soldiers to be
treated in military hospitals to end their rapeinduced pregnancies.
The wedge: If he agrees, he sanctions abortion, in
government-supported facilities no less, where doctors would have to
be trained and facilities provided for terminating pregnancies. If he
disagrees, he dishonors our women soldiers who are putting their lives
on the line for him. To the women it is like being raped twice — once
by a criminal soldier and once by a self-righteous conservative.
* An opponent may be disingenuous if his real goal isn't what he
says his goal is. Politely point out the real goal, then reframe.
Example: Suppose he starts touting smaller government. Point out that
conservatives don't really want smaller government. They don't want to
eliminate the military, or the FBI, or the Treasury and Commerce
Departments, or the nine-tenths of the courts that support corporate
law. It is big government that they like. What they really want to do
away with is social programs — programs that invest in people, to help
people to help themselves. Such a position contradicts the values the
country was founded on — the idea of a community where people pull
together to help each other. From John Winthrop on, that is what our
nation has stood for.
* Your opponent may use language that means the opposite of what
he says, called Orwellian language. Realize that he is weak on this
issue. Use language that accurately describes what he's talking about
to frame the discussion your way. Example: Suppose he cites the
"Healthy Forests Initiative" as a balanced approach to the
environment. Point out that it should be called "No Tree Left Behind"
because it permits and promotes clear-cutting, which is destructive to
forests and other living things in the forest habitat. Use the name to
point out that the public likes forests, doesn't want them clear-cut,
and that the use of the phony name shows weakness on the issue. Most
people want to preserve the grandeur of America, not destroy it.
* Remember once more that our goal is to unite our country behind
our values, the best of traditional American values. Right-wing
ideologues need to divide our country via a nasty cultural civil war.
They need discord and shouting and name-calling and put-downs. We win
with civil discourse and respectful cooperative conversation. Why?
Because it is an instance of the nurturant model at the level of
communication, and our job is to evoke and maintain the nurturant model.

Those are a lot of guidelines. But there are only four really
important ones:

* Show respect
* Respond by reframing
* Think and talk at the level of values
* Say what you believe

Reprinted with permission from Chelsea Green, publishers of "Don't
Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate".

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/howtorespond