Letters to the Editor
-
MoveOn
The MoveOn ad was a political mistake because it serves as a convenient distraction to the real issues Republicans don't want to address. MoveOn should have known that they would pounce, that the MSM would cover it as though it were a genuine controversy, and that people like you would be stuck defending it. They could have placed an anti-war ad without a stupid catchphrase.
As a side note regarding Matthews, he has been calling bullshit on Bush and Petraeus all week long, and has made some of the most reasoned and concise arguments against continuing this war.
-
MoveOn
Swopa has an excellent post about the effectiveness of the MoveOn ad at Firedoglake. It may compel some who view MoveOns's tactics negatively to reconsider their position.
"Back in June, Jane memorably wrote that the GOP brand is built on “The presumption of extreme moral rectitude even in the absence of any kind of moral compass whatsoever.” Anything that draws the latter part of that sentence to the public’s attention is the metaphorical exhaust port in the GOP death star (remember the freakout over Larry Craig?).
Our side often fails to attack this vulnerability because, well, we’re the “reality-based community,” after all — we prefer arguments based on facts and logic, and we’re not comfortable with the arrogance implied in criticizing someone else’s morality. But as Drew Westen and other researchers increasingly are recognizing, not everyone thinks this way. And the sad truth is, the arguments that are the most persuasive to us personally may not be the best method to reach people who don’t think the same way."
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/18/moveon-betrayal-of-trust-and-the-gops-moral-failure/
-
Sysprog
Good point. But your suggestion sounds dangerously close to cross-dressing.
-
Lakoff: The "Politeness Trap" -- why Congress CAN'T escape it
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/iraq-and-the-betrayal-of-trust
Sunday, September 16, 2007 07:05 PM
[...]
The Politeness Trap
There are certain politeness conventions that members of Congress follow. For example, anyone in a US military uniform must be commended for his patriotism, ability, and dedication — even if it is a political appointee on a political mission, like Petraeus.
There is a reason for this, what linguists call 'metonymy,' a mode of thought in which a leader stands for the institution he or she leads. If this commonplace metonymy is used, a general in uniform reporting to Congress would be seen as standing for the military as an institution.
[...] Bush's framing — that the commanders in the field know best — took advantage of the metonymy.
[...] He had Petraeus testify on 9/11, when nobody could possibly say anything but nice things and use code words. In short, Bush had put opponents to his policy in a politeness trap. To point out the betrayal inherent in the policy and in the general's report, they would have had to be disrespectful to the general, which they could not.
[...] I do not question the need for decorum in Congressional hearings. But that decorum itself can be put to political use, as was done in the Petraeus testimony. Because of the Politeness Trap, the questions were set within Petraeus' framing. You might question the numbers or the graphs, but not the framing of the testimony itself, namely, that the military outlook in Iraq is improving. To negate the frame is to reinforce the frame. Asking how much it is improving, preserves the frame. Arguing that it is not improving negates the frame, and therefore preserves the frame. Even asking whether it is improving preserves the frame.
What the nation saw was Institutional Betrayal by the administration and the general — betrayal of trust by manipulating the politeness conventions of the Congressional hearing.
The politeness conventions of Congress extend even further. A polite Senator or Congressman cannot describe what he or she sees if the description is impolite.
[...] Bush is saying, "Give me the funding I want to continue the occupation, or else I will leave the troops there without funding, let them get massacred, and blame you." It is political blackmail. In his dealings with the Democrats in Congress, the troops are his hostages. Can anyone in Congress say so? Not by the rules of Congressional politeness. It would be accusing him of betrayal of trust.
But we citizens can — and must — say what we see.
The Conservative Smokescreen
John McCain says that the Democrats are calling for "surrender." Norm Coleman calls Democrats "defeatist." That's not very polite, nor is it true. What conservatives have been doing for years is accusing progressives questioning their policy of betraying our military endeavors by being "weak." Anyone who questions policies favoring military action is in for a betrayal attack — one without foundation at all. Remember "cut and run." It will come back. And it will not be polite. It was not exactly polite for Sen. John McCain, a presidential candidate, to say, "MoveOn.org ought to be thrown out of this country." [...]
- - George Lakoff
-
To negate the frame is to reinforce the frame.
So every time the GOP talks about Moveon.org's framing, the GOP is reinforcing Moveon.org's framing.
It's hard to believe that Frank Luntz would approve of that.
An earlier example of bad framing by the GOP was when Nixon said,
"I am not a crook."
People think more in images than in words. In words, Nixon's statement was okay. But in images, he was forcing people to think of a "crooked Nixon" image. When we think in images, the word "not" falls out of the picture. That's one of the reasons why to negate a frame is to reinforce that frame.
-
Sysprog...
[...] Bush is saying, "Give me the funding I want to continue the occupation, or else I will leave the troops there without funding, let them get massacred, and blame you." It is political blackmail. In his dealings with the Democrats in Congress, the troops are his hostages. Can anyone in Congress say so? Not by the rules of Congressional politeness. It would be accusing him of betrayal of trust.
But we citizens can — and must — say what we see. -- George Lakoff -- Sysprog
I have posted similar comments here and elsewhere... about Bush holding the soldiers hostages, in particular when the WH would force a vote just before a congressional break, when sometimes there was a lot of security "chatter" for good measure. But it is true that our base didn't want to hear that. I got less abuse than others did who made the same point, but it was always, "That's no excuse! They're wimps!"
Anyway... thank you for posting those excerpts from Lakoff.
There has not been nearly enough discussion of what it means that Bush is willing to hold our military as hostages. That discussion would break through some more barriers. And it may be that the MoveOn ad will make that possible.