I guess that's the last time Bill Thomas goes on Meet the Press ... this was in my inbox today (below the jump):

{UPDATE 1-25-04} by nadezhda: Also after the jump, my response to what was a perfectly civil and innocuous query from praktike. Just in case anyone was losing sleep over what I think about Social Security and how it fits more broadly into "what should be done" in the economic and social policy arena, you can learn everything you ever wanted to know and were afraid to ask.    more »

Mark Schmitt has a wonderful post that has an interesting set of comments (including from prak and Billmon). Although not explictly such, the post can be seen part of a related series The Decembrist has been publishing about how Democrats think and communicate policy.

The most recent installment is on the phenomenon of Democratic consultants and politicos of all ilks who are eagerly embracing the advice found in George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives.

You can get an idea of Mark's take on the Lakoff-phenomenon from the title of his Decembrist post: No Guru, No Method, No "DaVinci Code." Yet this post is as much a defense of Lakoff as a take-down. He puts primary blame for the epidemic of silliness on the people doing the embracing, rather on Lakoff himself.

My comment at The Decembrist was sufficiently lengthy and "standalone" that I republish it here [minor edits made only for readability]. I'm rather pleased with the title I've given these remarks, even if I do says so myself.

---

My favorite Lakoff -- and where I think the best nuggets of insight are found -- are where he doesn't try to apply his cognitive approach to politics per se.

I'd reach even further back in time than Mark -- to the seminal Metaphors We Live By. It was one of the core applications of related ideas in Berger & Luckmann's equally seminal The Social Construction of Reality : A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.

Lakoff's and Mark Johnson's "metaphors" were an epiphany. By now, the perspective they presented has been thoroughly incorporated into how Americans see things in their information marketplace, even if some of us aren't totally "fluent" yet in metaphors, narratives and frames. Certainly this stuff is mothers milk today for the successful marketing and advertising hacks Billmon's talking about, whether they work in the political sphere or are just flogging commercial products.

The research program of Lakoff and his co-authors over the past few decades, or of cognitionists (somebody help me out, what's the right term?) who are heavily influenced by his core ideas, is similarly rich with ways of understanding how the process of talking about what we think has such a reciprocal effect with the way we think, and even what we think/believe. Those concepts have endless application to politics.

The giant Lakoff-hug happening now just illustrates that we always need somebody to be the popularizer of these sorts of ideas. Most political hacks -- Democrats or Republicans -- aren't going to trawl through the rather dense pages of current debates on such relevant issues as epistemology, heuristics and decision-making in quick-time, and how all of that is being affected by the acceleration of the unintermediated horizontal flow of information and ideas represented by the internet.

We need the Malcolm Gladwells and James Surowieckis to do that for us, as in their week-long BookClub discussion in Slate earlier this month. But even that step isn't enough. We then we need another round of popularizing -- to take the concepts and insights that have been boiled down and reframed by the Gladwells et al and then show how they apply in a particular setting. In the case at hand, the realm of domestic politcs.

This process isn't somehow unique for the fighters and their managers in the arena of political combat. It's the same for the business managers and marketing professionals who apply new insights emerging from cognitive neuroscience and its various "liberal arts" counterparts -- whether linguistics, rhetoric, neuroeconomics, etc. The business-types have one big advantage over the political-types, however. The B-schools produce first-rate popularizers of these concepts. The B-school professors do the trawling for nuggets for the managers, and do the digesting, synthesizing and finding real-world case studies to apply these ideas.

Business types and politicos have this behavior in common: thinking they've found the guru and the silver bullet when all they've found is the "flavor of the month." A favorite object of B-school studies is the company that got screwed up by management's over-eager embrace of "lessons" taken out of context from the latest business-best-seller. So the fact that practitioners of Democratic strategy and communication think they have found the recipe for gold shouldn't come as a surprise.

I certainly agree with Mark that we need people who digest insights "...like Lakoff's, and some insight from a historian like Alan Brinkley or Kevin Mattson, and some insight from an economist like, say, Edward Wolff, and a sociologist here and a journalist or three, and put them in perspective and integrate them." I also think he makes a very important point that it takes an old-fashioned cross-disciplinary "liberal arts" mentality to do that. We all pay a price for the narrowing academic professionalization/specialization of the humanities and social sciences.

I'd add that it's not just a matter of finding people with the right breadth of mind to do the digesting and thinking for the vast majority of us who aren't going to do it ourselves. I'd suggest an equally important part of the overall problem is the absence of a group of competent popularizers who can do the same thing for politics as the B-school professors do for business and marketing.

As Mark points out, it's really rather unfair to Lakoff to expect him to be intellectual innovator, applied research scientist, and popularizer all in one. Unfortunately, I think Lakoff's not applied some lessons from his own important work to himself. But he's not the first intellectual to be blinded a bit by the bright lights of the public stage.

Maybe while we're talking about expanding Democratic-oriented policy centers and think tanks we should add a "Policy Center for Epsitemology and Rhetoric" to do the popularizing?

Garance France-Rutka writes:

Josh Marshall's rhetorical contribution, that this is an effort to "phase out Social Security," strikes me as being on the right track. I happen to be partial to the "if it's confusing, it must be bad" argument, which honors the average, kind of out-of-it voter's inability to wrap their mind around actuarial tables and the distinctions between trust funds and general funds and how rates of productivity growth and GDP impact the program. Mike Tomasky's suggestion that this be addressed in simple, easy-to-understand television ads is also good, as is all of this back and forth.

I want to emphasize that last point again, because some of the least successful arguments during the general election also managed to become incredible popular on liberal Web sites, and I sincerely hope that people in the liberal blogosphere don't get caught up in similar rhetorical eddies during this debate. There is a very real danger of people in online communities arriving at an enthusiastic consensus about a position that they find pleasing but that doesn't actually help them accomplish anything. It'll be important to avoid that sort of satisfying yet ineffective message on Social Security privatization.

Yes, but how to know which incredibly popular arguments on liberal arguments will be the least successful? And looking backwards, how do you know which arguments were successful?

UPDATE: Incidentally, this discussion lays bare a problem Democrats (including myself) have: we are too ready to jump into tactical discussions and lists of specific programs before agreeing on what our core values are. And I think that tendency, once neutralized, will help inform the answers to my questions above.

Well this should bring a sigh of relief to Matthew Yglesias, who's been fretting ever since Nov 3 about the hard-to-explain boost of Bush support from Latino voters.

NBC Makes Unprecedented Downward Correction in Latino Support for Bush

18-point Margin of Victory for Democrat Kerry Among Hispanics Doubles Previous NBC Estimates; Numbers Affirm WCVI Criticism of National Exit Poll Figures

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 /PRNewswire/ -- In a stunning admission, an elections manager for NBC News said national news organizations overestimated President George W. Bush's support among Latino voters, downwardly revising its estimated support for President Bush to 40 percent from 44 percent among Hispanics, and increasing challenger John Kerry's support among Hispanics to 58 percent from 53 percent. The revision doubles Kerry's margin of victory among Hispanic voters from 9 to 18 percent. Ana Maria Arumi, the NBC elections manager also revised NBC's estimate for Hispanic support for Bush in Texas, revising a reported 18-point lead for Bush to a 2-point win for Kerry among Hispanics, a remarkable 20-point turnaround from figures reported on election night. [...]

The more information comes out about the exit polls, when they were right and where they were wrong, and actual voting behavior (to say nothing of actual counting of ballots), it looks like we should hold off on any more "revise Democratic strategy" sessions until at least January, when more reliable data can be assembled and analyzed with some degree of confidence.

Donkey Rising has more here and here on the ongoing revision of Hispanic numbers, and here on the declining Bush margin as the raw vote totals are finalized state-by-state.

We need money.

Matthew Yglesias' recent post, A Different Kind of Hack Gap, which praktike pointed to in Checking In, is well worth highlighting further, not just for his post but for the comment thread.

First his post, which has a good collection of links to some thoughtful pieces on alternatives to the Bush approach to combatting terrorism.

I've recommended it before, but now that they're advertising with me, let me recommend once again The Century Foundation's report Defeating The Jihadists. ... Let me also recommend Winning The War On Terror from the minority staff of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security along with the HSC minority staff's other reports. There's also good stuff on the New American Strategies website, and in the DLC's Progressive Internationalism document. I also like the Truman Project from Oxblog's better half (quarter?) Rachel Belton.

People out there are thinking and writing about this stuff, but it's not hitting the radar screen, even of Democrats who are political junkies.   more »

This started as a post about religious fundamentalism and shifted into something else. I'll come back to the fundamentalism stuff in a different post when I get the chance, but since I'm celebrating Veteran's Day with marathon paper-writing (like Trickster the past week has been extremely busy for me on the school and Habitat fronts, hence the skimming and lurking on my part) it may have to wait a while. In any case, here's the something else part:

Praktike has just recently registered the domain Liberals Against Terrorism, in what I think is probably a long-overdue step. He says he's not sure what to do with it yet, though I suspect he has something in mind... but I'll toss in my idea on the subject anyhow.

The fact that "liberals" broadly speaking, spend less of their time commenting on the serious threats that radical fundamentalism poses to the secular, pluralistic liberal society that we cherish — as seen in the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh for his controversial statements on Islam's treatment of women, among other offenses — than we do the many failings of the Bush administration's attempts at tackling this threat has in effect ceded the initiative in the debate. Rather than being the first ones to say "this is awful" and explain why from the liberal perspective, we end up being the ones adding "yes, but.." This isn't good from a political standpoint and probably not for our sense of perspective either.

As much as I don't like to admit it, there are members of the political left (and a few of them are even Democrats) who really do consider the U.S. a bigger threat to world peace than what they see as the comparatively minor threat of terrorism. I do think they are a minority within the Democratic community, but that the relative silence of the middle -- not at all helped by a media that rewards sensationalism over substance -- has allowed them a larger share of our collective voice than they deserve. This colors the rest of us in a negative light.    more »

One of America's increasingly prominent scholars in the fields of international relations and national security is none other than MC MasterChef's own professor at BU, Andrew Bacevich (specialty American military affairs). His op-ed today in the LATimes, "Unsafe for Democracy," is a timely reminder of a dimension of the recent election that has not received enough attention. With most post-mortems focusing on why Kerry came up short -- why Bush voters didn't pull the lever for Kerry, rather than an assessment of why Kerry voters rejected Bush -- no serious appraisal of the foreign policy voting patterns has received any prominence so far.

The President and his supporters have claimed bluntly that because he won, the Democrats should be expected to "stop campaigning" and support his foreign policies to promote "healing" and "national unity." All well and good from a "rally 'round the troops" standpoint, especially as serious fighting has just been launched in Fallujah. But in terms of how America should position itself in the world going forward, a substantial portion of Democrats and independents who voted for Kerry believe continuing down the road that the Bush Doctrine has placed us on would be a profoundly dangerous mistake.

Although a large portion of the electorate has begun to feel that the US got off was unwise to invade Iraq, a fundamental debate about the role of the US in a unipolar world has not yet been joined. During the election campaign, most of the pointed critique of Bush Admin policies and actions -- from either Democrats or the press -- involved relatively narrow issues, such as the feebleness of the grounds for the invasion of Iraq or the lack of competence in planning and execution of the post-invasion phase. Even those claims didn't receive a great deal of public attention until late in the campaign because of the slow process by which concrete evidence emerged that countered the Admin's fantastically rosy pictures of reality. (See discussions in "Media Tipping-Point " and "What will those dumb Americans do next?"

Bacevich argues, along the same lines as John Ikenberry's "Liberal Leviathan" analysis, that the witches brew of traditional conservative US foreign policy principles with Wilsonian idealism is neither sustainable at home nor acceptable abroad. Bacevich does not outline his preferred approach -- whether to shift from conservative to liberal traditional principles and/or to jettison Wilsonianism in favor of some version of realism or a new idealism . But that political elites must recast the discussion in terms other than the "false coinage" of "freedom" and "democracy" cannot be disputed.    more »

I'm planning on writing a fair bit in the near future about where Democrats can go from here. As I wrote yesterday, I think we do great on issues and ideas, but have some work to do on thematic packaging. So as a first step, I'd like to propose a provisional Mission Statement for the Party. In the days to come, I'll apply that Mission Statement to various issues and ideas that come up in elections.

This is a big job and I'm looking for some help. But I'm ready to start the ball rolling with the following proposed MISSION STATEMENT:

The Democratic Party will provide an enlightened government that will help Americans be free, safe, healthy, and prosperous.

   more »

I think it's more than plain from what I have written for chez Nadezhda so far that I badly want George W. Bush to lose the upcoming election. That means not just that I won't be voting for Bush, but also that I'm not going to be voting for Ralph Nader or for that Libertarian guy or anyone else that doesn't have a chance of winning. But I haven't given much of a hint as to what I think about the guy I will be voting for.

So now I'd like to talk a little bit about Senator John Forbes Kerry, the man I very much hope will soon become the 44th President of the United States. I'm not going to talk much about his platform or his biography; I think Kerry has done a decent job of introducing himself and his program with his campaign, and if you want to know more about those things, there is plenty of information for you on the Web. What I want to do is talk honestly about my sense of John Kerry the man, born of watching with some interest his entire career on the national political scene, and especially from watching him closely over the last 15 months or so.

   more »