Interesting article I found here admonishing Democrats to not put too much emphasis on "reframing the debate" and "buzzwords" a la George Lakoff.
The author (who isn't pro-Democrat)advises Democrats to put forth new ideas and plans, not try to repackage them with new terminology.
I don't subscribe to his overall point of view. Especially the final paragraph of the piece. But he does make a good point or two. For example:
Soon after the November elections leading Democrats agreed that the party was ailing and in dire need of a new direction, a new focus, new ideas to lead it forward. "It's critical we realize why the electorate voted the way it did," Representative Bob Menendez, of New Jersey, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said of the party's devastating loss in the presidential election and its setbacks in both houses of Congress. In February, House Democratic lawmakers held a retreat in Virginia to hash out what to do next.
Something miraculous happened. They recovered—or at least they're behaving that way. Setting aside all the frank talk about the need to re-examine fundamentals, they identified an altogether different sort of affliction. The Democrats returned from Virginia not with an exit strategy for Iraq or a national-security blueprint or an economic policy but with a book—Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, by George Lakoff, a linguist at the University of California at Berkeley. Lakoff's seductive thesis is that how you frame an idea largely determines the response to it. George Miller, a California congressman and an enthusiastic disciple, gave a copy to each member of the caucus, and the notion that "messaging" lies at the heart of the Democrats' woes has had growing currency in the party ever since.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200505/greenHere is an analysis from Greg's Opinion blog:
http://www.gregsopinion.com/archives/005864.html#005864One particular comment from his analysis interested me:
I think there's a good deal to learn from Lakoff. But the confusion over "message" equaling "framing" is way too wide of the mark.Thoughts?
Complaints?
Smear of the author to avoid thoughts and complaints?