Walt is right.

[Teaser]

The Democrats need to learn to speak in *moral* terms.

It is simply not enough to have a checklist of programs and sell this to the people. People don't believe in programs. They believe in concepts.

And for too long, we Democrats have not put forward a single, unifying theme as our "concept."

Lakoff has got the right idea, and has had it for nearly a decade. I knew about him from his cognitive science work before most of you had ever heard of him, it is likely. But I sadly neglected his political thought.

I will no longer make that mistake.

Furthermore, it is vital that we let the current insanity play itself out. Historical transitions only occur when one idea or concept has exhausted itself. Let's help the * philosophy onto the ash heap of history by letting it destroy itself. Only then can we move on.

[ulysses]

1. that's all well and good - but it's not

what Walt is getting creamed for.

[Teaser]

2. I posted before I was finished.

Editing put in the final bit, which is what Walt is being creamed for.

[ulysses]

4. no it isn't.

Walt is being creamed, not for saying "we need to control the language and put forward compelling ideas" (which is true enough) but for saying "we need to control the language and put forward compelling ideas like those nifty ones they have over at the DLC".

[DrWeird]

3. There's nothing moral about homophobia.

Fucking savages.

[Walt Starr]

7. Agreed, but the framing of the debate is everything

The Republcians love it when we frame the debate in terms of "gay marriage". These words produce an imagery by which average heterosexuals are repulsed. This is a natural reaction that occurs in all heterosexuals and has nothing to do with bigotry. Heterosexuals are hard wired to be aroused by imagery of heterosexual sex and repulsed by imagery of homosexual sex. It's simple natural responses to the environment.

I don't know if you are homosexual or not, but homosexuals must have similar hardwiring with regards to imagery of homosexual sex as heterosexuals have with regards to imagery of heterosexual sex.

So, what happens when you introduce the rhetoric of "gay marriage" is you lose the debate before you can even have it. You have turned off the vast majority of of the electorate and cannot alter their feelings about the issue because you started the debate by introducing an imagery that repulses them at a visceral level.

Liberals overcome that visceral reaction with an intellectual response, whereas the vast majority cannot suppress tht instinctive repulsion at a visceral level. Therefore you average liberal is able to understand the issue and agree within the debate, but you've only reached about a third of the electorate and in election a majority is required.

Reframing it and comibing it with other issues that can produce visceral reaction and then couching them all together under the umbrella of "presonl freedom" redefines the debate and becomes something that the average member of the electorate can be in synch with at a visceral level. Now you win the debate before you even have it because teh Republican Party becomes the Party opposed to personal freedom.

Game, set, match. We win by reframing the debate. We appear to move to the center while keeping our core values and we get a majority to agree with us.

[dsc]

8. I am a homosexual

and have to say I am not repulsed by heterosexual sex. Heck, I have even gotten off on a few such scenes in movies if the guy involved was good looking enough. I don't know why so many heterosexuals find homosexual activity repulsive when it is done by others but I don't think anything like a majority of homosexuals have the same problem in reverse.

[ReadTomPaine]

9. Walt, read or listen to Robert Reich's book...

... it talks directly to these issues (see post #5 below). I think you'll prefer his approach.

RTP

[SayitAintSo]

10. You make an excellent point here

I like the way you think and express your views. Dems have to STAND for something that can be felt on the visceral level. The emotion seals the deal - makes it real. Good point.

[ReadTomPaine]

5. "Reason : Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America" by Robert Reich

Give it a read. Walt has a good point, but a bad idea. Robert Reich has laid out in great detail how to do this properly.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400042216/103-2467554-3718223?v=glance

RTP

[seabeyond]

6. i dont go to church, kids go to a fundamentalist school

i dont follow their christian rules, yet not a single one will say i am not christian. they cannot, cause i know how to talk it all in all i am talking. any policy any issue i can bring to christianity and liberal always wins with christianity. yes i agree. for me that was the issue they should have clearly given. and kerry was too shy and limited in his christian talk. he wants to keep it seperate, as it should be, but people needed to hear it in his words.

[robbedvoter]

Been done. Clark - family values tour - most important value -

being able to feed your kids - he had no taxes for families without kids up to 50 thou a year.
religion - it means one is compelled to help the less unfortunate.
And so on.

[Amaya]

11. So...

we should pander to ideological cult-like fundamentalist Christian beliefs to win?

[ezekiel333]

12. Walt is always right....