Andy on Twitter

  • Amazon announces profits ⅓ of what street expected. Bezos becomes world's wealthiest person. That's just how the Zon roles...,
  • “Be the silence that listens.” — Tara Brach () (thanks ),
  • Wow! ,
  • Everytime I have to go back to the world I think "I just wish this company used for everything". ,
  • Every time I am "forced" to use Microsoft software it is nothing but a major disappointment - think the hardware might be ahead of software,
  • RR points to the sad state of the CMO. Succession is the major issue - aside from the turnover itself ,
  • Of to Christchurch. Brrrrrrrrrrr,
  • Stop whining about Facebook and Google and learn from them - spot bloody on! ,
  • Looking forward to reading this ,
  • Worth a read ,
  • Love this... ,
  • Like how McKinsey frames culture and behaviour together. ,
  • Fed Up with Super Rugby games stopages for criminal investigations. Equaly tired of thuggery ,
  • Quarter final super rugby and the stadium looks pretty empty. Sad state of super rugby in AU,
  • Agree with Mark - don't get it. Don't need to be reminded that my sandwich was a beauty chook. ,
  • Connect

I should be getting a fee…

For my unending promotion of Lakoff’s book “Don’t Think Of An Elephant“. Holly Yeager at the FT (the site with the annoying log-on and pop-ups) penned a short piece on it today.

And here’s another from The Chronicle on how the Democrats are looking at Lakoff’s advise.

“It’s all about words and craftsmanship,” said Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel, of Lakoff’s advice. “He shows us that we ought to take the Republicans’ words and show why they don’t work, why they just aren’t so.”

Taranto at the Wall Street Journal writes some of the first criticism of Lakoff’s thinking – or at least the implementation of it.

You see the problem: It’s not as if the Dems don’t already do what Lakoff is recommending. Indeed, the supposedly groundbreaking insight this professor of linguistics and cognitive sciences is offering is nothing more than a commonplace of political rhetoric: Generally, it is good to describe things you’re for in favorable-sounding terms and things you’re against in unfavorable-sounding ones.

The Dems seem to think Lakoff invented euphemism and dysphemism. Judging by the examples in the Chronicle piece, we’d say he isn’t even very good at employing them. “Public protection attorneys” as a euphemism for trial lawyers is simply laughable. (Actually, “trial lawyers” is a neutral term; it has negative connotations because trial lawyers have a bad reputation.) Calling same-sex marriage “the right to marry” seems unlikely to persuade anyone that the definition of marriage should change.

Fair point. Bottom-line is that while Lakoff’s recommended words might not be ideal, the process and thinking he has developed remains as powerful as ever. And as an observer of the latest election, did the Democrats need a message that more clearly resonated or what?

Comments are closed for this post.


  • Connect
How did you connect?   [?]