Put the blame on frame

The New York Times featured a long article about linguist George Lakoff and how his theory of “framing” political issues has taken hold among Congressional Democrats desperate to understand why the public continues to reject them at the ballot box. Here’s how Arts & Letters Daily linked to the article:

Republicans offer “strong defense, free markets, lower taxes, smaller government and family values.” With the help of Prof. George Lakoff, the Democrats offer, well, uh….

At the heart of the essay is the faddish idea among Democrats that the Republicans are better at using language to reach voters. Lakoff is selling out auditoriums pitching the idea that if the Democrats re-shape the delivery of their political message, they can bring Americans back into their camp. Author Matt Bai can’t let this go by:

He [Lakoff] sums up the Republican message as ''strong defense, free markets, lower taxes, smaller government and family values,'' and in ''Don't Think of an Elephant!'' he proposes some Democratic alternatives: ''Stronger America, broad prosperity, better future, effective government and mutual responsibility.'' Look at the differences between the two. The Republican version is an argument, a series of philosophical assertions that require voters to make concrete choices about the direction of the country. … Lakoff's formulation, on the other hand, amounts to a vague collection of the least objectionable ideas in American life.

Bai also points out that after the GOP opposed Bill Clinton’s health care reform, they came out with a substantive list of action items known as the Contract of America which played a role in the Republican sweep of Congress in 1994. The weakness of the Democrats stems from the fact that they have no concrete ideas. This is what makes Lakoff’s kool-aid so appealing: it doesn’t require thinking, only repackaging.

Extra - More thoughts on Matt Bai’s article from Right Wing News and Red State. Check ‘em out.