> TWO SLAPS FOR GEORGE LAKOFF
The good thing about Lakoff is that he provides a simple jumping off point for talking about the nature of worldviews. The bad thing is nobody wants to follow up on it, including him. They all want to get straight to the 10 second tips on how to win an election without cutting back on the foods you love. And that is his weakest point.
My favorite critique of this weakness was by someone named Ralph Taylor when he was guest blogging for Nathan just after the election:
URL: http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001948.shtml
December 14, 2004 Review: George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant
<snip>
I really respect Lakoff's efforts to convince our side that if you just argue the facts, you're going to get your ass kicked and that we've got to start focusing on how we frame our arguments. But as his latest book demonstrates, there are two serious problems with his approach.
<snip>
Lakoff's advice about how our side should frame issues leaves a lot to be desired. In _Don't Think of an Elephant_, too often he tells rather than shows -- "Always be on the offense" or "activate their nurturant models as much as possible" (yes, he's an academic). And when he does give examples, as often as not they just don't work.
Take taxes. To counter the rhetoric of "tax relief," he says, use the frame that "taxes are wise investments in the future" which reap "tax benefits." What's got more oomph, "tax relief" or "tax benefits" & "wise investments"? It's not a close call.
If that tax metaphor doesn't do it for you, Lakoff's got another:
<quote>
Taxation is like paying your dues, paying your membership fee in America. If you join a country club or a community center, you pay fees.
<unquote>
Taxes are like paying country club membership fees? Woo-eee, just parachute me into rural Ohio, boys, I'm ready to rumble!
<end excerpt>
In his discussion of abstract concepts, Lakoff is precise and interesting even when wrong. But when it comes to concrete suggestions, he's not even to first base. As the purloined Luntz memo made very clear, when it comes to a winner slogan, it's not just the metaphorical image that matters, it's the exactly nuanced words you use to describe it. Knowledge of worldviews doesn't give you winning slogans any more than knowledge of economics tells you how to run a successful business.
That said, a worldview is still the place to start, even though it won't give you instant results. People talk about the right having new ideas, but it isn't true. The right hasn't had a new idea since Alf Landon. What they have done in the last 30 years is mold their ideas into cohesive worldview. And that's the sine non qua for constructing slogans that evoke a whole worldview -- you've got to have a clear worldview to evoke.
Michael