<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> <title></title> </head> <body> Why do we need a third way? What's wrong with socialism? Joanna Wojtek Sokolowski wrote: <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid0IYT00EPI4U527@jhuml3.jhu.edu"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; "> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="Street"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="address"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/">  <style>  </style> </o:SmartTagType></o:SmartTagType></o:SmartTagType></o:SmartTagType> <div class="Section1"> Jerry:<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Lakoff is not much different.  <o:p></o:p> [WS:] Depends.  _Don’t think of an elephant_ is not bad.  My sister, who teaches linguistics in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Poland</st1:country-region>, tells me that he is some kind of small celebrity in <st1:place w:st="on">Europe</st1:place>.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Carl:<o:p></o:p> The "<st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Third Way</st1:address></st1:Street>," that's a positive example?  I thought that tired trope had <o:p></o:p> been stuffed, mounted and put on display at the William J. Clinton <o:p></o:p> Presidential Library and Museum.  The blather of a bygone age.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> [WS:] Do not think of its contents.  Think of an attempt to offer a positive alternative to the ideology of the market instead of the usual blather of konstant kvetching.  You cannot win people’s hearts and minds by chronic complaints ( I serve as a reminder of that on this list ;)), you need to give them something positive that will “make sense” of the world for them and at the same time give them hope for the future – just like the market ideology does, only better.  Doom saying is too depressing for most people.  Ranting may get people’s attention, but it is unlikely to hold it for very long.  People will not reject something they already have, no matter how bad, unless they have a constructive and positive alternative that looks better than what they now have (it called ‘endowment effect’ in economics.)  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The recent pathetic defeat of the Democratic party is a case in point.  Kerry lost because all he could offer was feeble Bush-bashing and nothing in its stead, or at least nothing that looked much different than the Repug spin.<o:p></o:p> PS. I mentioned few possibilities for such a positive alternative on this list, but there was no interest.<o:p></o:p> Wojtek<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <pre wrap=""> <hr width="90%" size="4"> ___________________________________ <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</a></pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>