Occupy the Message. Republican pollster: “Words can kill Occupy Wall Street”

Frank Luntz is shaping what the 1% will be saying to defuse and re-define the 99% message.  “We can learn a lot from this guy, on how a relentless message machine can deceive a free society and manipulate ordinary people into acting against their own interests.”  J. Connelly.

“When Luntz says he is “scared to death,” he means that the Republicans who hire him are scared to death and he can profit from that fear by offering them new language. Luntz is  clever. Yes, Republicans are scared. But there needs to be a serious discussion of both Luntz’s remarks and the progressive non-response.”  G. Lakoff

Two articles follow.  First from Joel Connelly and second from George Lakoff.  The messaging wars have begun and the Occupy Movement’s success is significantly dependent on how this plays out.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Republican-pollster-Words-can-kill-Occupy-Wall-2346722.php#ixzz1fyGYmG4w  

Republican pollster: Words can kill Occupy Wall Street

Published 10:59 p.m., Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Frank Luntz is a pollster, omnipresent on Fox News and at Republican retreats, who tests words, phrases and message themes for the “iron triangle” — corporations, right-wing media and conservative image-makers — who run the colossus that is American conservatism.

Luntz has now taken on the job of spin doctor for the 1 percent.

A master of defusing, defining and disinformation — he lately strategized on how to block creation of the feds’ new Consumer Financial Protection Agency — Luntz is on top of his game.

Luntz was the guy who tested themes for New Gingrich’s “Contract with America” in the 1990s. A decade later, he cannily told Fox to purge the phrase “public option” from its health care vocabulary and hammer at themes such as “government-run health care” and “government option.”

He advised GOP insurgent Patrick Buchanan in his 1992 presidential run. In 2003, however, he was telling Congress’ Republican rulers how to win “the environmental communications battle.” The key steps were to excise the phrase “global warming” in favor of the milder “climate change” and “continue to make lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”

And last week — witnessed by Chris Moody of The Ticket — Luntz delivered Orwellian advice on how to talk about Occupy Wall Street to the Republican Governors Association at a Florida retreat.

Why was this lesson necessary?The soon-to-be-evicted campers at Seattle Central Community College should take heart. “I’m so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort, I’m frightened to death,” said Luntz. “They’re having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”

The solution: Don’t challenge society’s inequities. Change the language of debate. Some tips:

Corporate bonuses:  Americans of all stripes have voiced outrage at multi-million-dollar bonuses handed out to executives of the banks and financial institutions that were bailed out with taxpayer dollars deemed too big to fail.

Corporations should respond, argued Luntz, not by curtailing bonuses but by banning the word “bonus.”

“If you give out a bonus at a time of financial hardship, you’re going to make people angry. It’s ‘pay for performance.'”

Taxing the rich: The American public has never warmed to soaking the rich. Nowadays, however, there’s the widespread belief that they should at least bathe regularly — and contribute to keeping such measures as the payroll-tax cut and extension of unemployment benefits.

Enter Luntz. The Republicans should never talk about government “taxing the rich,” but instead talk of “taking from the rich.”

“If you talk about raising taxes on the rich,” the public gives a thumbs up, said Luntz. But instead, “if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no. ‘Taxing,’ the public will say yes.”

Excise “capitalism”: The word conjures executive jets, lavish retreats and long cigars — ideal for the right in denouncing “labor bosses” but dangerous when it comes to defining captains of industry.

“I’m trying to get that word removed and we’re replacing it with either ‘economic freedom’ or ‘free market’,” Luntz told GOP governors.”The public … still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we’re seen as defenders of quote ‘Wall Street’ end quote, we’ve got a problem.”

Pretend to sympathize: Luntz is no fan of Gingrich’s bathe-and-get-a-job advice to the Occupy campers. He prefers the soft sell. “First off, here are three words for you: ‘I get it,'” he told Republican governors.

“I ‘get’ that you’re angry. I ‘get’ that you’ve seen inequality.I ‘get’ that you want to fix the system.” After getting it, Luntz advised, talk Republican policy as a solution to the problem.”

Replace “middle class”: Democrats have made gains when they talk about those who work hard and play by the rules — Wall Street is deficient on the latter count — and in speaking about the “forgotten” middle class.

Luntz’s solution is to send “middle class” — the term — packing. “They (Democrats) cannot win if the fight is on hardworking taxpayers,” he told GOP governors. “We can say we defend the ‘middle class’ and the public will say, ‘I’m not sure about that.’ But defending ‘hardworking taxpayers’ and Republicans have an advantage.”

“Compromise” is out: America has worked for 225 years, in large part, because regions and states and different groups have worked out (usually imperfectly) their differences. But “compromise” won’t do in a polarized society, especially when you must manipuate the polarized.

“If you talk about ‘compromise,’ Luntz advised, “they’ll say you’re selling out. Your side doesn’t want you to ‘compromise.’ What you use in that to replace it with is ‘cooperation.’ It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles and still get the job done.”

The GOP pollster tweaks other words. “Entrepreneur,” which implies wealth, should be replaced by “job creators” and “small business owners.” Instead of talking about “jobs,” the governors were told to use “careers.”

One theme runs through everything that Luntz does: blame government.

Last year, in “The Language of Financial Reform,” he urged taking attention away from hedge funds, derivatives, insider trading and bank bailouts. Instead, frame the issue as a battle against government bureaucrats.

“This is your critical advantage,” he told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “Washington’s incompetence is the common ground on which you can build support.”

He was back at it before Republican governors, who are, after all, appoint-and-boss bureaucrats in 29 states.

“It’s not about ‘government spending,’ it’s about ‘waste,'” Luntz told them. “That’s what makes people angry.”

We can learn a lot from this guy, on how a relentless message machine can deceive a free society and manipulate ordinary people into acting against their own interests.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Republican-pollster-Words-can-kill-Occupy-Wall-2346722.php#ixzz1fyAdj8W4

Published on Wednesday, December 7, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

Words That Don’t Work

Progressives had some fun last week with Frank Luntz, who told the Republican Governors’ Association that he was scared to death of the Occupy movement and recommended language to combat what the movement had achieved. But the progressive critics mostly just laughed, said his language wouldn’t work, and assumed that if Luntz was scared, everything was hunky-dory.  Just keep on saying the words Luntz doesn’t like: capitalism, tax the rich, etc.

It’s a trap.

When Luntz says he is “scared to death,” he means that the Republicans who hire him are scared to death and he can profit from that fear by offering them new language. Luntz is  clever. Yes, Republicans are scared. But there needs to be a serious discussion of both Luntz’s remarks and the progressive non-response.

What has been learned from the brain and cognitive sciences is that words are defined by fixed frames we use in thinking, frames come in hierarchical systems, and political frames are defined in moral terms, where “morality” is very different for conservatives and progressives. What lies behind the Occupy movement is moral view of democracy: Democracy is about citizens caring about each other and acting responsibly both socially and personally. This requires a robust Public empowering and protecting everyone equally. Both private success and personal freedom depend on such a Public. Every critique and proposal of the Occupy movement fits this moral view, which happens to be the progressive moral view.

What the Occupy movement can’t stand is the opposite “moral” view, that Democracy provides the freedom to seek one’s self-interest and ignore what is good for other Americans and others in the world. That view lies behind the Wall Street ethic of the Greedy Market, as opposed to a Market for All, a market that should maximize the well-being of most Americans. This view leads to a hierarchical view of society, where success is always deserved and lack of success is moral failure. The rich are the moral, and they not only deserve their wealth, they also deserve the power it brings. This is the view that Luntz is defending.

Referring to the rich as “hardworking taxpayers” ignores the fact that a great percentage of the rich do not get their wealth from making things, but rather from investments in other people’s labor, and that most of the 1% are managers, not people who make things or directly provide services.  The hardworking taxpayers are the 99%. That is not the frame that Luntz wants activated.

But Luntz is not just addressing his remarks to Republicans. He is also looking to take Democrats for suckers.  How? By choosing his frames carefully, and getting Democrats to do the opposite of what he tells Republicans. There is a basic truth about framing. If you accept the other guy’s frame, you lose.

Take “capitalism.” It arises these days in socialist discourse, and is seen as the opposite of socialism. To attack “capitalism” in this frame is to accept “socialism.” Conservatives are trying to cast Progressives, who mostly have businesses or work for businesses or are looking for good business jobs, as socialists. If you take the Luntz bait, you will be sucked into sounding like a socialist. Whatever one thinks of socialism, most Americans falsely identify it with communism, and will reject it out of hand.

Luntz would love to get Democrats using the word “tax” in the conservative sense of taking money from the pockets of hardworking folks and wasting it on people who don’t deserve it.  Luntz doesn’t want Democrats pointing out how private success depends on public investment – in infrastructure, education, health, transportation, research, economic stability, protections of all sorts, and so on.  He doesn’t want progressives talking about “revenue” which is defined in a business frame to mean money needed for any institution to function and flourish. He doesn’t want Democrats talking about the rich paying their fair share for the massive amount they have gotten from prior investments in a robust Public. Luntz would love to lure progressives into talking about government “spending” rather than investments in education, health, and infrastructure that will benefit most Americans.

He doesn’t want progressives pointing out that corporations govern our lives far more than any government does — and for their profit, not ours. He doesn’t want any discussion of corporate waste, or military waste, which is huge.

Luntz would love to have Democrats talking about “entrepreneurs,” which evokes a Republican view of the market as a tool for self-interest. His proposal to discuss “job creators” instead hides the fact that the business community has not been hiring despite record profits. He certainly does not want discussion of outsourcing and minimizing pay for work, which leads corporations to eliminate or downgrade jobs and hence keep wages low when profits are high.

Hidden behind his proposal to substitute “careers” for “jobs” is his attempt to appeal to young people just out of college and grad school who expect more — a profession — not just a mere “job.”  But of course, corporations are downgrading positions away from professional careers and more toward interchangeable McJobs requiring minimal ability and with minimal pay and benefits.

Luntz is right about not saying “sacrifice.” He is right that most Americans are already hurting more than enough. They want a viable present and a future for themselves and their children and grandchildren. He is right to suggest “talking about how ‘we’re all in this together.’ We either succeed together or we fail together.” But that is the opposite of conservative morality. It is the progressive view of a moral democracy that all of Luntz’s conservative framings contradict. It is an attempt at co-opting the progressive moral system, because the Occupy movement is showing that it is an idea of Democracy that makes sense to most Americans. And it is an attempt to take Obama’s strongest moral appeal away from him.

Unfortunately, Luntz is still ahead of most progressives responding to him. Progressives need to learn how framing works. Bashing Luntz, bashing Fox News, bashing the right-wing pundits and leaders using their frames and arguing against their positions just keeps their frames in play.

Progressives have a basic morality, which is largely unspoken. It has to be spoken, over and over, in every corner of our country. Progressives need to be both thinking and talking about their view of a moral Democracy, about how a robust Public is necessary for private success, about all that the Public gives us, about the benefits of health, about a Market for All not a Greed Market, about regulation as protection, about revenue and investment, about corporations that keep wages low when profits are high, about how most of the rich earn a lot of their money without making anything or serving anyone, about how corporations govern your life for their profit not yours, about real food, about corporate and military waste, about the moral and social role of unions, about how global warming causes the increasingly monstrous effects of weather disasters, about how to save and preserve nature.

Progressives have magnificent stories of their own to tell. They need to be telling them nonstop.

Let’s lure the right into using OUR frames in public discourse.

George Lakoff

George Lakoff is the author of Moral PoliticsDon’t Think of an Elephant!,Whose Freedom?, and Thinking Points (with the Rockridge Institute staff). He is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, and a founding senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: