The Sins of Lakoff
Democrats Must Abandon the War on Terror
Aside from the poorly chosen title, this post is an abject lesson in how following George Lakoff's advice is a death knell for the Democratic Party. Of course, back in the day, it used to be called "issue ownership" ... let the other side have the issue and talk about it all they want. I'd be real curious to see how many candidates took Chris Bowers' advice in politically competitive races and won in 2006, but then again - call me crazy - I like the idea of Democrats winning elections just as much as I do speaking coherently on matters of national defense. Sorry Chris ... worst idea ever you've got here.
Comments
Well, given my own political bent I find this pretty upsetting on the face of it. Apart from that -- it suggests there are two problems with Lakoff. There's the superficiality of "framing" as a concept, which we've covered. There's also the notion that there are always two opposing frames. Why not dozens? Modeling systems in two parts usually distort reality pretty severely. In this case, we've got the "War on Terror" frame -- which the writer thinks has to be opposed by the "Not a War on Terror" frame. Don't look now, but all the good pragmatic solutions in the middle just got thrown overboard.
I think there are problems with the phrase "War on Terror" -- I prefer "War on Islamism," which points more accurately to the source and suggests other kinds of engagement, cultural and political, that might be useful in addition to military. Note "in addition to." It's not an either-or. But if you've bought into the two frames, then you counter "war" with "law enforcement" and you're back at a traditional kind of enfeeblement. Nothing good or innovative will come of that.
Framing might be a useful concept, if used in moderation. But a tool is one thing, an article of faith and dogma is another. If this what we're going to get out of our framing discussions, better to do without.
Posted by: Alan G. Ampolsk | December 31, 2004 03:34 PM