Scan barcode
claudiaswisher's review against another edition
4.0
Rereading this five years later...so much now has come to pass...we are fighting the same battles, with the same language that has been co-opted by the Right. We still use their frames, their words. We must try harder -- 2018
I am a liberal. I didn't know there was a term, "Yellow-dog Democrat" until I came to Oklahoma. I probably WOULD vote for a yellow dog if it was on the Democratic ticket...
I had high hopes for this book, but it's not the one I need.
Conservatives have successfully framed social issues, choosing their language well: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND, when in fact, the purpose of the law IS to fail schools and the children in them. This branding infuriates me.
I've read others of Lakoff's pieces, so I understood the visions we have of the family, and how that plays out in politics...the strict father vs the nurturing family. I see that, and totally agree.
I wanted the next step. I wanted the 'now what?' I want to reframe the discussion about education and teaching and learning. I want the words to use...the strategies.
This book isn't the one I need. It's a collection of essays written years ago, with little coherent connections among them.
I went to Lakoff's foundation website...it's closed!
This book frustrated me much more than it enlightented.
That said, the last statements will keep me going:
"Show respect
Respond by reframing
Think and talk at the level of values
Say what you believe."
I can do that
I am a liberal. I didn't know there was a term, "Yellow-dog Democrat" until I came to Oklahoma. I probably WOULD vote for a yellow dog if it was on the Democratic ticket...
I had high hopes for this book, but it's not the one I need.
Conservatives have successfully framed social issues, choosing their language well: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND, when in fact, the purpose of the law IS to fail schools and the children in them. This branding infuriates me.
I've read others of Lakoff's pieces, so I understood the visions we have of the family, and how that plays out in politics...the strict father vs the nurturing family. I see that, and totally agree.
I wanted the next step. I wanted the 'now what?' I want to reframe the discussion about education and teaching and learning. I want the words to use...the strategies.
This book isn't the one I need. It's a collection of essays written years ago, with little coherent connections among them.
I went to Lakoff's foundation website...it's closed!
This book frustrated me much more than it enlightented.
That said, the last statements will keep me going:
"Show respect
Respond by reframing
Think and talk at the level of values
Say what you believe."
I can do that
hmdarr's review against another edition
4.0
"From the beginning, America provided public education, public hospitals, public roads and bridges, an army to protect the union, a legislature to make laws regulating and maintaining the union, an executive to carry out those laws, a justice system to enforce those laws, a national bank, a patent office, means to promote interstate commerce, and above all, a system for the public to choose those who govern us. Without such public resources there could have been no satisfactory public life and no functioning business community in America - and no democracy!"
wilsona's review against another edition
An important book on how progressives have failed to effectively communicate their traditional American values and principles, ceding power to Conservatives who have invested heavily in think tanks that have created frames that now appear 'normal' and logical. Lakoff explains the importance of establishing frames and that facts that don't fit a frame bounce off rather than correct inaccuracies or misconceptions on which the frame is based.
This book consists of a series of essays that were published on their own. The independent publishing of the essays means that in many essays Lakoff repeats his premise -- that what unites Conservative positions is a 'strict father morality' while the 'nurturant parent model' unites progressive values. I enjoyed the first half of the book more than the second half which repeats many of the ideas. Still, it is such a short book that it isn't a major complaint. The strict father and nurturant parent models are well-described and reveal how Conservative (and progressive) policies are consistent with one another rather than contradictory as many progressives claim. Overall, a very interesting book.
This book consists of a series of essays that were published on their own. The independent publishing of the essays means that in many essays Lakoff repeats his premise -- that what unites Conservative positions is a 'strict father morality' while the 'nurturant parent model' unites progressive values. I enjoyed the first half of the book more than the second half which repeats many of the ideas. Still, it is such a short book that it isn't a major complaint. The strict father and nurturant parent models are well-described and reveal how Conservative (and progressive) policies are consistent with one another rather than contradictory as many progressives claim. Overall, a very interesting book.
kellyholmes's review against another edition
5.0
I'll be reading this again after I chew on what sunk in the first time through. (It's a slim 119 pages, so that won't be hard.) The most interesting argument in the book is that Americans see the country as an extension of their family, so their models for raising a family extend to what they think is the best approach for the country. Lakoff puts forth two basic models -- the strict father model and the nurturant parent model. Most people have both models; it's a question of what their active model is and whether that active model translates to their politics as well.
dopadelirium's review against another edition
5.0
An interesting perspective of conservative/liberal based on how they are raised, and unique presentation of issues in our world today.
wilte's review against another edition
4.0
Very good book on framing; how can progressives defeat the conservative 'juggernaut' in public debates and discourse, using the right words for their ideas and beliefs? Book practices what it preaches by employing crisp, clear language and being rhetorically strong.
"Thinking differently requires speaking differently" and "Facts matter enormously, but to be meaningful they must be framed in terms of their moral importance." and "Just speaking truth to power doesn’t work. You need to frame the truths effectively from your perspective. "
Lakoff definitely takes a side:
And: "Unlike the right, the left does not think strategically. We think issue by issue."
Don't step in someone else's frame
"When we negate a frame, we evoke the frame."
self-interest and voting
"People do not necessarily vote in their self-interest. They vote their identity. They vote their values. They vote for who they identify with."
Strict father (Rep) vs nurturant parent (Dem)
Democrats and Republicans differ morally: "We’ve seen that the major moral divisions in our politics derive from two opposed models of the family: a progressive (nurturant parent) morality and a conservative (strict father) morality." and "Whereas progressives believe centrally in empathy (caring about their fellow citizens), both personal and social responsibility, and a commitment toward doing their best toward those ends, conservatives believe only in personal responsibility."
How is framing different from spin or propaganda?
Advice
"Saying it right—and saying it over and over—is advice that can be applied to issue after issue."
"Thinking differently requires speaking differently" and "Facts matter enormously, but to be meaningful they must be framed in terms of their moral importance." and "Just speaking truth to power doesn’t work. You need to frame the truths effectively from your perspective. "
Lakoff definitely takes a side:
I have been referred to as a “cognitive activist,” and I think the label fits me well. As a professor I do analyses of linguistic and conceptual issues in politics, and I do them as accurately as I can. But that analytic act is a political act. Awareness matters. Being able to articulate what is going on can change what is going on—at least in the long run
And: "Unlike the right, the left does not think strategically. We think issue by issue."
Don't step in someone else's frame
"When we negate a frame, we evoke the frame."
Not only does negating a frame activate that frame, but the more it is activated, the stronger it gets. The moral for political discourse is clear: When you argue against someone on the other side using their language and their frames, you are activating their frames, strengthening their frames in those who hear you, and undermining your own views.
self-interest and voting
Democrats are shocked or puzzled when voters do not vote their self-interest. “How,” Democrats keep asking me, “can any poor person vote for Republicans when Republican policies hurt them so badly?” The Democratic response is to try to explain over and over to the conservative poor why voting Democratic would serve their self-interest. Despite all evidence that this is a bad strategy, Democrats keep banging their heads against the wall.
"People do not necessarily vote in their self-interest. They vote their identity. They vote their values. They vote for who they identify with."
Strict father (Rep) vs nurturant parent (Dem)
Democrats and Republicans differ morally: "We’ve seen that the major moral divisions in our politics derive from two opposed models of the family: a progressive (nurturant parent) morality and a conservative (strict father) morality." and "Whereas progressives believe centrally in empathy (caring about their fellow citizens), both personal and social responsibility, and a commitment toward doing their best toward those ends, conservatives believe only in personal responsibility."
How is framing different from spin or propaganda?
Framing is normal. Every sentence we say is framed in some way. When we say what we believe, we are using frames that we think are relatively accurate.
Spin is the manipulative use of a frame. Spin is used when something embarrassing has happened or has been said, and it’s an attempt to put an innocent frame on it—that is, to make the embarrassing occurrence sound normal or good. Propaganda is another manipulative use of framing.
Propaganda is an attempt to get the public to adopt a frame that is not true and is known not to be true, for the purpose of gaining or maintaining political control.
The reframing I am suggesting is neither spin nor propaganda. Progressives need to learn to communicate using frames that they really believe, frames that express what their moral views really are. I strongly recommend against any deceptive framing. I think it is not just morally reprehensible, but also impractical, because deceptive framing usually backfires sooner or later.
Advice
"Saying it right—and saying it over and over—is advice that can be applied to issue after issue."
"Remember, don’t just negate the other person’s claims; reframe. The facts unframed will not set you free. You cannot win just by stating the true facts and showing that they contradict your opponent’s claims. Frames trump facts. His frames will stay and the facts will bounce off. Always reframe and fit the facts to your frame."
"Never answer a question framed from your opponent’s point of view. Always reframe the question to fit your values and your frames. This may make you uncomfortable, since normal discourse styles require you to directly answer questions posed. That is a trap. Practice changing frames. • Be sincere. Use frames you really believe in, based on values you really hold."
Those are a lot of guidelines. But there are only four really important ones:
1. Show respect
2. Respond by reframing
3. Think and talk at the level of values
4. Say what you believe
pelks's review against another edition
5.0
Progressives, why aren't you reading this? Why aren't we at least *trying* this? The formula clearly works for conservatives.
jain's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting to read this book in the wake of the election of a Democratic president who so far has proved adept at getting out his particular message. Part one consists of half a dozen older essays that include repetitions and redundancies. Part two is more concise and focused.
Both parts contain astute and useful observations on the nature of modern American politics. I suspect (though I can't know for certain, not having read the other book) that it would make more sense to read Moral Politics and part two of this book and to skip part one.
Both parts contain astute and useful observations on the nature of modern American politics. I suspect (though I can't know for certain, not having read the other book) that it would make more sense to read Moral Politics and part two of this book and to skip part one.