Product Description
Don’t Think of An Elephant! is the antidote to the last forty years of conservative strategizing and the right wing’s stranglehold on political dialogue in the United States. Author George Lakoff explains how conservatives think, and how to counter their arguments. He outlines in detail the traditional American values that progressives hold, but are often unable to articulate. Lakoff also breaks down the ways in which conservatives have framed the issues, and provides examples of how progressives can reframe the debate. Lakoff’s years of research and work with environmental and political leaders have been distilled into this essential guide, which shows progressives how to think in terms of values instead of programs, and why people vote their values and identities, often against their best interests. Don’t Think of an Elephant! is the definitive handbook for understanding and communicating effectively about key issues in the 2004 election, and beyond. Read it, take action—and help take America back. About the Author George Lakoff is the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, and is a founding senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute. He is one of the world’s best-known linguists. Since the mid-1980s he has been applying cognitive linguistics to the study of politics, especially the framing of public political debate. He is the author of the influential book, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, (2nd edition, 2002). His other books include Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About The Mind (1987), Metaphors We Live By (1980; 2003) [with Mark Johnson], More Than Cool Reason (1989) [with Mark Turner], Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge To The Western Tradition (1999) [with Mark Johnson], and Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics Into Being (2000) [with Rafael Núñez].
|
Amazon.com Review
In the first of his three debates with George W. Bush, 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry argued against the war in Iraq not by directly condemning it but by citing the various ways in which airport and commercial shipping security had been jeopardized due to the war's sizable price tag. In so doing, he re-framed the war issue to his advantage while avoiding discussing it in the global terrorism terms favored by President Bush. One possible reason for this tactic could have been that Kerry familiarized himself with the influential linguist George Lakoff, who argues in Don't Think of an Elephant that much of the success the Republican Party can be attributed to a persistent ability to control the language of key issues and thus position themselves in favorable terms to voters. While Democrats may have valid arguments, Lakoff points out they are destined to lose when they and the news media accept such nomenclature as "pro-life," "tax relief," and "family values," since to argue against such inherently positive terminology necessarily casts the arguer in a negative light. Lakoff offers recommendations for how the progressive movement can regain semantic equity by repositioning their arguments, such as countering the conservative call for "Strong Defense" with a call for "A Stronger America" (curiously, one of the key slogans of the Kerry camp). Since the book was published during the height of the presidential campaign, Lakoff was unable to provide an analytical perspective on that race. He does, however, apply the notion of rhetorical framing devices to the 2003 California recall election in an insightful analysis of the Schwarzenegger victory. Don't Think of an Elephant is a bit rambling, overexplaining some concepts while leaving others underexplored, but it provides a compelling linguistic analysis of political campaigning. --John Moe
|
|
 Good framework for framing ( jimmieb )
This is a book by one of the world's pre-eminent linguists about the way current political issues are framed by the parties. Republicans, Lakoff asserts, are much better at framing the issues, thanks to years of well-funded think tank work, skillful planning and organization. The model he uses to describe the underlying belief systems of the Republican and Democratic parties are based on types of parenting. The GOP philosophy is based on the "strict parent model," where the father of a family protects the family in a dangerous world, supports the family, teaches them right from wrong, and enforces punishment when necessary. The Progressive metaphor is that of the nurturant parent, who believes that the world is basically good and that it and people can be made better through cooperation and empathy.
I was a bit skeptical at first when Lakoff set up this metaphor. It seems like a stretch as the overarching narrative of our political system, but it fits the debates as he lays them out. What I found more interesting and useful, however, was when he gets into specifics. He makes the point that, counterintuitively, people do not vote in their self-interest. They vote their identities. This is why you have poor rural people in Kansas voting for candidates who hurt them economically--because they identify with that candidate's beliefs.
In terms of the issues, Lakoff gives examples of how specific issues have been framed so that in discussing them, with the language we use, the debate is already slanted in favor of conservatives. For instance, tax cuts sound like a good thing. Who wouldn't want less taxes? That's because we speak of them as tax cuts. Why not, instead speak of it as an investment in our future? After all, that's money that goes to building our infrastructure, maintaining our healthcare system and educating the people who will one day run this country. He also points out that tax cuts are one of a number of conservative strategic initiatives--issues that affect other issues. Because by cutting taxes, you're basically starving progressive programs--education programs, homeless initiatives, environmental programs, for example--of funding. Taxes is an issue that is stacked for conservatives. Conversely, alternative energy is a potentially great progressive strategic initiative, because along with it come jobs, environmental protection, and a decreased dependence on foreign oil and big oil corporations.
Lakoff covers all the major issues and discusses the current framing and how those frames can be shifted. He also gives good concrete examples of how these issues have played out in recent politics. Because the book is a collection of essays, it is at times a little disjointed and repetitive. But overall, what he's saying makes a lot of sense. And although it is written for progressives, and Lakoff is himself a progressive, it felt fairly non-partisan considering our current political environment. You get the impression that, had he wanted to, Lakoff could have just as easily written a guidebook for conservatives.
|
 A must read for the prograssives (or Liberal crowd) especially volunteers for the DNC! ( jplonmars )
I didn't understand why John Kerry win 3 out of 3 debates and lose the election till I read this....
It's all about the languages used in the debate......
and Framing is one of them....the other is use of fallacies....(not in this book)
a good book for any debater or law school students.
|
 Concept: four stars / Execution: two stars ( gcasteel )
This is essentially just a poorly-written, watered-down version of Lakoff's "Moral Politics". If you're seriously interested in Lakoff's theory of politics, skip this and read "Moral Politics" instead. But, if you want just a brief summary of the highlights of Lakoff's theory, without having to read the (much longer and more in-depth) "Moral Politics", then this book will serve the purpose. However, I will warn you that it is not well-written at all. It appears to have been hastily thrown together and poorly edited.
This book is aimed at progressives; and attempts to explain why progressives have struggled politically in recent decades while conservatives have had tremendous success. According to Lakoff, it has a great deal to do with differences in how conservatives and progressives communicate their ideas. Lakoff encourages progressives to adopt many of the same communications strategies that conservatives have been using. However, Lakoff's suggestions tend to lean toward abstract principles rather than practical advice. This is not a step-by-step "how to" guide for communicating progressive ideas and winning elections. It's really more of a "here's-where-we've-gone-wrong" critique of progressive campaign strategies. There are some useful insights here; but this is certainly not Lakoff's best work.
|
Thinking Outside THE Box ( librarycrasher )
I was one of millions of people who watched Faux News only-just 'for fun'.
Now I understand why 9 million dollar salary of Bill O'reilly worth every penny.
|
is george lakoff stupid?
progressives can't frame a debate? they don't use emotionally charged language to circumvent the facts? what about terms such as "tax cuts for the rich", "a woman's right to choose", or "he lied about sex"?
only conservatives use orwellian speech? "neocon"? "radcon"? sounds alot like newspeak to me.
eighty percent of the "talking heads on television" are conservative? apparently mr.lakoff only watches fox news.
the "voter revolt frame" ignores the fact that california's problems began during a previous republican administration? blaming the 9/11 attacks on the bush administration ignores the fact that bill clinton was aware of osama bin ladin and did nothing to stop him.
conservatives believe that "once grown, the self reliant, disciplined children are on their own, and the father is not to meddle in their lives"? what's so bad about that. at least conservatives believe that we should be free to choose to ride in "cars without seat belts", to smoke, or eat food containing "poisonous additives".
i don't disagree with many of mr. lakoff's points, i just think he would be far more credible if he didn't present progressives as helpless victims of cruel, sharp tongued conservatives.
so, is mr. lakoff stupid? no, he just knows how to frame his argument.
|
|
View Larger
Add to Cart 
