| “
|
'Don't repeat
conservative language or ideas, even when arguing against them.'
That bit of advice,
No. 1 on
a list titled "The 10 Most Important Things Democrats Should Know,"
comes from the promotional material for "The Little Blue Book: The
Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic" by George Lakoff
and Elisabeth Wehling.
[...]
Many
politicians, pundits and talking heads have taken Lakoff's
recommendation to heart. This is why conservatives and liberals can't
seem to have the simplest conversation: liberals intentionally refuse
to address or even acknowledge what conservatives say. Since (as Lakoff
notes) conservatives invariably frame their own statements within their
own conservative "moral frames," every time a conservative speaks, his
liberal opponent will seemingly ignore what was said and instead come
back with a reply literally [sic] out of left field.
Thus, he is the
progenitor of and primary advocate for the main reason why liberalism
fails to win the public debate: Because it never directly confronts,
disproves or negates conservative notions--it simply ignores them. . .
.
[...]
 By
intentionally refusing to challenge, disprove, understand or even
acknowledge the existence of the other side's argument, you allow that
argument to grow in strength and win converts.
Such an attitude is the product of leftist
intellectuals, not political professionals--and, as Zombie notes, the
latter are foolish to follow it:
Debbie
Wasserman Schultz, the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, is
an exemplary Lakoffite, relentlessly hammering home her own framing of
each issue, and utterly ignoring the Republican frame, except on rare
occasion to mock it. How effective is this? A quick survey of
conservative sites shows that she is regarded as the Queen of Buffoons,
a figure meriting gleeful derision and eliciting relief that the
Democrats have selected the worst possible spokesperson. She certainly
hasn't changed a single conservative mind, I can assure you. But has
she converted "undecided" voters to the liberal cause?
I posit that the answer is "No," and I'll explain why. . .(JAMES
TARANTO continued)
This
strategy will also explain perfectly how the media can ignore the very
facts of a story that have previously, and publicly, been laid
out for them as
though they didn't exist. I might be the only one saying this,
but how
can meaningful dialog exist with these people? And in its
absence, isn't the violent
solution inevitable? Sorry, it's not what I hope for, it's what
must
be.
|
|
” |
