Advertisement
The reason Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White
House and the Supreme Court is because they have won the “language war.”
President Hoover called himself a “true liberal,” and President Eisenhower said that cutting federal spending on education would offend “every liberal — including me.”
“Liberal” has been made into a dirty word by Republican think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and Republican linguist and pollster Frank Luntz.
How did they do it? The first step was to make the sound of the word 'liberal' seem like something undesirable. Notice the tone of voice used by most so-called conservative politicians and so-called conservative radio and television talk show hosts when they say the word: liberal. They make the word liberal sound contemptible. They always say it with a tone of voice of contempt, scorn and condescension.
They don't do this by accident. No doubt, most, if not all, have spend many hours in front of a microphone and video camera practicing and rehearsing their pronunciation of the word: liberal.
Obviously, Karl Rove, Frank Luntz and other special handlers from the Heritage Foundation have coached them very will.
And notice that when they use the word liberal it is often preceded with a negative word such as limousine, West Coast or Hollywood. Often the word liberal is followed by the word: elite.
The fact is that the vast majority of limousine owners are Republicans. So are the vast majority of private country club members, the vast majority of yacht owners, the vast majority of private airplane owners, especially jet airplane owners are Republicans--not Democrats.
As well that they should be, if their prime goal in life is to advance their own economic self interest at the expense of everyone else.
But the Republican Party would be a small minority party if they only attracted those who benefit from their policies. In order to become the majority party they had to bamboozle, con and swindle "the mob" into voting them into power.
They did it by winning the "language war."
But the so-called conservatives live in glass houses. What they have done to the Liberals/Progressives, Liberals/Progressives can do to them. One way is to always precede the word conservative with "so-called."
"So-called" is a great term for disrespecting your opponents, and it's what Progressives need to do to win elections. James J. Kroeger wrote an outstanding and relevant essay entitled: "THE REPUBLICAN NEMESIS" http://taxwisdom.org/republican_nemesis.htm.
Perhaps most important is the way Progressives pronounce the word: conservative. There are two approaches that will work. One is to emphasize the "con" in conservative and then shortly before or after you say the word CONservative, say something about con men or con artists. That way CONservatives will be associated with con artists -- which most should be.
Another way is to emphasize the SERVATIVE part in the word conservative. Shortly after Progressives say the word conSERVATIVE, they should ask who are being served by the so-called conSERVATIVES? Certainly it's not you, unless you happen to be a CEO or major share holder of a huge oil corporation. It's not you, unless you happen to be the CEO or major share holder of a pharmaceutical company. It's not you unless you happen to be the beneficiary of a large inheritance, because the Bush Administration and the so-called conSERVATIVES in Congress want to make it completely tax free. It's not you, unless you always travel First Class and stay in five star hotels without having to be concerned about the price.
The Republicans have very effectively used a debating technique and propaganda technique of 'Stealing their thunder.' The Republicans are very vulnerable to being accused of creating 'Class Warfare.' That's because they do it. 'Stealing their thunder' is bringing up your negative before the opposition does, then turning it back on them.
Instead of just stealing the Democrats thunder by bringing up the subject of Class Warfare first, they have accused the Democrats of doing exactly what they do themselves.
But just because they accuse the Democrats of creating class warfare, that doesn't mean that the Democrats should not discuss the issue and set the record straight.
In Kroeger's outstanding essay, he shows that the reason Republicans have been winning elections is because they are winning THE IMAGE CAMPAIGN. In politics, image is everything and the difference between winning and losing elections. Usually, the candidate who shows the most respect for their opponent--will lose!
Kroeger points out that when Democrats are accused of hating Bush or any other Republican candidate, they should point out that we don't hate them: we FEAR them. We FEAR that the so-called conservative Republicans are taking our country down the path of financial ruin. We FEAR that the Regressive Republican policies are turning the respect that the United States once had throughout the world, into hatred of the United States and contempt for, the United States.
David Michael Green wrote an outstanding essay titled: "WHAT'S IN A NAME? EVERYTHING: How Progressives Can Start Winning Again By Renaming Their Opponents and Reframing The Debate." His outstanding essay can be viewed at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0208-21.htm.
Green suggests that we always call Republicans: Regressives. I agree. But his outstanding idea has not gone very far because so far, it has not been used. For a name to catch on it has to be used over and over again with constant repetition.
Names are very important in politics. The Estate Tax, which only effects the estates of multimillionaires, has been changed through contestant repetition into the so-called Death Tax. Now Johnny Lunchbuckett and Joe Sixpack are against the so-called Death Tax simply because its name has been changed.
If you let the opposition name you, you are fighting their fight, on their terms -- and you will probably lose.
If Mohammed Ali had attempted to fight with the style of either Joe Fraser or Mike Tyson, I doubt that he would have won a single professional fight. On the other hand, if either Joe Fraser or Mike Tyson had attempted to fight like Mohammed Ali, they probably would never have won any fights either.
The key to political victory is knowing your strengths and weaknesses and knowing your opponents strengths and weaknesses, and fighting your fight -- not theirs.
Another key to political success is the ability to tell great stories. Storytelling is a powerful persuasion and influencing tool. Outstanding salesmen and other influencers are usually great storytellers. Winning politicians are usually very good or great storytellers. Stories need not be long to be effective. In fact, a one or two sentence story can be a very effective.
I highly recommend a little book about the art of storytelling by Annette Simmons titled: "THE STORY FACTOR: Inspiration, Influence and Persuasion Through the Art of Storytelling." One reviewer of this book notes that the one thing history's greatest leaders have in common is that they were all great storytellers.
No doubt, storytelling is at the top of the list of great persuasion tools. Also on the list are metaphors and rhetorical questions. Questions are quite often the key to political victory. Turning a question around and framing it to your advantage is that key.
If you ask most adults whether or not they favor the legalization of marijuana, most will say no. Ask these same people if they they believe that marijuana should remain completely unregulated, untaxed and controlled by criminals--criminals who often sell other, much more dangerous drugs--and offer free samples of the more dangerous drugs to their marijuana customers, and you will very likely get a completely different answer.
The difference is how the question is framed. And the difference betweet political victory and political defeat is who controlls the language.
President Hoover called himself a “true liberal,” and President Eisenhower said that cutting federal spending on education would offend “every liberal — including me.”
“Liberal” has been made into a dirty word by Republican think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and Republican linguist and pollster Frank Luntz.
How did they do it? The first step was to make the sound of the word 'liberal' seem like something undesirable. Notice the tone of voice used by most so-called conservative politicians and so-called conservative radio and television talk show hosts when they say the word: liberal. They make the word liberal sound contemptible. They always say it with a tone of voice of contempt, scorn and condescension.
They don't do this by accident. No doubt, most, if not all, have spend many hours in front of a microphone and video camera practicing and rehearsing their pronunciation of the word: liberal.
Obviously, Karl Rove, Frank Luntz and other special handlers from the Heritage Foundation have coached them very will.
And notice that when they use the word liberal it is often preceded with a negative word such as limousine, West Coast or Hollywood. Often the word liberal is followed by the word: elite.
The fact is that the vast majority of limousine owners are Republicans. So are the vast majority of private country club members, the vast majority of yacht owners, the vast majority of private airplane owners, especially jet airplane owners are Republicans--not Democrats.
As well that they should be, if their prime goal in life is to advance their own economic self interest at the expense of everyone else.
But the Republican Party would be a small minority party if they only attracted those who benefit from their policies. In order to become the majority party they had to bamboozle, con and swindle "the mob" into voting them into power.
They did it by winning the "language war."
But the so-called conservatives live in glass houses. What they have done to the Liberals/Progressives, Liberals/Progressives can do to them. One way is to always precede the word conservative with "so-called."
"So-called" is a great term for disrespecting your opponents, and it's what Progressives need to do to win elections. James J. Kroeger wrote an outstanding and relevant essay entitled: "THE REPUBLICAN NEMESIS" http://taxwisdom.org/republican_nemesis.htm.
Perhaps most important is the way Progressives pronounce the word: conservative. There are two approaches that will work. One is to emphasize the "con" in conservative and then shortly before or after you say the word CONservative, say something about con men or con artists. That way CONservatives will be associated with con artists -- which most should be.
Another way is to emphasize the SERVATIVE part in the word conservative. Shortly after Progressives say the word conSERVATIVE, they should ask who are being served by the so-called conSERVATIVES? Certainly it's not you, unless you happen to be a CEO or major share holder of a huge oil corporation. It's not you, unless you happen to be the CEO or major share holder of a pharmaceutical company. It's not you unless you happen to be the beneficiary of a large inheritance, because the Bush Administration and the so-called conSERVATIVES in Congress want to make it completely tax free. It's not you, unless you always travel First Class and stay in five star hotels without having to be concerned about the price.
The Republicans have very effectively used a debating technique and propaganda technique of 'Stealing their thunder.' The Republicans are very vulnerable to being accused of creating 'Class Warfare.' That's because they do it. 'Stealing their thunder' is bringing up your negative before the opposition does, then turning it back on them.
Instead of just stealing the Democrats thunder by bringing up the subject of Class Warfare first, they have accused the Democrats of doing exactly what they do themselves.
But just because they accuse the Democrats of creating class warfare, that doesn't mean that the Democrats should not discuss the issue and set the record straight.
In Kroeger's outstanding essay, he shows that the reason Republicans have been winning elections is because they are winning THE IMAGE CAMPAIGN. In politics, image is everything and the difference between winning and losing elections. Usually, the candidate who shows the most respect for their opponent--will lose!
Kroeger points out that when Democrats are accused of hating Bush or any other Republican candidate, they should point out that we don't hate them: we FEAR them. We FEAR that the so-called conservative Republicans are taking our country down the path of financial ruin. We FEAR that the Regressive Republican policies are turning the respect that the United States once had throughout the world, into hatred of the United States and contempt for, the United States.
David Michael Green wrote an outstanding essay titled: "WHAT'S IN A NAME? EVERYTHING: How Progressives Can Start Winning Again By Renaming Their Opponents and Reframing The Debate." His outstanding essay can be viewed at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0208-21.htm.
Green suggests that we always call Republicans: Regressives. I agree. But his outstanding idea has not gone very far because so far, it has not been used. For a name to catch on it has to be used over and over again with constant repetition.
Names are very important in politics. The Estate Tax, which only effects the estates of multimillionaires, has been changed through contestant repetition into the so-called Death Tax. Now Johnny Lunchbuckett and Joe Sixpack are against the so-called Death Tax simply because its name has been changed.
If you let the opposition name you, you are fighting their fight, on their terms -- and you will probably lose.
If Mohammed Ali had attempted to fight with the style of either Joe Fraser or Mike Tyson, I doubt that he would have won a single professional fight. On the other hand, if either Joe Fraser or Mike Tyson had attempted to fight like Mohammed Ali, they probably would never have won any fights either.
The key to political victory is knowing your strengths and weaknesses and knowing your opponents strengths and weaknesses, and fighting your fight -- not theirs.
Another key to political success is the ability to tell great stories. Storytelling is a powerful persuasion and influencing tool. Outstanding salesmen and other influencers are usually great storytellers. Winning politicians are usually very good or great storytellers. Stories need not be long to be effective. In fact, a one or two sentence story can be a very effective.
I highly recommend a little book about the art of storytelling by Annette Simmons titled: "THE STORY FACTOR: Inspiration, Influence and Persuasion Through the Art of Storytelling." One reviewer of this book notes that the one thing history's greatest leaders have in common is that they were all great storytellers.
No doubt, storytelling is at the top of the list of great persuasion tools. Also on the list are metaphors and rhetorical questions. Questions are quite often the key to political victory. Turning a question around and framing it to your advantage is that key.
If you ask most adults whether or not they favor the legalization of marijuana, most will say no. Ask these same people if they they believe that marijuana should remain completely unregulated, untaxed and controlled by criminals--criminals who often sell other, much more dangerous drugs--and offer free samples of the more dangerous drugs to their marijuana customers, and you will very likely get a completely different answer.
The difference is how the question is framed. And the difference betweet political victory and political defeat is who controlls the language.