Met-Country's Advice on Framing
Metaphor Country: Bush at The Wall Street Journal: Frames and Counter-Frames
"Exploit the gaps between frame and policy, to illuminate real programmatic differences."
Thanks Adam ... you just erased whatever remaining need I had to read Lakoff's "Moral Politics." That advice is worth far more than any Lakoff Meetups. Another good point in the strand connecting Wittman's and Kilgore's takes today.
Comments
Am I the only one who doesn't have a clue what in the world this all means?
Because if so, I'm going to go drink another beer.
Posted by: Chris Elam | January 12, 2005 10:16 PM
Met-Country's points don't invalidate framing or its significance. You just can't make language the meat of the political strategy. There have to be substantative policies to back it up.
Republicans for 20+ years have had a very appealing framing and message. But many Republicans have long contradicted that, and it's just more obvious with Bush, DeLay, etc.
I've liked Lakoff before he was political and popular: Metaphors We Live By is a great little book. The thing about his work is that it's important and significant only at a certain level, but it's not an end-all, be-all. (His paternal-maternal analysis of the parties was intriguing, but it didn't seem all that useful or even true.)
Posted by: Tx Bubba | January 13, 2005 04:55 PM
Chris,
You were not alone until I had the context of Tx Bubba's comment. Note that I haven't read the link that Greg was referencing yet which would shed more light I'm sure.
By the way, I opted for Tennessee whisky:)
Posted by: Ted Waterston | January 14, 2005 12:07 AM