Centerfield

Back to the red/blue divide! Frank sees the issue as one of red stater moronity, the tricking of the Big Red Middle by those wascally Wepublicans, us kunckle-draggin' flatlanders bein' just too dim to know what's good for us. Lakoff sees the Dem's problem as one of bad framing. Baer is dead on target. Neither Lakoff nor Frank seems able to peer beyond their own particular shadowbox.

Frank started with his "conclusions" and set out to prove them. This required he manufacture and distort and selectively choose his "evidence" to make the case. Always a poor way to learn anything, and it only convinces the choir. Lakoff starts out with a good hypothesis, but is too thrilled with his beautiful theory to adapt it to the ugly reality.

While the American public is certainly not a collective genius (which public is?) it's not a collective total idiot either. We've been raised on commercials that always promise more than is delivered, and just about everyone has read Orwell's 1984. Newspeak is old news, we see it every day, and have all our lives. We have some natural immunity. Lakoff is right as far as he goes, but he (and the Left) vastly underestimates the credulity of the voting public. We know politicans are spouting doubleplus untruth much or most of the time.

You can put lipstick on a pig, and it'll be prettier pig, but it'll still be a pig. Lakoff has figured out how to make pigs prettier. But what he hasn't figured out is how to make people want more pigs, or those particular pigs, when they're hungry for chicken and beef.

(I thought I already posted the following but somehow it didn't show up.) We (this blog) seem to be stuck on / obsessed with how to fix the Democratic party. I'm getting tired of it. Maybe I'm getting tired of it because (as Tully points out) its seems to be so much of "why can't the America public see how right we are?".

Could the Dems just do their soul-searching a little more quietly (or maybe its just that we're listening too intently).

PS If the same happened to the Republicans I'd say the same thing.

I blame Rick! :-) Seriously, it makes sense that the democrats are doing the soul-searching, since they lost to a very beatable guy.

I disagree that the majority here has taken the "why can't the public see we're right" approach. I see it in our partisan democratic visitors, but I don't see it in me or Tully or Bill, or even so much in Rick.

I know a lot of people don't like to give too much credence to the idea that language matters, because it places rhetoric over content, marketing over substance. But I think more of us should examine the value of language choices to see what insight can be gleaned instead of trying to dismiss it.

Once upon the time, the GOP wanted to get rid of the estate tax. They shifted public opinion from 90% opposed to the change to a majority in favor of the change in large part simply by calling it a "death tax" instead of an estate tax. Ignore such lessons at your peril, IMO.

To repeat myself, visit PBS, and look into the Persuaders.

Well, it seems like an important topic for a political blog. If someone wants to post about "How to fix the Republican Party," they're welcome to. It's just that the Republican Party is functioning quite effectively and doesn't obviously need fixing.

The Centrist Coalition is in fact trying to jump-start an Independent movement. I've scheduled a meetup in Boston:

I wish we could forget about Democrats and Republicans. But the prospects for a successful Independent movement are dim unless a white knight comes forward.

It's just that the Republican Party is functioning quite effectively and doesn't obviously need fixing.

There's fixing and then there's fixing. Just because they're on top right now doesn't mean they couldn't use some major adjustments.

Framing counts. But it works best and most effectively when you're trying to sell one brand over another, not when you're trying to sell a different product than what the customer wants.

There is strength, however, in the word "marriage" over, say, "Civil Union" or "Domestic Partnership". Separate but equal isn't good enough... and gay people shouldn't be forced to settle. Just as racial and religious minorities have demanded nothing less than perfectly equal treatment, so should America's GLBT population.

Perhaps it's idealism, but I strongly believe that over everything, this country was founded in the belief that all of us are entitled to equal protection/privlige under the law, and there is no amount of religious zeal, economic double-talk or sociological claptrap that changes that. Call gay a disease if you want. Call it disgusting. Talk all you want about giving financial benefits to couples that, because of what amounts to a simple biological incompatibility, are incapable of reproducing (which, by the way, is a really impractical argument when you consider all the social good that marriage contributes beyond the production and care of children.)

However, do not expect a population as large and as well organized as the gays to roll over and be trampled on by a majority that will have to, eventually, fully come to terms with those on the "other team".

That all said, let me address the actual reason of the threadstarter: Regardless of how you stand, I think everyone can agree that if the Democrats intend to win an election... there is some definite retooling in order. The fact that everyone involved is communicating to that end simply shows that there is recognition of the problem, and a sincere desire to do something about it. Asking the dems to do their soul-searching more quietly is kind of like asking a hurt child not to cry. It is a normal and reasonable reaction to a fairly painful and significant loss.