I'm going to list some loaded words and buzzwords, words that are used because they carry extra connotations or emotional baggage to get a specific reaction out of the listener, and issues that frequently use loaded words that people should watch out for when listening to political discourse. Find out what your own reactions are when listening to politicians using these words or talking about these subjects.
tax increase
health care
deficit
Sarah Palin
recession
narrative
compromise
democracy
Egypt
dictators
future
China
debt
union
labor rights
spending cuts
state salaries
socialism
gridlock
bailout
abortion
global warming
same-sex marriage
poverty
war
gun control
public welfare
death panel
The Constitution
change
the right side of history
Monday, February 28, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
Conservative Language
George Lakoff wrote a post relatively recently about "new centrist" ideology, found here.
Essentially, Lakoff believes that there is no real "centrist" ideology. What we deem centrism is a mix of conservative and progressive ideologies on different and distinct issues, rather than a "centrist" view on all issues.
In any case, the most relevant part of his post to my topic is his discussion on the effect of language on the listeners' perception of the issues.
When a liberal moves to the center, he is by definition becoming more conservative. This could mean that he would be adopting more conservative policies, and would likely mean that he would be using more conservative language. According to Lakoff, the change in language use (away from the empathy based language of progressives towards the individualistic language of conservatives) causes the strengthening of the conservative worldview in the listeners, essentially promoting conservatism. This seems to be a mostly one-way street: whereas progressives do move to the center and adopt conservative language, conservatives have been trained not to use the language of liberals. The conservatives play and believe in the language game more than the progressives.
Obama is a centrist. However, he does seem to know how to play the language game, as he adopts both conservative and progressive language. How do you think his use of both conservative and progressive language will play out for him in the future?
Essentially, Lakoff believes that there is no real "centrist" ideology. What we deem centrism is a mix of conservative and progressive ideologies on different and distinct issues, rather than a "centrist" view on all issues.
In any case, the most relevant part of his post to my topic is his discussion on the effect of language on the listeners' perception of the issues.
When a liberal moves to the center, he is by definition becoming more conservative. This could mean that he would be adopting more conservative policies, and would likely mean that he would be using more conservative language. According to Lakoff, the change in language use (away from the empathy based language of progressives towards the individualistic language of conservatives) causes the strengthening of the conservative worldview in the listeners, essentially promoting conservatism. This seems to be a mostly one-way street: whereas progressives do move to the center and adopt conservative language, conservatives have been trained not to use the language of liberals. The conservatives play and believe in the language game more than the progressives.
Obama is a centrist. However, he does seem to know how to play the language game, as he adopts both conservative and progressive language. How do you think his use of both conservative and progressive language will play out for him in the future?
Monday, February 7, 2011
Speech and New Narrative?
This goes back a bit in time before my last post, but anyway...
According to The Global Language Monitor, on January 13 Obama gave his "strongest" speech since his "Yes, we can!" speech. This speech, known as his Tuscon memorial speech honoring the victims of the Tuscon shooting, was a somber, eulogy-like speech. As a speech after a tragic event, it was loaded with empathy, and referenced hope, light, love, and the future.
A couple of the reasons for this speech's success include his scriptural references and his appeal to emotion when he called for us to live up to the expectations of children, echoing Lincoln and MLK. It was also one of his easiest-to-understand speeches, which usually increases the impact of the speech. GLM believed that this speech, along with the midterm elections being over, would allow Obama to pursue a new narrative focusing on hope and the future.
So, what is this new narrative? According to George Lakoff, based on his State of the Union address, Obama's new narrative going into the presidential elections is and will be competitiveness. As I noted last time, competitiveness was big in his State of the Union address, in that the US needs to "win" the future. To get the full details on this, I highly recommend reading Lakoff's post. It is definitely an interesting take on this new narrative.
According to The Global Language Monitor, on January 13 Obama gave his "strongest" speech since his "Yes, we can!" speech. This speech, known as his Tuscon memorial speech honoring the victims of the Tuscon shooting, was a somber, eulogy-like speech. As a speech after a tragic event, it was loaded with empathy, and referenced hope, light, love, and the future.
A couple of the reasons for this speech's success include his scriptural references and his appeal to emotion when he called for us to live up to the expectations of children, echoing Lincoln and MLK. It was also one of his easiest-to-understand speeches, which usually increases the impact of the speech. GLM believed that this speech, along with the midterm elections being over, would allow Obama to pursue a new narrative focusing on hope and the future.
So, what is this new narrative? According to George Lakoff, based on his State of the Union address, Obama's new narrative going into the presidential elections is and will be competitiveness. As I noted last time, competitiveness was big in his State of the Union address, in that the US needs to "win" the future. To get the full details on this, I highly recommend reading Lakoff's post. It is definitely an interesting take on this new narrative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)