I bought my Dad George Lakoff’s book on framing for Christmas. Dad’s a language nut with deep dislike of President Bush (second only to his hatred of the Yankees), so I knew he’d enjoy it. I basically accept Lakoff’s premise, which is that the Democrat-Republican divide comes down to a “Nurturant parent” vs. “strict father” frame. But I do think he’s a little over-the-top in some of his wilder accusations.
Still, I can’t say I agree with this criticism of Lakoff:
The list of GOP deceptions is seemingly endless. Republicans don’t support tort reform because they care about the cost of frivolous lawsuits; they want to bankrupt a Democratic Party that relies on contributions from trial lawyers and leave corporations free to pollute the environment. The war in Iraq, as one might expect, is really about “the self-interest of American corporations.” On issue after issue, “what conservatives are really trying to achieve is not in the proposal,” Mr. Lakoff explains. The “real purposes are hidden.”
Such paranoia calls to mind earlier, left-wing critiques of conservative conspiracy-mongering.
Sorry bro, but I’m a little tired of Republicans calling folks “paranoid” when those folks accuse the Republicans of less-than-noble tactics. This idea that conservatives just listen to the voters, and don’t use high-paid consultants like Democrats is a bunch of hooey. Republicans are manipulative. So are Democrats. That’s the point of politics, sales, advertising, and every other attempt to influence the masses. To manipulate.
When Newt Gingrich told his party to call the estate tax the “death tax” or to always refer to Democrats as “sick” and “pathetic,” am I just to assume he had noble intentions of the people at heart? Or maybe he was just, oh, I dunno… framing the debate.
